Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Conservatism

From Buckley to Trump, Conservatism Has Endured an Ugly Slide

Intellectual curiosity used to define the political right. Now, imbecility rules the day.

Steven Greenhut | 6.26.2026 7:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
William F. Buckley and Donald Trump | Illustration: Adani Samat. Photo: AdMedia / MEGA / Newscom/JGLIT/Newscom
(Illustration: Adani Samat. Photo: AdMedia / MEGA / Newscom/JGLIT/Newscom)

Politically active people my age fondly remember conservative intellectual William F. Buckley hosting the wildly popular TV show, "Firing Line," where he for years interviewed luminaries from across the political spectrum. He sparred with leftist Noam Chomsky about American imperialism, chatted with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher about the future of free markets, and talked to poet Allen Ginsberg about drugs and spirituality. Heady stuff.

These lofty civil debates went beyond politics and delved into psychology, art and literature. The show reflected an emerging conservative movement that was clever and optimistic, and which preferred to out-argue opponents rather than "own" them. That era's leading right-leaning commentators often criticized intellectuals, but not intelligence and expertise.

Which brings us to our current moment. We have an undreamed-of abundance of information—podcasts, social media, cable TV, talk radio, streaming and endless publications of every type. We can hear first-person utterances from our country's leaders. We have extensive access to governmental budgets, legal decisions, public meetings, federal rule-makings and legislation. We have everything we need to be the informed citizens our founders envisioned.

Yet these are the stupidest times. They also are illogical, bigoted, conspiratorial and tribal times. I enjoy reading posts from one thoughtful anti-MAGA conservative and a large percentage of rebuttal comments are of this variety: "You're a Jew." There's no appetite for intellectual honesty or treating opponents with decency. It emanates from the highest levels, as the president unleashes daily tirades that show the reasoning skills of a buffoon. Official federal government accounts dish out invective adorned with cartoonish AI graphics that appeal to vulgar 14-year-olds.

Then there is the rat-a-tat-tat of daily events. It all seems unbelievable to those of us who grew up under a different ethos. Idiocy certainly isn't unique to this place and time, but I'm shocked by conservatives' widespread applauding of crudity and nastiness—especially given that democratic norms are the main bulwark against chaos. Americans apparently are so accustomed to the circus acts that they crave escalating levels of entertainment each day.

I'm randomly cherry-picking recent events, but you obviously can find endless examples. Last week right-wing supporters of former reality-TV villain Spencer Pratt, still struggling to explain his easily predictable Los Angeles mayoral loss in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, circulated news that 675 Pratt ballots were found in a dumpster in San Recto. There is no San Recto, but it nevertheless confirmed their view that the race was stolen. Whatever, as people moved on to other conspiracies.

Meanwhile in Washington, Donald Trump hosted a mixed-martial-arts fight on the White House lawn. It currently is a giant demolition site following the destruction of the East Wing to make room for a gaudy ballroom that will be adorned by tacky gold appliques a la the Oval Office. At the end of one cage match, a winning UFC fighter declared, "Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?" What a glorious celebration of the emperor's birthday.

Trump also renovated D.C's reflecting pool to make it American-flag blue, while praising himself as a master builder and dunking on Barack Obama (who last renovated it). The pool quickly turned green thanks to a massive algae bloom, but a Fox News host insisted it really is blue (regardless of our eyes). Taking a different tack, some MAGA influencers argued "the Left" sabotaged the pool.

And have you seen recent political videos? Campaign ads have never been fonts of fairness and intelligence, but the latest ones use AI deep fakes to depict Democrats as transgendered and show flabby GOP candidates with huge biceps. Conservatives no longer are interested in weighty ideas, but prefer to fight about bathrooms and call people names.

Now Trump, who has claimed dozens of times that a peace deal was near to end his inexplicable war in Iran, announced a victory agreement that looks suspiciously like our total capitulation. One can chalk up examples of fighting spectacles to a once-serious nation's descent into frivolity, but what do you tell parents of the 175 girls killed by a U.S. missile attack on an Iranian school—a horrific mistake for which the administration has yet to accept responsibility?

It's understandably routine to joke that the 2006 comedy "Idiocracy" is a documentary. In that movie, the Army's most-average soldier, Joe Bauers, is inadvertently sent far forward in time to a nation run by inbred morons. He's suddenly the smartest man on Earth. (The movie's White House scenes look eerily similar to UFC antics.) But in "Idiocracy," President Camacho isn't malicious, just stupid. And, as a Facebook friend noted, he was smart enough to seek Bauers' advice to save society from starvation. These days, GOP leaders would listen to the guy who snorted cocaine off a toilet seat.

Anyway, conservativism has traveled a long and dark road. I'm just glad most of the "Firing Line" participants aren't alive to see it.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Don’t Let the Country’s Wet Blankets Ruin Independence Day

Steven Greenhut is western region director for the R Street Institute and was previously the Union-Tribune's California columnist.

ConservatismDonald TrumpPoliticsCultureRepublican Party
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (150)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

    GFY Greenhut, go join the DNC

    1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

      Exhibit #1

      1. DesigNate   2 months ago

        It’s all the response he, or you for that matter, deserves.

      2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        Drink #11 right sarc?

    2. Joe Jonas   2 months ago

      You are a fucking moron who is too stupid to see this article is about you (and many, many others who routinely comment on Reason).

      1. Bananas   2 months ago

        Hi Greenhut! Butthurt much?

