Reason.tv: Sam Tanenhaus on The Death of Conservatism

Sam Tanenhaus is the editor of The New York Times Book Review and the author, most recently, of The Death of Conservatism, a controversial new book which argues that the contemporary right has forsaken the intellectual rigor and seriousness of William F. Buckley and Whittaker Chambers in favor of shallow partisan politics.

On September 8, Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie sat down with Tanenhaus before he delivered a talk at Washington's American Enterprise Institute. "What conservatism has lost," says Tanenhaus, "is the capacity to elevate the argument. The genius of Buckley was that he made liberals think and write better."

Approximately 8.30 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg and Dan Hayes. Edited by Dan Hayes.

Go here for embed code and downloadable versions.

This is also available at Reason.tv's YouTube page (subscribe today).

Comments

[Barry Loberfeld]

These living dead pseudocons are the Spite Right:

The Spite Right was born, not in the reflection of Read or Chodorov or Garrett, but in the confrontationalism of Up from Liberalism. Its progeny include Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Goldberg, Gallagher, Malkin, Ingraham, Savage, O'Reilly -- self-scribbled caricatures who dwell in their own political cartoon, where there are only intrinsically evil "liberals" (Mr. Limbaugh adduces Ed Koch and William Kunstler on the same page) vs. "conservatives" whose goodness derives solely from fighting them. Such "liberals" are the Spite Right's Left, and once that Left was deemed "anti-war," pro-war was deemed anti-Left, i.e., the Good. Thereafter, the only matter of duty was to defend that war from this "liberal" assault. That meant fighting any and all "liberal lies" that challenged Administration Truth, which was Truth because it stood in opposition to those "lies." It meant fighting any moral challenge to the war, which actually could be only immoral because it challenges the war -- the War on Liberals, the struggle that is the essence of morality. It meant fighting the usual "anti-war" suspects, from Hollywood "limousine liberals" to sign-waving street protesters. For the Spite Right, Iraq is another name for Vietnam.

Recall the Spite Right excommunication of those who didn't support the war (e.g., Ron Paul) for "siding with the Left."

[swillfredo pareto]

The genius of Buckley was that he made liberals think and write better."

I have been wondering why liberals cannot compose a coherent argument in favor of government-led healthcare reform. Apparently it is the death of William F. Buckley.

[Lester Hunt]

Sadly, Tannenhaus is right -- conservative discourse has become depressingly lowbrow, if not anti-intellectual. Could this provide an entrepreneurial niche for libertarians?

[aelhues]

The genius of Buckley was that he made liberals think and write better

Wouldn't it be simpler to conclude that liberals are unable to think and write coherently because their ideas are without merit, and that they tend to be unable to admit what their goals actually are, instead of placing the blame externally?

[aelhues]

Conservative discourse is at least in part, lowbrow, because the media doesn't admit that they/we have any ideas. How many times have you heard recently that Republicans are the party of no? How many times have we heard that if the Democrats ideas are so bad, Republicans should present some of their own? I'm sure that most here can attest to the fact that those ideas have been presented, but Liberals don't listen, and mainstream media is predominantly liberal.

[rst]

the contemporary right has forsaken the intellectual rigor and seriousness...in favor of shallow partisan politics.

To abandon core principles sucks for the movement's principled followers, but from a tactical standpoint, populist pandering seems to have worked out well for the progressives.

[JB]

Well after 8 years of Bushitlerneocondevilchimp, the Left has dragged everyone down with them.

[Joe M]

I would say there are still a few decent conservative commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer, lingering. But the next generation of voices are obnoxious and shallow. A perfect match for those on the left.

[Ben Kenobi]

"a controversial new book which argues that the contemporary right has forsaken the intellectual rigor and seriousness of William F. Buckley and Whittaker Chambers in favor of shallow partisan politics."

How is that a controversial statement? Sounds like fact to me.

[TrickyVic]

"""instead of placing the blame externally?"""

What, like this post?

