The National Reconnaissance Office, really?

Anyway, as fun as it is to watch the National Review implode, I'd prefer there to be a vibrant and intellectually serious conservative opposition.  It increasingly seems that the center-left has a monopoly on thinking people, and monopolies never serve the people well.

"[O]ne of which lamented that her mother did not abort her."

I'll bet that remark was send by an avid pro-lifer.  

Apparently, inflexible idealogues do have their limits. maybe the abortion debate should lead to whether the government should create a Department of Future Predictions and invest in future predicting technology. Chicken bones or lamb's entrails would be a good place to start. Bureaucrats could start compiling list of fetuses that might turn into ne'er-do-wells or worse, impure adherents, and terminate them. The Pro-Lifers can call it the "greater good" exception.

Mr. Orr, your link to NRO led to me make a quick and unwise expedition into that typically-avoided intellectual morass, where I stumbled upon this quote about why Sarah Palin is so deserving of her new beloved status:

"For some it was an anti-Washington feel. Many consider her a refreshing citizen-politician in the old mold, one that Thomas Jefferson would be proud to meet."

I think I just threw up a little...

tec619 - Too late.  I've already seen the movie.

www.imdb.com/.../tt0181689

"I'd prefer there to be a vibrant and intellectually serious conservative opposition."

So would I. A shame, then, that there has never been such a thing. First off, there has not been a conservative "opposition" since 1980, since when conservatism has been the governing ideology. And any successful intellectual or ideological movement that loses power faces a period of theoretical confusion and factious splintering. That's just how intellectual movements work. It's the lucky political movement that recovers within a generation.

But more fundamentally, conservatism has never been intellectually serious as a movement. Sure, there have been a very few intellectually serious conservatives, but the conservatism that has characterized Republican governance in the Age of Reagan has been intellectually incoherent, self-contradicting, and ultimately more than a little insane. The conservatism that has actually attempted to govern during the 28 years of its majority is much closer to the moronic "conservatism" of Rush Limbaugh than to the thoughtful conservatism of William Buckley.

So a "vibrant and intellectually serious conservative opposition" would be a good thing. It would also be a completely novel innovation.

I have been reading the Corner daily since 2003. It is at times maddening, but it can also be an extremely unbiased insight into the “soul” of the conservative movement. The best (and worst) thing about blogs and emails is that they are often unedited and unencumbered by the filters of time and reasoned thought. The site has certainly been going through a drift of sorts dating back even before the 2006 election. But it is still very interesting. Ramesh Ponnuru is almost universally thoughtful and insightful. Lowry is also mostly honest and very well informed by high-up Republican sources. Byron York is also very balanced and well-informed. The libertarian wing is terrific, especially Andrew Stutafford. K Lo is K Lo. She is a hard line social conservative but seemingly a kind-hearted if not simple person. Jonah has lost a lot of cred in my book over the past 5 years. I think the mainstream media attention has gotten to him now that he has the LAT column. Andy McCarthy, Victor Hanson and some of the others are totally unhinged and valuable only for some comic relief from time to time.

"I'd prefer there to be a vibrant and intellectually serious conservative opposition."  

You say that as if such a thing ever really existed.  That self promoting jerk Arthur Laffer draws a curve on a cocktail napkin and suddenly it's an intellectual movement.  Only two ideas  ever came from the conservative movement.  Domestically, lower taxes for the wealthy.  (An alternative statement of the conservative's domestic policy can be seen in the Senate scene from Mel Brooks "History of the World - Part I".)  Conservative foreign policy is best summed up by Randy Newman's song "Political Science".  (For those who are not Randy Newman fans, the chorus goes "Let's drop the big one and see what happens.")

I believe that success in presidential politics is dictated far more by the personality and qualities of the candidate then by ideology.  I don't believe Americans are for the most part very ideological, although they have fairly strong cultural attitudes.

McCain was a better candidate than any other Republican available this year.  But his age was against him personally, and the economy killed him politically.  And, bottom line, he didn't run a coherent and well organized campaign.

Obama had many deficits.  But he is young, attractive, very smart, very articulate.  And he ran the best presidential campaign in modern history.  And his October surprise came a little early with a very helpful financial meltdown.

Ultimately, he won well.  But it was no landslide a la Johnson v Goldwater or Nixon v McGovern.

If Obama governs reasonably well and has reasonable luck, he'll serve two terms.  Then we'll see who emerges on each side.  If the GOP has a candidate like a Reagan who inspires more confidence and trust then his opponent, then the GOP will be in the WH again.

And, if Obama swings well Left, looks like a creature being wagged by the doctrinaire Lefties, if he leaves Iraq precipitously and there is a disaster there in the wake of our leaving, then we'll see how well he is standing.

My intuition is telling me now that whatever his true beliefs, he likes power more.  And that he will be smarter and more stable than Clinton.  I don't think by any means he will be a Carter.

Truth is, we can't afford a failed presidency at this critical juncture.  So let's hope he presides as well as he ran.

The decline of National Review is lamentable but completely in line with the nature of the GOP and the so-called "conservative" base.  That base, which has descended into a pathetic anti-intellectualism over the past 30 years, is now the home of a wretched mob of bigots, religious nutters, nativists, and the under-educated.  You know - the kind of folks that would be impressed by a Sarah Palin.  Such people have little need for a sophisticated journal of ideas.