      2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        The irony of this post.

  2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

    Many Catholics and Conservatives would say the opposite. Buckley was Mater si Magister NO and very pompous and elitist.
    Trump draws crowds a hundred times what a Buckley could ever hope for. People pray at his ralllies. When Hillary mocked Christians who wouldn't support abortion and homosexual perversion, he stepped in to unmask her.

    I remember the Bishops meeting where he said -- and many believe it to this day -- that Hillary doesn't even like Catholics !!!

    Trump will always have 3 advantages over Buckley and his inferior predecessors
    He is plain-spoken, even Brusque as the Brits say. But as the lady said in Doc Martin , He may be a tosser but we know that he is honest

    He has prudence

    HE is not in it for the money or the political career or a ladder (he's 80) Hillary wanted a CV .

    1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

      Haha don't tell me you retards really think this.

      He isn't in it for the money - that's why he's scamming you guys with trump currency and phones, while insider trading on a daily basis and accepting bribes in the oval office.

      He's honest - except everything coming out of his mouth is a bunch of BS.

      He has prudence - by acting randomly on anger and impulses.

      Oh and he's winning over Catholics by letting his administration badmouth the pope.

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        Poor Rachel.

      2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        Yet you say something that proves your ignorance. The Catholic Catechism even says the Pope can do as he did and the President can do as he did but each is supreme in their own sphere.

      3. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        I stand by what I say, I base on great experience. among both Catholics and Conservatives. You disagree, okay, then folks have all they need to judge between us. Have a nice day.

    2. SRG2   2 months ago

      but we know that he is honest

      He has prudence

      HE is not in it for the money

      LOL, you fuckwitted clown.

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        Poor shrike.

      2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        I am telling you how tons of people I know see it. Almost all my Philosophy students -- and I have about 50 every year --- virtually all would agree

        1. JFree   2 months ago

          So you're saying you give students lower grades if they disagree with you?

          1. minus the clever name   2 months ago

            If I were saying that you wouldn't ask.
            Being a good teacher.
            I reward any communiction over no communication.
            I found out accidentally in most cases that they agree with me. THey are young and Philosophy students, some question everthing and have an opinion on many things and test it on me NOT VICE VERSA.

            I do not teach Philosophy and there goes your entire point 🙂

    3. 557e54f   2 months ago

      Yes, President Trump is plain spoken because he is a simpleton speaking to those he loves, the poorly educated. Jeezuz, I cannot believe you people. Trump is not playing 12-dimensional chess. He would lose a checkers game if it only had red checkers.

      1. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        Your girl lost because the world could see that she couldn't talk at all, simple or otherwise.So by your 'logic' Trump is the better man, at least he can talk

    4. 9f5c84a   2 months ago

      "HE is not in it for the money”

      ROTFL

  3. Reshufflex   2 months ago

    Mindless screed. And gutless. If you hate Trump, the subtext of this trash, just have the balls to say so.

    Instead, you waste everyone’s time with dim-witted random juxtapositions that reveal less about your point than about your pathology.

    1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

      I hate Trump, I hate all MAGAs, and I hate all Republicans. And anyone with a shred of decency would as well.

      1. Reshufflex   2 months ago

        So you’re saying a blow job is out of the question?

      2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        You hate all non communists.

      3. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        So when you meet someone how helps you , a fireman , a surgeon , a policeman saving your life YOU HATE THEM AFTER THE FACT if any of the above applies. I am amazed, literally, that you have not killed yourself.

      4. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        I tell my students about you
        Your life is saved by a surgeon, you hate him because he is Republican
        A policement spares your life from a criminal. You hate him because of his political views.
        Someone like a fireman risks their llife for you, you curse him because he voted for Trump, not a shred of decency in him.

        Take my word for this, I know, you are LOATHED on here for your contempt of your betters.

      5. Scooter   2 months ago

        Aren't you overdue to get your Totenkoph tramp stamp so you can match your hero, Graham Platner?

        I'm sure you're just itching to implement your "Final Solution" for your political opponents.

  4. mad.casual   2 months ago

    Intellectual curiosity used to define the political right. Now, imbecility rules the day.

    100% safe and effective, with no downsides.

    Even now the retard Reason has in charge of science reporting is hedging on the COVID mRNA vaccines, which were totally tested at the time, incidentally curing cancer.

    GFY with your "intellectual curiosity".

    1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

      Perfect example of a bunch of brainless talking points from MAGA. Strawmanning and distrusting numerous peer reviewed studies conducted by different groups, while believing a bunch of conspiracy theories from Youtube, with no plausible explanation of how there could be a massive global conspiracy involving hundreds of governments and millions of medical and public health workers without anyone on the inside leaking the details. Thanks for demonstrating what this article is about.

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        The studies that have been retracted? Or the ones based on flawed models that have been shown to be wrong? Which ones sarc?

        1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

          How about the studies that have been validated by years of real world data, or maybe the studies the Trump admin killed because they reach "wrong" conclusions?

          1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

            Not to mention, if a study is retracted, that is science working, because the scientific community found errors and is correcting them. You morons think science is supposed to be 100% certain from the get go and if it's not, that invalidates it.

            1. Bananas   2 months ago

              More projection for the win lmao.
              It's leftists who called anyone who questioned The Science grandma killing science deniers who should be denied medical care and thrown in camps.
              Sarcasmic confirmed.

              1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

                Yep, those leftists are anti-science too. I never supported them ya moron.

