Ad Hominemcons

Describing somebody who's been as helpful to the movement as this supposedly "fat" "blowhard" (who is currently no heavier than your average man of years). Why conservatives heap onto other conservatives in such a way, I don't understand.

Sure, Rush Limbaugh, who reaches drive-time listeners, appeals to a larger audience than the intellectual establishment was used to. His style is different than that of Buckley's. Namecalling is unnecessary, especially when Rush has given no offense.

Speaking of which, I haven't seen much namecalling among the "younger generation" of conservatives, as you put it. Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Jim Antle, Peter Suderman -- Certainly, no one I mention among this group is currently super-famous, but I doubt that when the time comes, they'll heap it on like this. -- J.P. Freire on Jeffrey Hart

True but misleading, I think. Currently neither Ross, Reihan, Jim, Peter, Daniel, Rod, J.P., nor myself have caused expensive, dangerous, or bloody things to happen in the United States of America. Nor have any of us been instrumental cheerleaders for those expensive, dangerous, or bloody things. When the going gets serious, the internecine fighting gets more serious too. In a nice paradox, as we all recognize, internecine fighting also gets worse when a group weakens and falls from power into amateurism and impotence.

But possibly more to the point, none of the 'younger generation' I can think of has become a millionaire while remaining widely perceived by intelligent fellow travelers as being intellectually boorish. The wine-track / beer-track problem is not limited to the Left. Probably it would appear at its worst from within the Right. Even twenty-five years ago, the political commentary farm league that's in place now did not exist. One had to rise up from the ranks as a reporter rather than make one's name as a blogger. College, especially top-tier college, was not a mill for conservatives of any kind, much less snarky conservative talking heads or even intelligent young commentators with conservative predilections. Since the institutionalization of the Movement in the college scene, that's all changed. Just look at what's happened with CPAC.

Nowadays it must be said that the vast majority of young political commentators at the semi-pro or higher level are completely inter-socialized. That just wasn't true of Limbaugh and Hart. Not that we're not capable of name-calling. It just happens across political cleavages instead of within them, and usually then across unbroken social barriers. Even Julian and I will never amount to enemies -- merely nemeses, nothing more. When some kid from flyover country that graduated from a state school and stayed home develops the next huge conservative national radio show, I expect the 'younger generation' to react differently. In fact, there's already a pretty serious contrarian aspect to the YG; ask the names I listed above whether they would ever consider voting for Petraeus for President. Then ask your average mainstream young Republican. When you're young, it's somewhat risky to make enemies on your own supposed side; when you're older, and people you know hold real power and authority, sometimes your incentive to care goes away, especially when you develop an ounce of power and authority. One of the best things about the DC scene is how friendly everyone is at happy hour. But, at a minimum, the general irritation I detect when the topic of the right's big figurehead commentators comes up suggests that somewhere between civil collegiality and petty name-calling lies the future.

Comments

[Joules]

I don't spend time with your set, but simply observing the way you interact with one another when you disagree at The American Scene blog indicates that J.P. Freire is on the right track when he doubts that you'd pile it on.

[Matt S.]

There is a great deal that could be said of this topic. But my immediate point is that Freire, I think, has this all wrong. Hart is not upset because a talk radio host has been "helpful to the movement." Rather, he's upset because a talk radio host has BECOME the movement, in the sense that even magazines like NR do not much rise above him in terms of sophistication. Put differently, its not that some low brow voice has, at the margins, made conservatism more palatable to the NASCAR fans driving home from work, but that a kind of peculiar populism has infected the entire movement, to the point where NR's house intellectual publishes a book titled "The Party of Death" with Regnery (!) and its other young star puts a smiley face with a Hitler mustache on the cover of his new, absurd tome. And don't get me started on KLo.

The real divide isn't between wine track and beer track conservatives, which I could imagine getting along well enough (with some tension, of course), but rather between a movement almost completely Hannitized and those who have resisted that trend. I'm glad you linked to an article on CPAC. Three words: Case. In. Point.