Rightist Intellectuals

[Agnapostate]

Are there any prominent rightist intellectuals of the social sciences that live and have some major influence on public discourse? Our political mindset is characterized by little more than rancid disease when dimwits like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are held up as the pinnacle of rightist commentators. Can you imagine any of these clowns in a debate with Chomsky or the late Zinn, or any socialist economist? It conjures images of an Ewok attempting to duel Darth Vader.

Even those that we can concede are legitimate "intellectuals" in some sense are usually obscenely snobbish; every word they speak is dripping with arrogant contempt for those that fail to understand the eternal wisdom of Burke and Hobbes. William F. Buckley is the archetype of this category; Christopher Hitchens is his modern cousin.

Milton Friedman was a rightist intellectual (and appropriately, a supporter of capitalist dictatorship). Why would anyone pretend that Bill O'Reilly is?

[Drace]

Glenn Beck.

[Die Rote Fahne]

That's an oxymoron

[9]

Interesting question. I'm sure there are some out there, but TBH, the "right" in mainstream American politics right now is very deeply anti-intellectual. In fact, I think the elitist snobbery of liberal intellectuals who comprise the so-called "left" in American establishment politics - who basically seem to go out of their way to flaunt their contempt for the working class - presently serves as a huge, huge recruiting tool for the American right; so intellectual rightists aren't really 'good for business', so to speak, as they sort of cramp the present ability of the right to appeal to the working class by selling itself as the bastion against elitist snobs and well-to-do intellectuals. So 'rightist intellectuals' just aren't really in fashion right now, though I imagine they exist - probably on the margins of the Libertarian movement or something.

[Robert]

Yes, everyone on the right is pretty stupid. I mean, that's what "conservative" means if you look it up in the dictionary. Mostly they are born with brain defects and then deteriorate gradually.

But if you want names, there is Michael Medved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Medved), who entered Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) as a sixteen-year-old undergraduate, and graduated with honors in 1969, and then entered Yale Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_School).

Also look at Mark Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin) (magna cum laude, Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_University).)

You might look at another ignoramus named Hugh Hewitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt), Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_College), and graduating cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_laude) with a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelors_of_Arts) in government in 1978. After leaving Harvard, he worked as a ghostwriter for Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) and New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York), before studying at the University of Michigan Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Law_School), where he was Order of the Coif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Coif).

Hmm. Who else? D'nesh D'Souza, Phi Beta Kappa, Dartmouth, has the ear of many conservative pols.

All these guys pretty much forged their transcripts so that they could get into college. Then they cheated. That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Now, the king of all dummies has to be John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Harvard College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_College) and Harvard Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School), where he was managing editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managing_editor) of the Harvard Law Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review). After being admitted to the bar, he served as a law clerk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_clerk) for William Rehnquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist) before taking a position in the Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General)'s office during the Reagan Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan). He went on to serve the Reagan Administration and the George H. W. Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Presidency_.281989.E2.80.931993. 29) in the Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) and the Office of the White House Counsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel), before spending fourteen years in private law practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States). During this time, he argued thirty-nine cases before the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States).

In his confirmation hearings before the Senate, he answered complex constitutional questions from the Senators, in detail, with no notes, triggering now vice president Biden to describe it as a legal "tour de force."

But by the revolutionary left's criteria, he's still a "dimwit." Don't discriminate against the mentally retarded. We do the best we can with what we have.

[Wolf Larson]

The Bell Curve assholes. The Austrian school capitalists. Lew Rockwell and those idiots. The Rand foundation. CATO. The biggest force in the generic conservative movement are the Koch brothers. They're the bastards behind freedom works/the Tea Parties.

A lot of them are dead, Buckley, Rand, Rothbard, Mises, Milton Friedman etc. The real threat is Obama and the democrats believe it or not. The Democratic Leadership Council- Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Reid, Al From, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin etc. We need to focus on the current administration more and ignore some of the hyperbolic idiocy coming from AM radio and FOX. The conservative movement is so generic, gullible and misinformed there really is no intellectual base. Unfortunately the Austrian School thinkers is what I see popping up in all intellectual debate. The Mark Levin types are just generic propagandists with ghost writers writing their books. Dime a dozen idiots with microphones and bullhorns. The real threat right now are Democrats. Neo Keynesian corporate colonial economic fascism. Neoconservatism with a smile. Democrats are the problem now but the Koch brothers and the right wing libertarian rhetoric is what we see manifesting on the right.

