I agree with you about Brooks up to a point. I do think he is at least in the normal range of people. And while I, like many find him among the best of the conservative thinkers, He, IMO, is a real intellectual light weight. He constantly makes mistakes in logic.
Which, IMO, is why he spouts the conservative line. He can't see the liberal ideas and he picked up some right wing script along the way and works around it. Sort of like Tucker Carlson, only brooks is smarter. Neither of them get the big liberal ideas and as their views of the world are sort of two dimensional, which is what they take to an argument, but the reality is three dimensional.
My thesis has always been that there is no viable conservative philosophy, which is why you don't find any "real" conservative intellectual heavyweights. Not one. Conservatism is sort of an amorphous idea, which when put up to the light is an illusion. So there is neither anything of substance to put forth and is hard to defend. Why Buckley spoke so slow and haltingly. He needed time to find the argument. Liberals can just shoot it right out as it is usually a matter of fact or logic and clear cut.
Virtually all of the solid ideas for an intelligent, humanitarian social system are on the left.
On the right, there is no there, there. IMO.
Also why it is hard for us to compromise with the right. |