"""Conservative discourse is at least in part, lowbrow, because the media doesn't admit that they/we have any ideas. """

[T-Bag]

"Sadly, Tannenhaus is right -- conservative discourse has become depressingly lowbrow, if not anti-intellectual."

Well maybe it would seem that way with your head in your butt and all. Ever read The Weekly Standard? How about anything by Thomas Sowell?

[aelhues]

Haha, nice catch Vic. I'll admit you got me, in a way.

However, despite the funny, both points are still within reason, and have plenty of evidence.

[R C Dean]

I think what Tanenhaus is saying is that

(1) If you ignore all the conservative commentators and writers who aren't shallow pandering partisans, then his conclusions follow.

Left unstated is that its safe to ignore anyone on the right who isn't a shallow pandering partisan, because what coverage the Olde Guarde of highbrow conservatives got isn't being provided to anyone anymore.

I mean, c'mon, the NYT's marquee "conservative" is an Obama supporter, so I think this unstated premise is pretty safe.

[24AheadDotCom]

The first comment implies that Rush et al are the bad guys while those who the GOP base considers to be BeltwayHacks and RINOs are the good guys. It isn't just Rush et al who put partisanship (broadly defined) above all else, it's also those who are afraid to differentiate between true and false lest they get called names.

To give a tangible example, show me someone else who's willing to say that a judge applied different rules to different parties. One of those parties is strongly disfavored by the BeltwayElites and because of that you'll have trouble finding anyone else willing to discuss the discrete issue that a judge applied different rules to different parties. (Note: that doesn't have to do with "burden of proof", it has to do with the rules for evidence.)

[Mal]

Nick, it's called "The Death of Conservatism."

Although, ironically, it may be dead because of "conservativism."

[Warty]

Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

[VM]

that's right, ae. blame the media. fox is pretty darned anti-intellectual. as were the candidates in the debates (deliberately ignorant of science, etc).

so, no. your points weren't as spot on, as Vic exposed.

[24AheadDotCom]

My approach to "conservatism" is more and more like the phone conversation to be found by doing a find for reads his paper here. OTOH, the Dems have internalized too many far-left, racist, and anti-U.S. concepts.

[shrike]

Tanenhaus is too wordy. Lets sum up conservatism in Powerpoint bullet style:

1- Creationist Luddites
2- Aborto-Freaks
3- Antipathy to Civil Liberties/ACLU
4- Fawning love of Redneck Radio (Limp/Beck)
5- Tax-cut dogma yet Bush cuts failed
6- Iraq War and more war as "foreign policy"
7- Political isolation in the South

Hey- what's not to love?

[24AheadDotCom]

As for the libertarians, they're eager to accept fascist concepts, such as telling people to STFU or being glassy-eyed cultists (see the "Paultards").

[Paul]

I would argue that Michael Kinsley would be an example of someone on the left who should make conservatives want to think and write better, but Kinsley is dangerously libertarian at times.

[Warty]

Lonewacko just told us more about himself than he intended to. Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

[TrickyVic]

"""However, despite the funny, both points are still within reason, and have plenty of evidence."""

Sure, and dispite the funny, I do agree, with one expection, it applies to red as well.

[TrickyVic]

"""As for the libertarians, they're eager to accept fascist concepts, such as telling people to STFU or being glassy-eyed cultists (see the "Paultards")."""

Like the cult of Iraqi WMDs?

Maybe you just got the free speech = fascist memo.

[TrickyVic]

Maybe it's just the cult of using "tard" as a suffix.

[24AheadDotCom]

I don't like using the "tard" suffix, but RP's followers exhibited strong cult-like behavior. They were, for instance, completely unwilling to accept constructive criticism. In fact, I tried to show them how to make Ron Paul into a contender, and that advice - something that would have been highly effective - was rejected. After almost two years, that video has gotten less than 3000 views, and it only got 25 Diggs. Instead, the "Paultards" thought the blimp and the dress-up games would save them, and they were obviously wrong.

[TrickyVic]

"""so, no. your points weren't as spot on, as Vic exposed.""

I took his point to be that partisan hacks tend to blame others. He made that point, albeit not in the way he intended.

