Posts Tagged ‘professor bainbridge’

…so explains the liberal view by Jonah Goldberg:

Let’s start with the left, which certainly has different motives than Klinghoffer’s. The urge to lament how far today’s conservatives have fallen from the “golden age” of Buckley & Co. is a now-familiar gambit. You see, this is what critics on the left always say: “If only today’s conservatives were as decent or intellectual or patriotic as those of yesteryear.”

The best conservatives are always dead; the worst are always alive and influential. When Buckley and Kristol, not to mention Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, were alive, they were hated and vilified by the same sorts of people who now claim to miss the old gang. The gold standard of the dead is always a cudgel, used to beat back the living.

What hath Bainbridge wrought?

Via Glenn who really isn’t interested in the topic, honestly!

My latest article at Conservatives in Massachusetts should be grateful not embarrassed by the Tea Party deals with all the tea party has done in the state:

On the night of January 19th flush with victory I asked Former Governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney if he and the party would make sure Scott Brown’s victory was a successful revolution (Berlin 1991) as opposed to a short lived failed rebellion (Hungary 1958). The wannabe standard bearer of the GOP answered with vague generalities. Contrast that to Sarah Palin’s direct “cojones” line.

Lucky for the GOP the tea party and its supporters answered for him. People who profess conservatism should be grateful.

You can find a catalog of all Examiner article here.

It’s worth quoting Glenn making my point for me:

Buckley was charming because he had to be. He got a lot of attention because it was a time when liberalism was at its zenith, and so was its control of the media. Liberals were secure enough to let guys like Buckley on, but only guys like Buckley, whose I’m-a-member-of-the-club aristocratic credentials made him seem safe. And only so long as he was sufficiently nonthreatening.

As long as the right knew their place and didn’t threaten the left’s gravy train they didn’t mind if a republican minority got their share.

…first of all I must link to Roxeanne De Luca’s excellent piece that not only linked to mine, but puts the lie to his anti-intellectual point that the professor tried to make:

While Bielat is the only one of those guys (and gals) who pulled off the double-Ivy education, one can hardly call the small army of JDs, CPAs, MBAs, and professors “anti-intellectual”. One then has to wonder at Bainbridge’s assertions: who, among this growing conservative movement, is really “anti-intellectual”? Are we stupid? uneducated? have the audacity to think that our BC, Georgetown, and Tufts educations are not so dismal as to disqualify us from public debate and office? or just not relentlessly focused on degrees obtained two decades ago? is what is happening in Massachusetts not representative?

As they say, read the whole thing as the young lady with TWO DEGREES of her own defends the tea party she is so much a part of.

Secondly and more importantly as I re-read his piece I noticed something that I hadn’t caught in his 10th point, lets review:

Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan? emphasis mine

Even Ronald Reagan? EVEN RONALD REAGAN?! That sentence, the idea that: Today’s conservatives are so dumb they even make Ronald Reagan look smart, well-read and articulate, brings me back to my college days.

Starting college 8 months into Reagan’s first term I recall the way that liberals treated Reagan with disdain and/or fear. My favorite professor the spectacular Ed Thomas, (the best history teacher I ever had) used to talk about how Reagan “Scared him”. Liberals reacted with glee when he got the nomination. They couldn’t believe he won.

But I also remember how elite conservatives absolutely HATED him. They hated his small town background, they hated that he was a Hollywood actor, they hated his abandonment of realpolitik saying bluntly what the Soviet Union actually was, they hated him because he was so comfortable in his own skin and beliefs they he didn’t feel the need to seek their approval.

Most of all they hated that due to his success and popularity among the idiot people that they had to pay homage to someone so obviously beneath them to get elected or to be supported.

Remind you of anyone today?

We have seen this last point often in the last few years among the leftist media and pols (who can’t believe and won’t forgive Reagan for drawing more sympathy in death than Ted Kennedy) who now avoid criticizing him, acting as if they had been with him all the time.

I had almost totally forgotten the absolutely visceral hatred some Republicans had for Ronald Reagan. Thank you Professor Bainbridge for reminding me of an important lesson from the days of a full hairline.

Update: An Instalanche in my sleep. Very odd to wake up and find my first post of yesterday to be linked by Glenn at the very end of the day. Nice to have you all. You may want to check out the article I put up at on the subject called:
Conservatives in Massachusetts should be grateful not embarrassed by the Tea Party that answers the point concerning Tea Parties.