            2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

              NO, you are wrong in a HUGE way

              Scientific publishing is facing an unprecedented retraction crisis, with global retractions exceeding 10,000 annually in recent years. IF Fu ever took an actual science course (he LOVES science but knows sht all actual science) you would SEE this.

              Studies indicate that up to 50% of academic papers are never read by anyone other than the authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors. --- the OPPOSITE of your point.

              The major group interested in this explicitly says the opposite too

              "he National Association of Scholars (NAS) defines the crisis in academic publishing as a dual failure of quality and reproducibility. They argue that the "publish or perish" culture prioritizes output volume over scholarly substance, leading to unreliable, irreproducible research and widespread ideological bias."

              NOW LET"S DESTROY YOUR CONFIDENCE IN THE UNDERLYING DATA,.SHALL WE

              In analyses of large-scale public data, one study by researchers at the Science | AAAS flagged 17% of surveyed datasets as likely to contain significant fraudulent data, with rates as high as 26% in developing nations.

      2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        Yet you answer nothing. In a debate you would be on your ass in minutes.

  5. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

    Yup this is MAGA in a nutshell. You see it here in the comments. Magtards just repeat the same tired insults and regurgitate talking points they learned from some influencer. No reasoned arguments. Distrust of every expertise: public health, economics, public policy, etc. because it contradicts their dear leader.

    1. Bananas   2 months ago

      Lol, talk about projection.

      1. DesigNate   2 months ago

        It’s what leftist are best at.

    2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

      The irony of this post too from the maddow watcher. You see the exact same attacks from retard leftists thought this post as they project their own behaviors. Amusing.

  6. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

    "Conservatives no longer are interested in weighty ideas, but prefer to fight about bathrooms and call people names."

    It is the Progressive Left who chose to fight about bathrooms as part of their overall culture war on the sexual dimorphism of the human species. You had Kathy Hochul recently announce that New York State is eliminating Mother and Father from government forms in favor of bizarre post modernist concoctions.

    Before Trump you had Joe Biden in 2012 accuse Mitt Romney, perhaps the most milquetoast of GOP candidates, of wanting to return black Americans to slavery. The current election cycle has local Democrat candidates announcing how they will fight Trump and immigration enforcement.

    You got Trump and the current state of the GOP in reaction to the excesses of the progressive Left.

    1. MasterThief   2 months ago

      Greenhut doesn't seem to have any familiarity with conservatives at all. He doesn't understand the ideology or recognize that we are constantly debating eachother and attempting to engage with a left that has become radicalized. He is willfully ignorant of the conversations on the right and can't understand the point on the rare occasion that a quote gets through his bubble

      1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        And he just completely ignores the political atmosphere of the Left. He is analyzing the Right without acknowledging what the Right is struggling against. It is like an analysis of a boxing match and one opponent is invisible to the commentator and saying how weird the actions look of the one he can see.

        1. Juliana Frink   2 months ago

          Perfect analogy. Says everything we need to know about most of the media*.

          * Except that most of the media are firmly on the side of what the Right is struggling against.

          1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

            Thanks, but you write as if Greenhut is not on that side as well.

            1. Juliana Frink   2 months ago

              It bears repeating: Your analogy was perfect. And it says everything we need to know about most of the media, including hacks like Greenhut.

        2. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

          Uh no, there have been plenty of stories about CRT and the 1619 project here. If it's okay to criticize left wing retardation, why not also criticize right wing retardation?

          1. Bananas   2 months ago

            Then you should have no problem producing 2 of each of these articles where a Reason writer spends a whole article criticizing these?
            Meanwhile the front page of this site has multiple articles every day where the entire articles criticize the right.
            If you're not sarcasmic, you do a good enough impersonation of him that it doesn't even matter.

            1. Fu Manchu   2 months ago

              CRT (this one's tough because CRT is nebulous and a lot of articles about the general concept don't specifically call out CRT):
              https://reason.com/2021/06/29/critical-race-theory-ban-schools-antiracism-legislature/
              https://reason.com/2021/10/06/ag-merrick-garland-fbi-critical-race-theory-parents-schools-domestic-terrorists/
              https://reason.com/2025/12/11/the-far-right-is-powered-by-left-wing-illiberalism-and-hypocrisy/
              https://reason.com/2025/02/06/a-massachusetts-school-district-rolled-back-advanced-classes-teachers-are-starting-to-revolt/

              1619 project:
              https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/10/which-is-it-1619-or-1776/
              https://reason.com/2020/01/30/the-1619-project-depicts-an-america-tainted-by-original-sin/
              https://reason.com/2022/03/29/the-1619-project-unrepentantly-pushes-junk-history/
              https://reason.com/2023/01/31/hulus-1619-project-docuseries-peddles-false-history/
              https://reason.com/2020/01/28/1619-project-new-york-times-public-schools/
              https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/
              https://reason.com/2020/09/23/1619-project-nikole-hannah-jones-1776-founding-race-new-york-times/

          2. DesigNate   2 months ago

            Plenty is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

          3. Zeb   2 months ago

            He's talking about Greenhut, not Reason in general.

            1. Bananas   2 months ago
          4. minus the clever name   2 months ago

            If everyone is wrong but you, why criticize at all 🙂

          5. minus the clever name   2 months ago

            Why not be like Fu? A complete hate machine attacking everything and defending nothing.