[steve]

What many on the current Right lack, especially the punditocracy, as compared to Buckley and Chambers, is a commitment to the acquisition and retention of political power as well as the exercise of political expediency, all at the expense of conservative ideological principle. The Left do the same thing, of course, but they at least have an excuse: they have no ideology nor principles.

[TrickyVic]

""I don't like using the "tard" suffix,""

Not like, you love it.

[aelhues]

My point was that blaming republicans for democrats lack of quality was a serious stretch. My second point was that conservatives do in fact have ideas, and quality ones at that. Yet most people don't know about them because there are people in both the democrat party, and the media who willfully obstruct the publics view. While I see how those two points are similar, they aren't in fact the same. One blames the other for being dumb, for their own lack of intelligence, while the other blames the other group for obstruction.

[J.]

The state of civilized discourse in general is what is on life support. There are respectable intellectuals on both sides of the aisle, but they're boring and stuffy and don't sell millions of books.

[libertymike]

Let's give Lonewacko some props. He has shed some light upon the judicial hackerama. In this case, it is federal district court judge Clay Land.

Read Land's opinion wherein he threatens to sanction Orly Taitz in the event she brings another case to "his" court the gravamen of which centers around Obama's constitutional qualifications to be prez.

[ibrindle]

The worst part of it all is that the GOP is almost encouraging this new type of conservativism (neo-cons), pushing out the moderates and paleo-cons. The Limbaughs and the Coulters are taking over the GOP, which will just lead toward a losing streak.

[tankrunner1123]

The worst part of it all is that the GOP is almost encouraging this new type of conservativism (neo-cons), pushing out the moderates and paleo-cons. The Limbaughs and the Coulters are taking over the GOP, which will just lead toward a losing streak.

___________________________________---

Why should we care about the Paleocons? They like the Democrats use populist bullshit as well to get votes.

If LW is going call us Paultards then he should be a Buchananite because all he squawks out is nothing but Buchanan talking points.

[zoltan]

Well maybe it would seem that way with your head in your butt and all. Ever read The Weekly Standard? How about anything by Thomas Sowell?

Thomas Sowell isn't exactly the Paul Krugman of the "right". I'd blame this on both the "left" and "right" wanting to ignore him for their greedy, government-handout-loving tactics.

[Bruce Majors]

Just reading the first line and having seen him on TV prejudices me against this book.

When Buckley was in his prime, so-called liberals not only were smug solipsistic poseurs to intellectuality as they are today, but they actually believed that political persuasion consisted of making more logical arguments and assembling evidence, which as illiterates they thought their academic heroes had done.

Today's "liberals" are Marcusian tribalists. One scores points eristically, with no persuasion, by playing race or gender cards. One "rebuts" an opponent's arguments by observing that they are white,or male, or a Jew or Christian. Marc Lamont Hill, Joan Walsh, Chris Matthews, and Michael Eric Dyson together don't have half the brain power of Gore Vidal in the 60s. Today's "liberal" spokespeople are often high school drop outs like Janeane Garafalo, Sandra Bernhard or Roseanne Barr.

So there isn't much hope of the tribalists being elevated by anyone. All they can do is lie, smear, stink and act thuggy.

[MlR]

No, the genius of Buckley was that he won - thereby ushering decades of limited government and constitutional government, gaining control of the commanding heights of the media and university system, among others.

Errr...Wait - no he didn't.

...Which would be why the Republicans, ever more confused ideologically as is, turned "left", allowing the Democrats to go even further in turn.

[Dave]

What is Nick's problem? Why can't he say "death of conservatism"?

[Richard Hoste]

This isn't anybody to listen to. They want conservatives to grow up and become liberals.

Here's a better diagnosis.

[Marshall Gill]

Nick, I didn't bother to WTFV but the claim that Buckley was some kind of polite friendly conservative is a complete crock of shit. Why would you waste your time with such a silly interview?

How many of his debating opponents did Buckley threaten to "smash your face in"? Gore Vidal and Chomsky that I know of, at least. While I liked Buckley he wasn't afraid of using strong language, certainly what this ass-hat Tanenhaus would call "rude".