[Drace]

Robert,

I looked at some of those names and none of it contained any information on political beliefs, or more specifically on economics and capitalism/communism. Considering the contemporary norm, this is not at all surprising.

Just because they aren't communists doesn't make them rightist intellectuals.


In 2007, Levin released a book about his dogs, Pepsi and Sprite. Specifically, the book was about Sprite, a Spaniel mix that his wife and son persuaded him to adopt from the local shelter in 2004.:laugh: Very intellectual.

[9]

Yes, everyone on the right is pretty stupid. I mean, that's what "conservative" means if you look it up in the dictionary. Mostly they are born with brain defects and then deteriorate gradually.

But if you want names, there is Michael Medved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Medved), who entered Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) as a sixteen-year-old undergraduate, and graduated with honors in 1969, and then entered Yale Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_School).

Also look at Mark Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin) (magna cum laude, Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_University).)

You might look at another ignoramus named Hugh Hewitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt), Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_College), and graduating cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_laude) with a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelors_of_Arts) in government in 1978. After leaving Harvard, he worked as a ghostwriter for Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) and New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York), before studying at the University of Michigan Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Law_School), where he was Order of the Coif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Coif).

Hmm. Who else? D'nesh D'Souza, Phi Beta Kappa, Dartmouth, has the ear of many conservative pols.

All these guys pretty much forged their transcripts so that they could get into college. Then they cheated. That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Now, the king of all dummies has to be John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Harvard College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_College) and Harvard Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School), where he was managing editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managing_editor) of the Harvard Law Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review). After being admitted to the bar, he served as a law clerk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_clerk) for William Rehnquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist) before taking a position in the Attorney General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General)'s office during the Reagan Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan). He went on to serve the Reagan Administration and the George H. W. Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#Presidency_.281989.E2.80.931993. 29) in the Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) and the Office of the White House Counsel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel), before spending fourteen years in private law practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States). During this time, he argued thirty-nine cases before the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States).

In his confirmation hearings before the Senate, he answered complex constitutional questions from the Senators, in detail, with no notes, triggering now vice president Biden to describe it as a legal "tour de force."

But by the revolutionary left's criteria, he's still a "dimwit." Don't discriminate against the mentally retarded. We do the best we can with what we have.

As lovely a load of emotional nonsense as this is, I'm afraid you are missing the point. George W. Bush graduated from Yale. I have no doubt that - contrary to what he's managed to trick liberals into believing - he's actually a pretty sharp guy. But he knows how to play the cards. Whether or not a politician sells himself as an intellectual doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with how smart he is.

[¿Que?]

David Brooks is supposed to be good to recommend to people, if you had to recommend a right winger. He is actually a moderate conservative, which is why a lot of democrats actually like him.

Then there's Pat Buchanan. He actually makes me pretty mad, but there was a point in my life where I was willing to listen to him. He has spoken critically of the war in Iraq, but usually is just a talking head for the republicans (on msnbc no less. He's like the Alan Colmes).

The worst of the worst (I really hate to mention this guy, because I don't find him all that intelligent, just sort of acts as if he were intelligent) is Ben Stein. Remember that show on MTV, "Win Ben Steins Money". Or the famous "Beuler, Beuler" In "Ferris Beuler's Day Off". He put out this pro creationist movie called "Expelled". Since he's a creationist, I wasn't going to mention him (I mean really!) but since he usually wears suits and likes to put on airs of intelligence, I thought I'd throw him in. He sucks.

[#FF0000]

Just because they aren't communists doesn't make them rightist intellectuals.

They were all p. much conservatives he listed. Especially that D'nesh D'souza one, who has some p. ridiculous views.

[Robert]

I have no doubt that - contrary to what he's managed to trick liberals into believing - he's actually a pretty sharp guyBan him!

