Herman Cain and The Decline of Conservative Intellectualism
by: Chisda Magid on November 12th, 2011 | 3 Comments »
Herman Cain and Ron Paul at the August 11, 2011 GOP/FOX News debate. flickr / iowapolitics.com
In 2010 Julian Sanchez set off a debate amongst conservatives when he argued that the movement suffered from “epistemic closure” – getting all of their ideas only from each other. This suggests a particularly ideological and rigidly conservative movement unwilling to challenge its principles despite contravening facts. Bruce Bartlett, a former economic advisor for the George H.W. Bush administration and outspoken critic of the second Bush administration, made a similar claim when he said, “conservatives have sort of reached a position of intellectual closure [italics added].” He means that the conservative intellectualism of the 70s and 80s precipitated an era of complacency and stagnation in the conservative movement. Modern conservatives debate how to implement the ideas of their ideological forbearers, but are reluctant to examine the ideas themselves. John Huntsman Jr. seems to imply this idea when he chastises other Republican candidates for their dismissal and derision of the scientific community when the science contradicts their preexisting conservative beliefs.
Steve Benen offers a particularly pertinent anecdote drawn from the writings of Herman Cain in which the presidential candidate suggests that his awareness of national issues comes primarily, if not entirely, from conservative talk radio shows. The conservative talk show hosts of today are not trained in public policy and do not develop their political ideologies. Instead, these entertainers simplify complex ideas developed by earlier thinkers in their movement. These radio shows provide talking points that assume conservative orthodoxy is fact. The scientific community is viewed with derision by hosts who believe that ideology is better suited to address these issues then the scientific process. These talk hosts are only interested in promoting, rather then examining, their ideological principles.
Herman Cain is not an outlier in terms of his dogmatic approach to national issues. The fact that these talk shows have informed his public policy positions, rather than the academic or scientific communities, on matters as dire as climate change is troubling. Are American voters going to tolerate an uncritical application of conservative ideology? Or will they demand a president who respects scholarly experts and is willing to find compromises between the competing governing ideologies of this nation?
When considering solutions to problems of statecraft and/or morality there are few absolutes. And those who are trying to game the system are always with us. Therefore the best solutions to our problems are seldom found in absolutes. Also, science sometimes gives us more information about the facts which confront us; such information can often better inform our decision.
Now, political and moral uncertainty are always with us, save on a limited number of questions. This will always make many of us uncomfortable. Our most common reaction to discomfort is to seek to attenuate it. And attenuation can be found in many things. But denial, drugs and/or doctrine are the most common.
For example, at one time in Europe the doctrine was established that there was one universal church. The guy who ran this church was infallible on questions of faith and morals. Oh, and everybody else had to kick in 10% in return for moral guidance and some care for the poor. This seemed simple. The doctrine tried to remove uncertainty. But alas, almost the whole system fell apart relatively quickly.
Today, in the USA, the Conservative doctrine is that there is no human contribution to global warming; which isn’t happening in any case. And the less the 01% pay in taxes the better off everyone will be. This is simple enough. But this doctrine can not lead us to a happy ending.
The conservative intellectual conversation has moved to the Democratic Party.
Interesting thought, Bruce. I will have to ponder that for awhile. There is certainly a battle going on between corporate and progressive Dem’s. From what I’ve read of the Repub debates, it’s a celebration of stupidity.