When has Rush or Glen Beck ever told someone " call me a fascist again and I will smash your face in"? Never.

Why on Earth would you give this Leftist piece of shit a second of your time? Why didn't you challenge him about the debate with Vidal? The fucking New York Times just doesn't get enough media coverage?! I look forward to your interview with Thomas Sowell about his latest book. Oh, Conservatives don't have any ideas and are not deep thinkers, Thomas Sowell must be a figment of my imagination.

Major fail.

[timekeeper]

Hearing Nick mispronounce "conservatism" over and over again was very grating. The word has only five syllables, and only one "v".

[TexasJew]

He's a little late to the barbeque. Conservatism is back on the rise, and conservatives are very passionate about fighting the Left.
It's the Statists who are losing, along with such bizarre amalgams as Obamacons and those idiot-sucker Obamatarians, who seemed to have comprised the majority of Reasons' editoiral board back in November.

[Barry D]

The fact that I even find this guy being interviewed here seems to me to be further evidence of something I've been suspecting.

Many libertarians seem to have one primary fear: that they might actually have to join the political fray and be faced with real choices. By "join the fray", I mean a number of things: running candidates to win, joining a side on a particular political issue of the day, even voting for the best candidate with a prayer of victory.

Further evidence? Eagerness to distance themselves completely from people like Rush Limbaugh, who has given some of the most eloquent defenses of the free market in American popular media since Reagan. Total lack of presence at the closest thing to a libertarian movement this century: the Tea Parties and related rallies, town halls, etc. A growing unwillingness to talk with sincere, thoughtful conservatives about common ground.

There appears to be a conservative movement growing. The libertarian reaction? Distance, distance, distance! Let's interview some partisan hack writer who distorts the truth about people like Buckley, to boost a long-running left-wing meme. Man, it's hard to find people like that to interview.

This will ensure nothing other than that this growing movement will show no libertarian influence, which it desperately NEEDS.

As a libertarian, this really disturbs me.

How about an interview with, say, Mark Levin? His book has done pretty well, and its contents contain arguments that libertarians would agree with, and those we wouldn't. That would be an interesting conversation, and a timely one.

"Timely" however, would require libertarians to join the fray. It's much easier to just be the smart slacker in the back of the classroom, making fun of everyone but doing nothing himself.

[TexasJew]

Watching so-called freedom-loving libertarians suck up to hardcore Statist leftists is disgusting.
Buckley was a very strict Catholic and many of the Obamatarians and Obamacons find that to be highly anti-intellectual, if not primitively superstitious.
Note David Brook's jaw-dropping (as usual) op-ed piece today, quoting the "highly educated" Obama administration. It was a dripping mass of yuppie aragulla.
A lot of classist cherry-picking vis-a-vis Bill Buckley here on display.

[Ken Royall]

2 nitwits that don't know a damn thing about Conservatism talking about its death? Nope. How's that Libertarian movement going? Ron Paul, Drew Carey, John Stossel, Penn Gillette and who else? BTW, Beck self identifies as a Libertarian but I guess the Reason folks don't want to claim him.

[frankg]

I suppose you who decry the right's lack of intellectualism have no problem with the daily leftist sacks of waste they are shipping out to the MSM which ignores and distorts opposition, dissenting ideas, small state alternatives? The inability, or outright neglect, of the left to do the math in budget/health care matters or pay their taxes for that matter? The ignition of a taxpayer revolt at the astonishing moves of the hard left that had to lie and depend on the cover provided by the MSM to sneak into power? Is it anti intellectualism that is the cause of obama's plummeting approval ratings? A historic first?

[the aura of truthiness]

This guy's book title reminds me of that "Liberal Fascism" book a while back. The title is a non-starter, and his interviews expose him as the type of stunted thinker he's disparaging here.

And yes, the misty water-colored memories of Billy Buck are a little tiresome. Next, I expect National Review to start publishing flashbacks to the benevolence and purity that was Teddy Kennedy. I give it no more than 5 years, and they'll appear. Wait for it.

