"We Need More Rocks In The River"

As many of you know, I have a great deal of respect for the work of Jonah Goldberg at National Review.  His mother is minor-league famous from Clinton baiting days (Lucianne Goldberg), but he writes more often of his quiet, but immensely deep father.  Goldberg remembers his father this week in the context of the recent papal pronouncement on condom use--a subject with which I will not treat here.

Goldberg talks of the 2005 election of Pope Benedict and investiture, the ceremonies of which his father (a Jew) watched in rapt attention (the Vatican was the last institution that "really knows how to dress").  Apparently, Goldberg's Dad took a shine to the new Pope, and to the role of the Catholic Church in general--that of timeless adherence to principle and resistance to change simply because of its popularity.  Truth is Truth, and from the Catholic perspective, why would one change it.  Goldberg's Dad said "we need more rocks in the river" as a way of stating positively that the society benefited from ideas, people, institutions that slowed the rapid pace of change, of modern life, so that evidence might accumulate and better decisions might be made.

I like the analogy.

The Only Good Conservative is a Dead Conservative

Jonah Goldberg's got a smart op-ed in the LA times (noticed here via Instapundit) in which he once again points out how popular conservative political figures become with the media and the left (whoops, did it again) only after they are dead and less influential.

In Defense Of Elitism

Here's an interesting view on elitism and the Supreme Court from the Dean of Cal's Law School and a former Clinton Administration official.

Some similarities here between Edley and our blog hero Jonah Goldberg, who has also written in defense of elitism here and here.

Bottom line for both it would seem is that there are simply some places in our society where an "elite" isn't such a bad thing. The Supreme Court strikes me as one of them.

Jonah Goldberg On Neo-Socialism

I first wrote about Barack Obama's neo-socialism last November on the blog--inspired (as always) by Jonah Goldberg's writing and thinking about what kind of ideology actually was at the heart of the man. Jonah quite nicely linked to my post on National Review Online, and I had my biggest one day readership ever.

In the May issue of Commentary, Goldberg has expanded on this theme in a masterful way. It's a longish article (Commentary being a journal not for the short attention span generation), but it well worth reading. I can't decide whether I like Goldberg better when he's light and snarky or when he's firing on all intellectual cylinders (as he is in this piece). Either way, he's just better at this stuff than almost anyone else doing it.

H/T Instapundit

Jonah Goldberg on The Euro-izing Of America

Straight wisdom from the NR sage. I made a similar argument supporting our place (and Europe's "free riding") at Heritage.

Goldberg Skewers Brooks

Great Corner post here by Jonah Goldberg. Again, I think both Goldberg and Brooks are superb thinkers, though Goldberg taps into one of the serious lines of doubt I have about Brooks' judgment. Key line: "Brooks is turning out to be like Big Bird to Obama's Snuffaluffagus! He's the only one who can see the real Obama and nobody believes him."



HT Instapundit

David Brooks On Tea Parties; Jonah Goldberg on David Brooks

This is a heavyweight discussion. First David Brooks took the ramparts of the New York Times editorial pages to offer his analysis of the Tea Party movement. Then, Jonah Goldberg offered his analysis of Brooks in National Review's blog The Corner.

A couple of things. These two--along with Mark Steyn--represent for me a sort of Holy Trinity of conservative thinkers. Day in and day out, Steyn, Brooks and Goldberg can be counted on to pen some of the most insightful, readable, and analytical views of policy and social events to be found. Brooks is brilliant and prep schoolish--and bit too cozy with Obamanism. Goldberg is a giant of conservative thinking, but I think his Puckishness sometimes causes him to be taken less seriously than others--though a reading of Liberal Fascism should cure even the toughest critic of charges that Goldberg is unserious. And Steyn--he's simply in a class by himself.

Brooks' piece on the Tea Party movement upon first reading made eminent sense to me, and it helped put me in touch with some of the basic, deep down, questions I have about their approach to policy. Had Goldberg not then made his commentary, I would likely have simply put a check in the box that Brooks had once again fairly well encapsulated my way of thinking. But Goldberg does a great job of standing Brooks' argument on its head. Whereas Brooks wrote an article showing the similarity of the New Left of the 60s with the Tea Party movement of today, Goldberg does just as admirable a job of staking out the differences--which are important, and redound to the benefit of the Tea Partiers.

Here's the bottom line for me--both of them are right as far as their arguments go, and I will consider myself better informed for having read them. That said, the real question for me is the extent to which the Tea Party movement will impact the character of the Republican Party. Not the Conservative Movement mind you....but the Republican Party. While there are conservatives in the Tea Party movement, and some of its basic instincts are conservative, it is not an abidingly conservative impulse. It is populist, and populism knows no ideological bounds--it speaks largely and simply to its own requirements. In our two-party system, the Tea Party movement is far more likely to (and has already done so) find its impact within the Republican Party--and I have to wonder if that impact will make the party more or less electable in upcoming contests.

At this point, the Tea Party movement seems to have little or no interaction with social questions (abortion, gay rights). If it manages to remain devoted to questions of fiscal restraint and good governance, I think the Tea Partiers will strengthen the Republican Party. If for some reason, the Tea Party movement takes on a social component more reminiscent of the Religious Right of the late 70's and early 80's, I fear it will have little positive impact and potentially negative effects.

Jonah Goldberg On The Left's Fascination With Matters Abroad

We had a chat on the radio program about Ann Coulter, and I revised previously made comments about her, in that I did recognize that she's pretty darn funny. She doesn't deal in ideas per se, but she does crack a good wise.

You want to follow a superb thinker who is also funny? That's Jonah Goldberg. Some of his stuff is hilarious--Mark Steyn funny even. But it is all very well-thought-out, including this discussion of the Left's fascination with the way other countries do things. Seemingly no authoritarian society worldwide has escaped the Left's fascination and praise, wistful longings for the kind of centralized power available to the truly autocratic government.

Why Liberal Arts Professors are Liberal

Jonah Goldberg's got a good post (probably from a few days ago) up on NRO which dissects a fairly honest and defiantly assertive manifesto by a liberal, liberal arts professor on why he and others like him--are liberal.

The basic answer--envy.

Libertarianism Under the Microscope at NRO

There's a great little back and forth going on over the past two days at the National Review Online blog "The Corner" about Libertarians.

I don't think there is a major Conservative thinker today who understands and respects Libertarians more than Jonah Goldberg does--nor is there a Conservative thinker who more neatly dissects the trouble with Libertarianism as a governing impulse. Take a look at this, and then scroll through yesterday and today to see more on this. Fascinating stuff for the two or three wonks who read this blog.