      2. Bananas   2 months ago

        There are those studies showing that people on the right understand the left much more than the other way around.
        This is because people on the left tend to live in lefty bubbles and only talk amongst themselves using caricatures of the right.
        Whereas people on the right can't avoid the left due to their capture of institutions such as MSM, Education and Entertainment.

        1. Joe Jonas   2 months ago

          This is completely baseless. I’ll counter with this — I’ve read studies that show conservatives are in a bubble and don’t understand the left at all. I have provided the exact same amount of evidence as you. You are obviously very smart.

          1. Bananas   2 months ago

            Here's a cite:
            https://reason.com/2026/06/26/from-buckley-to-trump-conservatism-has-endured-an-ugly-slide/?comments=true#comment-11509524

          2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

            Whats baseless is you pretending to not be fucking ignorant.

            Research by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt indicates that conservatives and moderates are significantly more accurate than liberals at predicting the moral values and responses of the opposing political group. In studies using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, participants were asked to answer as they believed a "typical" member of the other side would; conservatives successfully mimicked liberal responses, whereas liberals frequently misjudged conservative views, particularly on issues of care and fairness.

            Liberal Inaccuracy: The largest errors occurred among self-described "very liberal" participants, who often incorrectly assumed conservatives would disagree with statements like "one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal." This suggests liberals tend to view conservatives through a caricature that ignores shared values regarding harm and justice.

            This is well documented retard.

            1. MasterThief   2 months ago

              Most political alignment quizzes make the same sort of errors in presumption. I'd lean towards agreeing with your example statement. However, I'd mean it in the sense that senseless cruelty and harm to animals is terrible. Killing for meat is fine. Culling excess populations, diseased animals and invasive species is also ok.
              I do think many opinions on the left reflect shallow thinking and emotional responses. If it weren't so then they'd be able to craft the questions to get accurate answers.

          3. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

            Via The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion:

            In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

            The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.”

            Here is a TED talk so you can pretend to learn something.

            https://ed.ted.com/lessons/jonathan-haidt-on-the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conversatives

          4. minus the clever name   2 months ago

            NO statistical study would use 'bubble' as a discriminator. It has no referent in reality that you can test against.

        2. DesigNate   2 months ago

          Was that the study by Jonathan Haidt?

          1. Bananas   2 months ago

            Yeah that's the one. Also, I know this from experience as a right libertarian who has spent all of his life living in large blue cities in and around NYC. Most of the leftists I've encountered over the decades spout caricatures of right leaning people (climate deniers! - Anti Science! - hate women! - Racists! - etc.)
            A friend of mine still accuses me of wanting to breathe coal whenever I dare the question Big Green.

            1. mtrueman   2 months ago

              "I've encountered over the decades spout caricatures of right leaning people (climate deniers! - Anti Science! - hate women! - Racists! - etc.)"

              What's wrong with caricatures? You don't really expect left leaning people to seriously interrogate hatred of women, scientists, minorities, do you? The level of thinking behind sentiments like 'this is why women should stay out of politics' don't deserve anything other than dismissal or caricature, at best. You want to be taken seriously, stay away from the stupid and develop some serious ideas.

              1. Zeb   2 months ago

                I expect them to interrogate their assumptions that the people they disagree with actually hate women, scientists and minorities and are only driven by base emotions like hate and fear.

                1. mtrueman   2 months ago

                  "their assumptions that the people they disagree with actually hate women, scientists and minorities and are only driven by base emotions like hate and fear."

                  A good point, and I suspect many, like in these pages, merely pose as sexists, racists etc to gain street cred with the cool guys. They would only dream of doing this under cover of pseudonymity and are essentially hypocrites, knowing right from wrong, yet doing wrong, nevertheless. Whether this is the case, or whether these odious views are sincerely held, matters little to me, or my fellow Leftists. Teasing our their motivations is best left to qualified mental health professionals.

                  1. minus the clever name   2 months ago

                    Hint: An assumption is not a point.

                    and let me say something simple but understandable to many: Your fellow Leftists overwhelmingly do not share any views except for what they hate. That is the very opposite of unity. When you are done killing all those nasty non-liberals you will see that you and your fellow Leftists have no positive things (POSITIVE) that you agree on. Been around your type for decades. After all the bodies are in, you will see that you loathe most of your comrades and they loathe you.:)

            2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

              Most lefties in an academic environment,most liberals (let's be inclusive) say they LOVE science and most know almost NOTHING about science.. Liberal Arts types, English majors -- almost savage-level math skills

      3. DesigNate   2 months ago

        “He is willfully ignorant of the conversations on the right”

        He’s willfully ignorant of conversations in the middle and wherever you might place libertarians as well.

    2. mtrueman   2 months ago

      " You had Kathy Hochul recently announce that New York State is eliminating Mother and Father from government forms in favor of bizarre post modernist concoctions."

      That seems as it should be. Families today have become bizarre post modernist concoctions. Governments change forms to reflect these changes. It's the job of conservatives to resist these changes.

      "the progressive Left."

      That was your idea of the progressive left? Perhaps a spell in a re-education camp will change your mind.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        "That seems as it should be. Families today have become bizarre post modernist concoctions."

        ...they overcame BIOLOGY? Seriously?

        1. mtrueman   2 months ago

          They follow the heart. It means bizarre post modernist families are as not as concerned with biology as you are.

          1. Zeb   2 months ago

            Yeah, but you still need a father and a mother to make a child. That's a fundamental reality that isn't changing. People can form whatever bizarre post-modern family structures they want, but that doesn't change the biological relationship between parents and children.

            1. mtrueman   2 months ago

              You need viable sperm and ovum, as any biologist will tell you.

              "biological relationship between parents and children."

              Families are more than biological relationships, as any member of a bizarre post-modern family will tell you. Hence the changes to New York's government forms. And incidentally, we make it a point to ensure that parents AREN'T biologically related.

              1. damikesc   2 months ago

                I guess the need to erase women to avoid the hurting the feelings of abnormally violent mentally ill men who think they really are women is the modus operandi of the Left.

                1. mtrueman   2 months ago

                  I'm don't think there is anything to be gained by hurting the feelings of the mentally ill. I'm no doctor, but doesn't the Hippocratic Oath forbid hurting the patient? Is there a caveat in your neck of the woods that lets doctors hurt feelings?

                  I doubt that. Doctors are people who take their professional responsibilities seriously. With Oaths even, like some kind of guild from the Middle Ages. J G Ballard wrote of his experience as a medical student in his autobiographical The Kindness of Women. Being given a cadaver and spending the year dissecting the thing down to the bones. He wrote about the pranks and jokes the students played with the bodies, like a game of hockey using legs as sticks and a heart for the puck. Desecrating the bodies but eliminating any squeamishness that could kill a medical career. At the end of term the pile of bones would be wrapped up and sent to the next of kin. Though the school takes measures to ensure the anonymity of the donors, Ballard found out that his cadaver. a woman, was an MD. It turns out to be a common practice for doctors to donate their bodies to medical school. Shows how deep the loyalty to the profession goes. A rather moving story, I thought. How about you?

              2. Zeb   2 months ago

                So what? I never said families are only ever about biological relationships. The vast majority of children still come about the old fashioned way. And even in the age of rampant single motherhood, most children still know they have a mother and a father. Do we really need to change the language to make sure the weirdest of weirdos don't feel left out?

                1. mtrueman   2 months ago

                  " Do we really need to change the language to make sure the weirdest of weirdos don't feel left out?"

                  The language already changed although you seem not to have noticed. Some refer to themselves as 'mother' when talking to her dogs, and 'children' when referring to dogs, themselves. You'll find similar use in many families. And not just with dogs, but rabbits and budgies, too, to name my top three recommended family pets.

                  "most children still know they have a mother and a father"

                  Indisputably true, I would even go as far as saying ALL children know this. But this is also true, and this is the nub: Not all children know who is their mother or who is their father, hence the whole bizarre post modern concoction thing. Knowing you came from the union of a man's sperm and a woman's ovum is no substitute for a loving personal relationship with parents who care for you and provide for you, regardless of the biological link, or lack of it, between you.

                  The New York business is only happening because the language and the culture's idea of what constitutes a family has changed.

    3. 557e54f   2 months ago

      No, it was not the Progressive Left that fought about bathrooms. It was the vacuous radical right who went apoplectic. We have massive institutional problems and near-crises in this country, and the right is concerned about bathrooms. Pathetic.

      1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        "Stop resisting! Stop resisting!"

  7. Kungpowderfinger   2 months ago

    Is this Greenhut’s audition for Editor in Chief at Reason?

    Will the “Western Region” of “the R Street Institute” be able to continue without his leadership?

  8. Bananas   2 months ago

    You guys have been playing this game my whole life.
    Current Big Republican is Worst Hitler Ever.
    Prior Big Republican who was Worst Hitler Ever at the time is now a great statesman.

    Additionally, Trump is not a Conservative. Trump, for good or bad, wants to fuck with the corrupt status quo and do what he thinks is best for America, which drives everyone on both sides insane.

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

      This

    2. mtrueman   2 months ago

      "Additionally, Trump is not a Conservative"

      I think he is a conservative, venerating and preserving past glories is a giveaway. But he's a rare type of conservative, the revolutionary conservative who wants to overthrow the status quo. (Whether he has the resolve or smarts to get what he wants is another issue.)

      "Current Big Republican is Worst Hitler Ever."

      Past Republican leaders have not been revolutionary conservatives. Reagan, McCain, Bush were all traditionally minded. You have to go back to Germany of the 1930s if you want a good example of a revolutionary conservative - with similar agendas, as well, strengthening and purifying the nation.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        ...except Trump lacks the hatred of capitalism that the Austrian chap had. That's a small difference.

        ...and the Democrats are the party where Jew hatred is becoming required for office.

        Every single Republican in my 51 years has been horrible --- until he left office. Then he was a respected statesman, unlike the CURRENT horrible person. Trump will be viewed positively, should he be alive, within 2 years of leaving office.

        1. mtrueman   2 months ago

          "...except Trump lacks the hatred of capitalism that the Austrian chap had. That's a small difference."

          I'd take Hitler's hatred of capitalism with a pinch of salt. He really wasn't interested in economics or finance. He left that in the hands of others. He liked art and history. He doesn't share much with Trump, perhaps his need for public adulation and approval. The key though is they are both revolutionary conservatives. A rare combination.

          "Trump will be viewed positively, should he be alive, within 2 years of leaving office"

          If he can extricate himself from the war in Iran without leaving the region in chaos and avoid a world wide depression, he will have done well and deserve recognition for a job well done. Maybe he can do it, maybe Vance will step into the breech, and let Trump day dream about flights on the Lolita Express, his Golden Ballroom and Reflecting pool, whatever color it happens to be, hopefully not golden or any yellowy color.

          "Democrats are the party where Jew hatred is becoming required for office."

          Please. We don't use the J word. Use 'Zionist' or 'the Zionist entity' if you're gonna party with the Democrats.

        2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

          Poor d. doesn't realize that Reagan was a deep-Democrat ,indeed a Roosevelt New Dealer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    3. damikesc   2 months ago

      I actually saw some Leftist claim there was "no drama" under...GW Bush.

      The guy who was Hitler, "caused 9/11", sent us to two extremely long pointless wars, propped up a mortgage market that imploded, etc. HE had no drama.

      Only Trump has had drama in the WH.

      I think he was actually serious to boot.

      1. Bananas   2 months ago

        You forgot how he caused New Orleans to flood because he hated blacks.

  9. Fred12345   2 months ago

    Greenhut mistakenly equates Trump as defining conservatism and the political right. He is wrong. To say that Trump’s rhetoric defines conservatism shows that Greenhut does not know how to define the political right. If he wants to use modern examples of conservatism forget Trump and try to use the rhetoric of JD Vance or Rubio. He will find a lot less “illogical, bigoted, conspiratorial and tribal” statements.

    1. Bananas   2 months ago

      100

    2. SRG2   2 months ago

      Neither JD Vance nor Rubio are thought leaders either of the current GOP or the American right.

      1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        Poor shrike. Who does maddow tell you is the thought leader? Anna Navarro?

    3. ungulant   2 months ago

      Does it matter if conservatives give him their support every time?

      The idea that JD Vance is less bigoted is absolutely one of the funniest things I've ever read.

      1. Fred12345   2 months ago

        Of course it matters. They publicly support the office holder based on their jobs and roles. If you listen to their rhetoric you will see that it is extremely different than the way Trump speaks. Even though they support Trump, they way they support him in public matters. By the way, JD does not always agree with the president in private.

      2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

        How is he bigoted?

        1. damikesc   2 months ago

          He has that "R" by his name. It is all it takes for him.

  10. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

    Conservatives have always been the side of small minds, hate, racism, sexism, and the sort. They have done this when they killed Jesus, killed Socrates, imprisoned Galialio, supported the British over the US in 1776. They fought to keep slavery and then Jim Crow. They are the ones who hate immigrants, try LGBT and minorities.

    1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

      Isn't it funny Conservatives fought a civil war against your kin to free the slaves?
      Why it's like your describing your kin to a T and blaming it all on the other side.
      With one exception. You love socialist immigrants and hate American Patriots.

      1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

        Conservatives were the ones defending slavery.
        MAGAs are the dumbest shits on the planet.

        1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

          The Abolitionists were generally reviled as religious fanatics in the 1850's, much like the Pro-Life movement of the past few decades.

        2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

          China literally has slavery. Lol.

        3. The Average Dude (Who's Smarter Than You)   2 months ago

          Conservatives were the ones defending slavery.

          Absolute snailshit. Republicans were the party of abolition in the 19th century - Democrats were the party of slavery. Of course, parties and politics change over time, just as everything else does - we're talking about events over 150 years ago. This is quite easy to read/Google about.

          Today's Republican party is nothing like then, nor is the Democratic party. Both parties are an embedded, permanent skid mark on the fabric of society, that not only won't come out in the wash, but continues to grow like a malignant cancer and infects all in its wake.

          But hey, why should I be the one to bring sanity and composure to this discussion? I come to read the Reason articles for information and come to the comment section for entertainment, as I get to watch "boaf" sides embarrass themselves on the daily (sure beats the freak show at a carnival). Carry on with the asininities!!!

          1. DesigNate   2 months ago

            Pretty much everybody was “conservative” back then, at least in the way progressives define conservative.

            1. minus the clever name   2 months ago

              actually conserviative is the default for civilization. It is whe we have schools , to pass on the heritage of our forefathers, what we have so far discovered. A liberal is usually someone with 3 charateristics

              1) They want freedom and they don't know what for, so they tend to be blind to true perversion

              2) Their hates are almost always stronger than their loves

              3) And they oppose human rights in a most basic way. No true defenders of Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech for example THey say rightrs have no basis except some person's saying so. If a liberal says "all men are created equal' he means that is his provisional position,liable to change.

        4. TJJ2000   2 months ago

          LMAO... Do you think [D] Andrew Jackson was a conservative?

        5. minus the clever name   2 months ago

          I must point out the sheer ignorance of this statement.

          It is the exact opposite, EXACT. at the lead-up to the Civil War the 2 biggest religions Methodism and Baptists split in two because the Conservatives would NOT NOT NOT defend slavery

          I hope you are brain-damaged , I don't like to think of you as just smart incarnate hate.This thing you said is utterly backwards.

    2. DesigNate   2 months ago

      That’s some amazing revisionist history.

      Seek help.

      1. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        as if you knew history

        Methodists and Baptists split along regional lines in the 1840s specifically over the issue of slavery. As the national debate intensified, both denominations could no longer maintain unity between abolitionist Northern congregations and slave-owning Southern congregations

        Because both denominations were heavily intertwined with daily American life, these ecclesiastical breakups were seen as a major cultural turning point. The institutional fractures that happened in the churches 15 years prior to the Civil War laid the groundwork for the literal political disunion of the country.

        I AM COMPLETELY RIGHT

    3. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

      Progressivism, with its current support for identity politics is currently on the side of hate, racism and sexism.