No, there never was a golden age of conservatism, there has only been a breaking down of the Left's control of the media. The resultant cacophany of voices from the Right may be shrill, and fear provoking in the Left, but they are legitimate and predictable, no matter that this NY Times editor's casual dismissal of the cacophany's existence on his best seller list was so casually accepted by Gillespie.

And Libertarians wonder why they are irrelevant.

Guess what, kids, we know how to fish through the pile. You and your soulmates on the Times' editorial staff need not trouble to protect us from the cacophany. We can handle it. Can you?

[Kate]

Well stated, aura 'o truthiness. This interview struck me as superfluous at best. There is much in the way of intelligent and reasoned argument to be had on the right so what point is Mr. Tanenhaus trying to make exactly? I'd say he's very good at making himself appear non-partisan only his dismal argument gives him away as does the title of his book which demonstrates wishful thinking to the extreme.

[TexasJew]

Peter Schiff is right: the libertarians need to get into the Republican party and help rebuild a real party that will more closely reflect their goals.
There are millions of both fiscal and social libertarians out there who will never vote for an obscure third-party ticket, and rightfully so. It is a recipe for disaster, and has produced nothing in 40 years to show for it.

[TrickyVic]

"""I suppose you who decry the right's lack of intellectualism have no problem with the daily leftist sacks of waste they are shipping out to the MSM which ignores and distorts opposition, dissenting ideas, small state alternatives?"""

You would be wrong.

Claiming if you don't like team red you must like team blue is poor thinking and partisan hackery.

[Danno]

Death of Liberalism...'I could have wrote that' says Tanenhaus.

Tanenhaus is what my grandmother would call "wishy washy". He can't point to a single liberal who is 'elevating the debate' or 'speaking to a broader audience', but wrote a tome critical of Republicans for these sins.

Liberals, Progressives...whatever they want to call them these days, are peddling the same old ideas, in a more shrill manner than ever.

The difference is the left still has widespread control of the news media, entertainment industry, and education institutions. Conservative ideas are essentially filtered, twisted, packaged, and mocked by liberals before they ever enter the arena of debate.

[TexasJew]

"Claiming if you don't like team red you must like team blue is poor thinking and partisan hackery."
Typical libertarian bullcrap. Too marginal and precious to get into the fray and thus totally useless as far as forging any solution to the Statist attacks on our freedoms.

[SteveMG]

William F. Buckley debated literally thousands if not tens of thousand of individuals over his 40+ years of public life.

During that time he got into one tense argument with Vidal after Vidal repeatedly called him a "crypto-Nazi" on television. As to the Chomsky fight, I am completely unaware of it.

Anyone can view the hundreds of Firing Line tapes to see for themselves how he conducted interviews.

To be sure, he had sharp elbows but his style is leagues ahead of anyone on television today.

Tanenaus' point is mostly correct. But we can say the same thing about the left today.

Both sides bring out the worst in each other.

[Kevin]

I'm not impressed with this Tanenhaus guy. He comes across as a milquetoast. I certainly won't be reading his book. After 25 years as a Republican, I have now changed my registration status to Libertarian. For those who whine about libertarians afraid to "join the fray" by climbing into bed with the Republicans, I'd like to point to the events over the past 8 years. All 8 with a Republican President, and 6 years with a Republican majority in Congress. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Marshall Gill]

During that time he got into one tense argument with Vidal after Vidal repeatedly called him a "crypto-Nazi" on television. As to the Chomsky fight, I am completely unaware of it.

Both are on Youtube. To be fair, he seems kind of joking when he tells Chomsky, "you better not or I will smash your face in" but when he says it to Vidal he also calls him a "queer" and isn't joking one bit.

As I said, Rush or Hannity or Beck NEVER told anyone "I will smash your face in".

This isn't a condemnation of Buckley, far from it. The point is that the loudest voices on the right today are not one bit less civil than any of the political battles of the past.

Hasn't anyone ever heard of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton?