The divisions between the categories are not absolute. In the modern conservative movement, William F. Buckley Jr. and Milton Friedman straddled the line between intellectuals and activists, and Ronald Reagan the line between activists and politicians. Nevertheless, conservatism, like any political movement, is most successful when it is strong in all three aspects.

Intellectuals, activists and politicians don’t have to be mutually exclusive. One could say that Reagan was a good bit of all three, a pity that Viquerie and Allen don’t see it that way. Also a pity that they didn’t see Reagan as an intellectual, because the fact is, he was.

…and I hate those blown tags, too…no way to edit…

“Brain-dead Conservatives:” Whose side are you on, the populists or the elitists?

We, the Tea Party activists, must become the intellectuals. Right now many are running on the guttural/instinctual side of the canyon. By US bridging the gap we, in affect, take over the intellectual side of the canyon. At that point we end up controlling both.

Get it?

Get it?

I say to Hayward and his ilk…either get with the program or at least step out of the way so that freedom-loving Americans can clean up the Beltway mess. As Smagar put it, contributions by people like “Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Parker, Frum, Noonan” have brought little “to the conservative movement in recent years”

Until these so-called…no…self-called intellectuals are willing to step down off their ivory thrones, grab brooms and help us do the dirty work, they will never be anything else but “nattering nabobs of negativism” against those who they claim share common values.

But they do not lack a “connection to a concrete ideology,” they just are not skilled or trained in the ideology.

I don’t believe it’s that we aren’t skilled or trained in the ideology. Conservative principles are simple and direct while encompassing enough nuances to make a liberal shudder with delight at the word.

We are, however, like our ideology, simple in deeds, actions, and words. Perhaps, rather than trained in ideology, what most need is to be trained in how to expand on our ideology to meet the needs of the “intellectuals” ?

Yes, it is instinctual in the beginning but understanding soon follows. We are, however, often at a loss to explain that understanding in the words often needed to help others understand the same. We humans are not good at sharing our heart of hearts with anyone else. That, too, is instinctual because to lay one’s heart bare before another is to invite injury to it.

Conservatism is alive and well as shown in the recent zogby national poll showing that 1 in 5 Americans are so suck of it that they are clearly in favor of SECESSION and forming a new country.

But guess, what….they want away from the Republicans as much as they want away from the Democrats.

The conservative train is gaining steam and ready to roll down the tracks, and the Republicans don’t have tickets.

‘:o)~

In fact, the one person who Hayward actually gives credit to is Glenn Beck. Although Hayward does mention Beck’s crying, he also points out that Beck is one of the only ones out their on T.V. making the intellectual arguments against liberalism instead of mere cheer leading based purely in partisanship.

Smagar, in his comment below, nails it.

And as implied by Erick in this post, the cure for the intellectual side of conservatism is for those engaged in the Tea Party movement to bridge the gap between the instinctual conservatism and intellectual conservatism. In affect joining the positive forces of the two by renewing the leadership of the latter.

Personally, I’m ready for the “doers” to step forward in the conservative movement.

Color me way-less-than-impressed with the value the thinking, chattering class has brought to the conservative movement in recent years.

Questions and comments about Conservatives and GOP:
- GOP is too angry
- Part y of No
- Who is the leader
- Where are thier grand ideas
- They have no ideas
- They are traitors
- They are political racists

and on and on and on