      You see it in the support for Karmelo Anthony. The covering up of a quarter million rape victims because the perpetrators were inconvenient to the political narrative. The police treatment of Henry Nowak as he was dying in their handcuffs. The misogyny perpetrated against women who want female designated spaces to remain exclusively for females. It goes on and on.

    4. damikesc   2 months ago

      Another episode of "My side is perfect" from MG here.

      1. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        yet you are the cowardly hypocrite. Stand for nothing,defend nothing,attack everything.

    5. minus the clever name   2 months ago

      Jesus was killed by liberals as was Socrates. As for Galileo his own daughter , a lifelong nun, rebuked him for his habit of pissing people off. G. was carried to Mass and never took your view of the Church

    6. Scooter   2 months ago

      Aren't you overdue to get your Totenkoph tramp stamp so you can match your hero, Graham Platner?

      I'm sure you're just itching to implement your "Final Solution" for your political opponents.

  11. Mike Hansberry   2 months ago

    "Politically active people my age fondly remember conservative intellectual William F. Buckley hosting the wildly popular TV show, "Firing Line," where he for years interviewed luminaries from across the political spectrum."

    Yes, I am one of them. But I wonder if he were still alive today, what would think about the rise of democratic socialists and communists in the Democrat Party? Would Buckley defend Trump as he defended McCarthy against the leftwing smear machine, or would he join the TDS addled imbeciles who focus on his personal flaws and so aid the spread of progressivism wittingly or unwittingly.

    Conservatives and libertarians used to agree that communism was a very bad thing that ought to be exposed and resisted.

    1. Bananas   2 months ago

      If Buckley were around today, leftists, and whatever Greenhut is, would be calling him a White Nationalist Supremacist fascist nazi racist misogynistic transphobe.

      Note that we currently still have Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas around, and you never see any leftist say anything positive about them.

      1. middlefinger   2 months ago

        Thomas Sowell is the most cancelled, ignored intellectual of the modern era.

        1. Bananas   2 months ago

          You'd be lucky to even come across a leftist who knows who he is.
          Fun game: Tell a leftist a Thomas Sowell quote that involves race and see how fast they call him a racist. You can do the same with Frederick Douglas and heck, even Malcolm X. And of course, MLK Jr.

          1. Bananas   2 months ago

            Before any of the leftists chime in:

            “The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man.” - Malcom X

    2. mtrueman   2 months ago

      "would he join the TDS addled imbeciles "

      I don't think he would join imbeciles of any stripe. Maybe you should have watched his interviews more closely. Buckley was intelligent and intellectually curious. Faced with the current Leftward tilt of the Democrats, he would have reflected on the complaisancy and failures of the Center and the Right, and how these made the rise of a Leftist alternative inevitable.

      1. Mike Hansberry   2 months ago

        please, if you are going be a troll, at least be good at it.

        Only fools and trolls think that Buckley would join the TDS addled imbeciles, or that the rise of communism is inevitable.

        1. mtrueman   2 months ago

          There's no such thing as a good troll. We are all bad at heart. These 'good trolls' of yours are the worst trolls.

          Buckley would reflect on the failures of conservatism and its role in the rise of a leftist alternative gaining in popularity. He was an intellectual, not a stooge parroting simple minded talking points like TDS. If you think Buckley labeled those who disagreed with him mentally ill, you don't know Buckley. Your version of him is a fantasy.

          1. Mike Hansberry   2 months ago

            Tell me more! Just how would Buckley reflect on the supposed failures of conservatism which have a role in the rise of the DSA and communists within the Dem party?

            Would Buckley support Trump's efforts at combatting communism they he way supported Joe McCarthy's (despite McCarthy's personal short comings), or would he get caught up in the invective and anti-MAGA hysteria while missing the big picture?

          2. Mike Hansberry   2 months ago

            Greenhut is not a conservative, but he is one of those who have a role in the rise of a leftist alternative. He is consistent, I'll give him that. He has been playing the offended intellectual card since at least 2008. https://www.ocregister.com/2008/09/07/steve-greenhut-leaving-the-gop-fold/

            Will he be even more offended when the DSA or the communists gain a majority?

  12. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    Welcome to the Reason Magazine "Comment Section Cage Fight." I would have said something witty and intellectual here, but what's the point? Thanks, guys, for perfectly illustrating this article.

    1. Bananas   2 months ago

      Always, always, always projection with you people.

      Commenters have pointed out why this article is BS, and instead of addressing those comments, you insult everyone while crying about insults.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        I was commenting about the comments. Ninety percent of the comments on this thread are insults with no content to address. Yours included.

    2. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

      Lol. I always love the pretend moral preening from idiots like yourself. As if you dont insult others. More evidence of how deluded you are.

      Id link you to Hoppes discussion on argumentation ethics and not assuming your opponents false moral baseline, but it is something you wont read.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        I ALSO insult people like you after presenting polite, logical and factual arguments and discussions, but only after you insult me without bothering to present any factual or logical arguments. But by all means, continue to insult anyone and everyone with whom you disagree! That way anyone who is seriously trying to engage in discussions on this forum will have no difficulty identifying who the flamebots are so they can safely ignore them (you).

  13. middlefinger   2 months ago

    If dysgenic breeding means building skyscrapers under budget and under on time, in union towns, then so be it.