Look, you might try listening for yourself to, or reading the works of someone other than Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, before deciding as you have that all conservatives are ignoramuses.

I gave you a list of 3 or 4 prominent conservatives that are considered highly intelligent, erudite, and thoughtful in fair-minded corners of the universe (no, not Revleft, the Keith Olberboor Hour, or The Daily Kos), all trained in social sciences of one stripe or another, and all influential. Several of them shifted their ideologies as they grew older.

As for this:


Since he's a creationist, I wasn't going to mention him (I mean really!) but since he usually wears suits and likes to put on airs of intelligence, I thought I'd throw him in. He sucks. Yeah, dude, Ben Stein like ... sucks and stuff.:thumbup1:

[IcarusAngel]

D'nesh D'Souza spent his time dressing up like a woman and harassing homosexuals according to the book "Blinded by the Right." He is a hack and a pundit, not an intellectual.

Zinn, et al. have done profound work in the field of social sciences, providing new information and new views on history that were known but not well presented in the humanities.

Chomsky is a mathematician and a linguist whose work has had an enormous impact on the sciences.

There is no comparison between what Robert listed and these guys.

Interestingly, the people Robert listed are more like Keith Olbermann, only he speaks better than most of them and uses rationality a whole lot more.

[#FF0000]

D'nesh D'Souza spent his time dressing up like a woman and harassing homosexuals according to the book "Blinded by the Right." He is a hack and a pundit, not an intellectual.

Ahahahahahaha

[Robert]

Interestingly, the people Robert listed are more like Keith Olbermann, only he speaks better than most of them and uses rationality a whole lot more.

Keith Olber-bore-me-for-an-hour speaks from a teleprompter, never goes off script, and never, ever, ever invites dissent or engages in live debate. How in the world can you stand to listen to an hour long monologue interspersed with "attaboys" from like-minded fellow journalists. "Yes, Keith, that's right!" :rolleyes: Even O'Reilly has Dennis Kucinich on with some regularity. Don't you guys have any taste for contrast?

My guess is that you guys have never even heard of Michael Medved, so obsessed as you are with Glen Beck, and you have certainly never listened to his show, much less that of Hugh Hewitt. Much less have you listened to or listened to Roberts' confirmation hearings. The Chief Justice, I mean, not me.:)

[IcarusAngel]

I've known about Michael Medved for years. Anybody who watches cable news has probably heard the name. He's a right-wing media pundit. He often attacked the degradation of American television, and was known for condemning hollywood.

Interestingly, he said something after 9-11 that I agreed with. It was something to the effect of we need to understand why they hate us (I can't remember the exact words).

He generally has a polite demeanor. Much better than most pundits, and not as crazy as D'Souza, Malkin, etc.

He was on MSNBC the other day, possibly the Ed Show.

[Robert]

Why would anyone pretend that Bill O'Reilly is?

Gee, I dunno. Why would anyone pretend that anyone said he was?


Then there's Pat Buchanan. He actually makes me pretty mad, but there was a point in my life where I was willing to listen to him. He has spoken critically of the war in Iraq

Has? He opposed the Iraq war from the start, as he has condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and the adverse effects on labor of several latter day trade agreements favorable to capitalists.

You might want to guard against stereotyping.

[¿Que?]

Has? He opposed the Iraq war from the start, as he has condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and the adverse effects on labor of several latter day trade agreements favorable to capitalists.

You might want to guard against stereotyping.
What's your argument? That I'm stereotyping or that Buchanan is a beacon of progressive thought? Are you that bored that you need to attack my knowledge of a reactionary I hardly pay attention to?

[Robert]

You brought up Pat Buchanan, not I. And it sounds to me like you pay a lot of attention to him, which is good, but he's more complex than you know or will admit. Hey, it doesn't matter.

And yes, this thread is starting to bore me. Not your posts, of course.

Hey Icarus, I just found out that Chomsky actually appeared on the Medved show once. I wish I had a transcript of it. Apparently Medved offered Chomsky a poster of Ronald Reagan after Chomsky said something about Reagan being the Worst Person in the World, or somesuch.

I'm pretty sure Chomsky refused it.:lol:

[John_Jordan]

The only guy I can think of is David D. Friedman.