    My definition of dysgenics is bankrupt Democrat run cities, with the meth den residents felching out tranny stinkholes on the streets. High IQs -natural selection on display.

  14. jonnysage   2 months ago

    Conservatism hasnt changed, just the people who use it to gain power. Same as libertarianism. It hasnt changed, Reason has. People change, ideas dont. Other than that they remain hypocrits.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

      Except that libertarians do not use "it" to gain power. We use "it" to try to diffuse power and prevent others from gaining power.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Technically, you use "it" to do precisely jack shit as the LP is incapable of ever gaining power.

      2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

        Both wrong . THere is a whole field called "History of Ideas' look up the Great Books SYNTOPICON, 100 greatest ideas of western civilization with those ideas' geneaology clearly laid out

        The Truth doesn't change and we understand Truth better and better as in Natural Law but neither of you seem to advert to that.

  15. middlefinger   2 months ago

    What about us pragmatists? Neither religious conservatives or communists.

    1. BigFish92672   2 months ago

      Easy answer, commie: Absent God, nothing matters. Your only commandment:
      Do what thy wilst.

    2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

      Oops, you stepped in it and it's all over your shoes.

      The Founder of Pragmatism was intensely religious CS Peirce and his disciple William James the author of the varieties of religious experience. Most pragmatists of your stripe would be rejected by both of them

  16. minus the clever name   2 months ago

    Most every comment hear fails on data or on logic.
    I KNOW that many people who support Trump do not like Buckley at all. A Catholic would loathe Buckley's Mater si Magister no....look it up.
    Trump is not a Catholic so that argument fails completely.

  17. JFree   2 months ago

    That era's leading right-leaning commentators often criticized intellectuals, but not intelligence and expertise.

    Well that era's commentators didn't have much of an audience. Esp compared to the Rush Limbaughs and the folks who quickly saw Fox as their preferred broadcaster. And that crowd has been allergic to intelligence, expertise, civility, multi-syllabic words, and pretty much everything that reminds them of the difficulties of elementary school.

    Buckley should've combined Firing Line with Demolition Derby and Firing Squad.

    1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

      A large part of free market thought, as espoused by economists like Hayek is that public intellectuals are not as well informed and "expert" as they make themselves out to be, and cannot be as much as their ambitions want them to be. It is that hubris and desire for control that makes centralized planning folly and dangerous to liberty.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        Exactly! Free market capitalism is the best possible system for a society consisting almost entirely of average humans, with ALL of our flaws.

        1. mtrueman   2 months ago

          You're chasing ghosts. There's no such thing as an average human. Don't let any free market capitalist tell you any different.

      2. JFree   2 months ago

        Yes. The 'advocacy' business is full of people who try to create some consensus around what they advocate. That even included Hayek in his professor role. But what Hayek pointed out is that the free market is based on a pricing system not a persuasion system. The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.

        The fatal conceit is not that someone thinks they can persuade someone else to their viewpoint - turn knowledge into a concentrated or integrated form - whether Buckley, Hayek, or Trump. The fatality of that conceit is that if they even TRY to persuade (or elevate persuasion) rather than price, the pricing system itself will fail.

        The baker and the customer MUST disagree on the relative value of Bread A and Money B. If they agree, no trade will occur.

        Which is all fine. But this article and the comments is not about 'conservatism' in a free market pricing system. It is about conservatism in an advocacy/media system.

  18. Fats of Fury   2 months ago

    AH Yes, the lofty good old days of 1968,

    Gore Vidal: "The only pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself."

    William F. Buckley: "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi, or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."

    1. Zeb   2 months ago

      But they said it with good enunciation.

    2. minus the clever name   2 months ago

      Vidal was a nasty homosexual. Bi-sexual at least in his public statements. A pervert through and through. YOu don't have to like Buckley to loathe a crude deviant like Vidal

  19. BigFish92672   2 months ago

    "Conservatives no longer are interested in weighty ideas..."
    Hi Steve!
    I talked to the other fiscal conservative right after I read that and we both agree we have no idea what you are talking about. We still use Facts, Reasoning, history, and civics in all our discussions about where the Evil Empire is headed and how to protect ourselves from it

  20. Scooter   2 months ago

    Are the Conservatives the ones running a Nazi with a Totenkoph tattoo for the US Senate?

    Did the Conservatives just elect an Attorney General who openly fantasized about shooting his political opponent in the head?

    1. minus the clever name   2 months ago

      You make a statistical mistake here. There is no "conservatives' as a unified block. And a logic error. IF I am female,Catholic,heterosexual , Black and conservative you say that if I dislike (or like) the Nazi guy it is because of my political views. That is illogical

  21. JohnKing   2 months ago

    Also, I doubt Trump would ever use the word 'dehobgoblinization', as Buckley did.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

This YouTuber Got Kicked Out of the Flock Convention. So He Ran His Own Surveillance.

Matthew Petti | 8.24.2026 5:08 PM

Trump Threatens U.S. Relationship With Canada as Trade Talks Collapse

Joe Lancaster | 8.24.2026 3:25 PM

Study: Most Mealtime Screen Time Is TV, Not Social Media

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 8.24.2026 12:33 PM

Forget the Population Bomb. The New Fear Is a Population Implosion.

Ronald Bailey | 8.24.2026 12:05 PM

Economic Isolation

Liz Wolfe | 8.24.2026 9:30 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reason's July 4 Special!

For America's 250th, Get 2 Years of Reason for $17.76

Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.

Subscribe to Reason