Of course, it really depends on what you mean by "major influence." It's not like the average person knows who Chomsky is.

[ZombieGrits]

Ayn Rand... :D

Sorta intellectual, more like just a pissed off high-functioning sociopath

[John_Jordan]

She's dead.

Didn't the OP ask for living people?

[Robert]

a pissed off high-functioning sociopath

At last, a caricature of Ayn Rand that I completely agree with. :lol:

[AK]

Don't be silly; right-wingers can't be intellectual :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Don't be silly; right-wingers can't be intellectual :rolleyes:

Oh you.

But yeah, no, in America, "right wingers" tend to be rabidly anti-intellectual, while in Europe, it seems like it's the exact opposite and tend to be very, very elitist.

Anyway, let's try to keep this on track (since I'm not really saavy with contemporary thinkers, right or left and so I'm kind of curious.)

Plus it's I think any idiot can take a wild guess as to what a lot of us think about right wing ideologies so it's kind of silly to harp on it.

[Agnapostate]

Yes, everyone on the right is pretty stupid. I mean, that's what "conservative" means if you look it up in the dictionary. Mostly they are born with brain defects and then deteriorate gradually.

But if you want names, there is Michael Medved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Medved), who entered Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) as a sixteen-year-old undergraduate, and graduated with honors in 1969, and then entered Yale Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_School).

Also look at Mark Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin) (magna cum laude, Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_University).)

You might look at another ignoramus named Hugh Hewitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt), Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_College), and graduating cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_laude) with a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelors_of_Arts) in government in 1978. After leaving Harvard, he worked as a ghostwriter for Richard Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon) in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) and New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York), before studying at the University of Michigan Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Law_School), where he was Order of the Coif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Coif).

Hmm. Who else? D'nesh D'Souza, Phi Beta Kappa, Dartmouth, has the ear of many conservative pols.

All these guys pretty much forged their transcripts so that they could get into college. Then they cheated. That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Cheated? They're simply not intellectuals of the social sciences. Whether they're mentally intelligent is distinct from that; they're pundits in the entertainment media rather than serious political thinkers. Why don't you read Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt (though I'm certain that much in "their" books were composed by ghostwriters), and then read Robert Dahl and Gar Alperovitz? It's a comparison of assorted talking points assembled for entertainment culture to serious theoretical work. The prospect of Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham in a debate with Samuel Bowles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bowles_%28economist%29) is laughable.

That you've so badly misunderstood the intent of the thread renders your response a complete failure.


The Bell Curve assholes.

Yes, they qualify.


The Austrian school capitalists.

I suppose that's better, though the Austrian school has very marginal influence in economics and draws most of its support from propertarian laypersons.


Lew Rockwell and those idiots.

Rockwell is nothing near an intellectual.

[Bud Struggle]

Cheated? They're simply not intellectuals of the social sciences. Whether they're mentally intelligent is distinct from that; they're pundits in the entertainment media rather than serious political thinkers. Why don't you read Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt (though I'm certain that much in "their" books were composed by ghostwriters), and then read Robert Dahl and Gar Alperovitz? It's a comparison of assorted talking points assembled for entertainment culture to serious theoretical work. The prospect of Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham in a debate with Samuel Bowles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bowles_%28economist%29) is laughable.

That you've so badly misunderstood the intent of the thread renders your response a complete failure.


Nonsense. These are real life figures--whose opinions make policy in real life (like the Supreme Court justices in the final part of Robert's post.) They aren't some academic theoreticians that write for an academic readership that has no real place in the common milieu. They are real people making opinions, building consensus and changing society in America.

It's like the constant debates on OI about Mises and Rand and all of that--in the REAL world they are irreverent. Just like Trotsky and Stalin and Hohxa and Mao. Not to say these guys don't have some followers: from the guys running around in their underwear with guns in some jungle to the guys in their underwear sitting at their computer in their rooms in their parents garage.

But sooner or later you have to put your pants on and go out into the real world.

[Agnapostate]

Nonsense. These are real life figures--whose opinions make policy in real life (like the Supreme Court justices in the final part of Robert's post.) They aren't some academic theoreticians that write for an academic readership that has no real place in the common milieu. They are real people making opinions, building consensus and changing society in America.

It's like the constant debates on OI about Mises and Rand and all of that--in the REAL world they are irreverent. Just like Trotsky and Stalin and Hohxa and Mao. Not to say these guys don't have some followers: from the guys running around in their underwear with guns in some jungle to the guys in their underwear sitting at their computer in their rooms in their parents garage.

But sooner or later you have to put your pants on and go out into the real world.

Absurd non-reply. No one asked if they had influence. That entertainment culture has greater influence than intellectual culture is obvious. That leftist intellectuals would kick the shit out of rightist entertainment figures in a serious, sustained debate about policy is also obvious, however.

Incidentally, you forgot to include the guys lazing around in their suits thieving from the real workers. There aren't even pants that can accommodate them.

[Bud Struggle]

Absurd non-reply. No one asked if they had influence. That entertainment culture has greater influence than intellectual culture is obvious. That leftist intellectuals would kick the shit out of rightist entertainment figures in a serious, sustained debate about policy is also obvious, however.
I'm sure there are rightest intellectuals squirreled away in safe and tenured positions all across America writing quite abstruse papers and going to academic conferences that have no impact on real life society. So what? Maybe we should invite them all to a dance.


Incidentally, you forgot to include the guys lazing around in their suits thieving from the real workers. There aren't even pants that can accommodate them. Or is it the "workers" that steal from the thinkers, the inventers, the entreprenaurs of this world? Who knows?

[Left-Reasoning]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

[Agnapostate]

I'm sure there are rightest intellectuals squirreled away in safe and tenured positions all across America writing quite abstruse papers and going to academic conferences that have no impact on real life society. So what? Maybe we should invite them all to a dance.

You seem to have stupidly repeated a point that I just rebutted. I've not asked solely about influence, but about influence and prominence as an intellectual in some field of the social sciences. Limbaugh and Co. hardly qualify.


Or is it the "workers" that steal from the thinkers, the inventers, the entreprenaurs of this world? Who knows?

It is among their circles that they are found, and exploited by the capitalists. Try to stay on topic.


Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Aside from the aforementioned marginality of the Austrian school (and the accumulating evidence that you're obviously an anti-socialist), Hoppe has little credibility in the spheres of political science and economics. Aside from the piss-poor quality of the literature that he's produced, he's also considered somewhat of a pitiful joke. Consider Tom G. Palmer's view.


I gave [a lecture] some years ago at Washington State University, after which I was introduced by the chairman of the department of economics to some graduate students whom he termed "our former Austrians." One might ask why the graduate students there called themselves "former Austrians." One name suffices to answer the question: Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Dr. Hoppe, leading light of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, had presented such a loopy, absurd and utterly unhinged picture of Austrian economics at a public lecture there, under the sponsorship of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, that those graduate students felt obliged to distinguish themselves publicly from such a strange and incomprehensible set of views. And I can certainly understand why they would feel compelled to do that. If Hoppe is the leading light of Austrian economics as the Mises Institute presents him, then Austrian economics should prepare for a long dark age. At George Mason University I saw Hoppe present a lecture in which he claimed that Ludwig von Mises had set the intellectual foundation for not only economics, but for ethics, geometry, and optics, as well. This bizarre claim turned a serious scholar and profound thinker into a comical cult figure, a sort of Euro Kim Il Sung.

Hoppe's scholarship is so pitiful that one of his own colleagues -- who is still involved in the Mises Institute -- once remarked to me that Hoppe's book on ethics was a truly remarkable achievement; it was the only book he had ever read in which every step of the argument was a logical fallacy. And Mark Skousen, in his introduction to Dissent on Keynes: A Critical Appraisal of Keynesian Economics (New York; Praeger Publishers, 1992), felt obliged to single out and strongly disavow Hoppe's cranky economic views. Skousen made subtle reference to the unreadability of Hoppe's screed, which required extensive rewriting by Hoppe's friends at the Mises Institute, as well as to Hoppe's failure to understand fundamental Austrian economic principles, such as the role of time in economic adjustment. "As the editor of this volume, I have to admit that I do not agree with everything Professor Hoppe presents as Misesian economics, even in this significantly revised chapter. For example, I have serious doubts about his claim that market unemployment is 'always voluntary.' Certainly, permanent unemployment is always voluntary in the unhampered market, but a dynamic market is constantly generating temporary unemployment that requires time to correct." Skousen included the chapter by Hoppe only because he was threatened with legal action by Llewellyn Rockwell if he did not. One could go on with examples of how Hoppe and the Mises Institute have proven embarrassing to the Austrian economists by whom they claim to be inspired but what would be the point? Those who have had contact with him know that Hoppe is an intellectual bully and an academic disgrace.

:(

[Robert]

Agnapostate first asked:


Are there any prominent rightist intellectuals of the social sciences that live and have some major influence on public discourse?

Agnapostate now complains:



Absurd non-reply. No one asked if they had influence.

No. No one but you.

Will some good man tell me what exactly Agnapostate wants to know?

[Agnapostate]

Will some good man tell me what exactly Agnapostate wants to know?

Why you can't read, first and foremost, considering that I posted "I've not asked solely about influence, but about influence and prominence as an intellectual in some field of the social sciences" approximately 21 minutes before you posted this foolishness.

[Robert]

I meant someone other than you, Agnapostate.:lol:

[Skooma Addict]

Given the way most people here define "rightist" you could include...

Caplan, Stringham, De Soto, Selgin, Murphy, Cowen, Leeson, Boettke, and Lawrence White to name some.

[Bud Struggle]

Given the way most people here define "rightist" you could include...

Caplan, Stringham, De Soto, Selgin, Murphy, Cowen, Leeson, Boettke, and Lawrence White to name some.

And Bork!

And Scalia! I think prominence in the social science means more than just writing about social science in some obscure journal--sometimes it means affecting things in a meaningful sense. But that's just me. :rolleyes:


Will some good man tell me what exactly Agnapostate wants to know?


I believe Agnapostate's claim has been dismissed.

[cb9's_unity]

Robert, why the fuck are you trying to use the faults of Kieth Olberman against socialists? The guy's a liberal, and if you haven't noticed the people on this site don't have a lot of reverence for liberals.

And there isn't a serious contention that all conservatives or morons, or that their are no intellectual conservatives at all. The OP didn't assert that at all. However he did point out that those considered the 'leaders' of the conservative movement aren't exactly intellectual.

The large majority of conservatives have the same beliefs and use the same talking points and slogans. Now you could think that all these conservatives have done independent research and come to the same conclusions or you could think that, like most other political groups, the majority of them draw their political beliefs from a handful of politicians or commentators. The question is whether any of those commentators are actually intellectuals, or instead if they are pundits who do little more than come up with slogans that focus more on catchy-ness than accuracy or consistency.

From what I've seen the liberals are only a little better. The liberals are occasionally capable of putting forth a nuanced argument that actually addresses the issues at hand. However the majority of liberals still don't attach themselves to truly intellectual thought. If you look at how liberals get tripped up when being called 'socialists', it becomes clear that they don't have a fully fleshed out view of the full political spectrum.

The difference between the two is that many conservatives have an unabashed hatred of intellectualism. They believe 'common sense' and basic values rule over all intellectual thought and logic. They don't care about complex or nuanced arguments over simplistic one liners. Liberals at least pretend to care about intellectualism.

This could explain why the few conservatives who actually take independent stands and take time to really analyze subjects are pushed outside the American mainstream. I disagree with a lot of what Pat Buchanan says but I can respect him as an independent thinker. However he has very little sway in the conservative movement. I also watched some of the presidents 'health care summit'. There were some conservatives who actually went into the specifics of the bill. However the conservative leader at the summit, John Beohner, was an intellectual light weight who talked in nothing more than shallow talking points and inaccuracy's. The large majority of conservatives, despite caring deeply about health care, use Beohner's cheap and inaccurate talking points over real analysis of the issue. This results from the conservative aversion to true intellectual thought about nearly any issue. If they had leaders who made more complex arguments the whole movement may actually care about substantive discussion.