The Imaginative Conservative (along with the American Conservative) has become one of the few organs of conservative opinion left that I respect. Tom writes:
Ralph Nader Understands Conservatism Better Than Most “Conservatives”
Probably because he wants to conserve something.
“So it is that thinking folk of conservative views ought to reject the embraces of the following categories of political zealots: … And various other gentry who abjure liberalism but are capable of conserving nothing worth keeping.” — Russell Kirk, Enlivening the Conservative Mind
Besides the sad state of affairs in which there are only two magazines left with sane, reasoned, and rational conservative thought/opinion, you know hell has frozen over when a liberal-leaning newspaper like the New York Times provides much better writing and verified (researched) facts from credible sources than do most modern conservative papers and websites.
The conservative sources that people like to cite these days — like their ultra-liberal counterparts — seem to report a lot of false and unsubstantiated rumors from unverified sources. Not saying that the New York Times is perfect or without its bias, but I trust stories there more than I do from many other places.
You do?!?!? I find their stories to be not only horribly biased, but badly researched. Like that doom & gloom “hackers in Russia have used SQL injection to amass One Billion Passwords” that was so obviously just a planted story to sell $120/year password insurance. Real software engineers to New York Times: SQL Injection bugs are tested for long before production. NO financial website fails to test for SQL Injection.
Almost all papers today have their share of hack articles and journalists, no doubt. Every paper has its editorial bias. But overall the percentage of poorly-researched articles in the NYTimes is much lower than in other venues (mostly online) that have 90-100% bad reporting, writing, editing, and research.
NYTimes and WSJ have their obvious biases, but have generally better journalistic standards. As far as I know NYT or WSJ do not reference fringe stories. If they do, they get called out on them by readers. Also their online reader comment sections are generally more sane than others.
I see the NYT and WSJ readers as being largely echo chambers, ignorant of both history and tradition. The stuff that comes out of those two newspapers is extremely biased by the city in which they are published, and the wish of the crony capitalism of that city to dominate the beliefs of the entire world with an iron fist.
I see both as little better than Soviet Era Pravada.
the times is a local paper, you know that right? it’s SUPPOSED to report from a new York perspective, it’s the “new York ” times.
if it didn’t exist the right wingers would have to invent it.
As is the Wall Street Journal- but both, like the communities they serve, wish to be thought of as *the only opinion possible*. Nobody can be allowed to have a local market without the big investment banks, nobody can be allowed to have a morality that fits their community without the New York Times weighing in o how the rest of the world is all wrong.
Yup, those are the two I read, along with Front Porch Republic.
Lest we forget, it is profitable to conduct people to insanity. When your followers are a slavering pack of hydrophobic dogs, it is easy to reap cash from them (Right or Left). These folks were considered the lunatic fringe 50 years back. Somehow in the time from the election of President Nixon to the election of President Obama, the tinfoil hat brigades took up center court.
There is hope. sooner or later (sooner, please) sanity has to prevail because all the loons tend to self-destruct.
President Eisenhower underestimated the power of the ultra right wing when he wrote the following:
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
The Social Security actuaries and labor unions are doing fine jobs moving towards obsolescence by themselves.
Wow, that’s a very interesting read. Sounds an awful lot like what those crazy tea party activists are talking about, but I agree in greater depth and more intellectually consistent.
maybe in the beginning the tea party represented some good, but now it’s about cutting big business taxes and regulations, protecting assault rifle ownership, and kicking/keeping out catholic immigrants as far as i can tell. they pretty much suck-ass and don’t differ much from their stupid know nothing predecessors.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Tea Party people right up until the point when they open their mouths. Not one of them has any idea what’s actually wrong or how to fix it.
That Nadar article is very interesting. And some of the comments below the article demonstrate that self-described “conservatives” are so drunk on “anti-government” rhetoric they can’t even read.
i was a charter subscriber to American Conservative, when nobody’d heard of it. [/conservative hipster]
As a youngster in the crowd, I have to say this is how it’s always been portrayed. Since I can remember, since around 1980 when I started to pay attention, conservatives generally have been portrayed as racist misogynist greedy patriots (back when the word had bad connotations) who would gladly nuke the world for the American way of life. Stupid, too. Almost always stupid. On occasion there were exceptions (William F. Buckley, Jr. and a sprinkling of others being most common examples). But generally that was the picture that was painted. My beef with conservatives is how so many popular representatives seem to think that living up to the stereotypes is doing conservatism some good. The bad narrative was already established, validating it doesn’t seem to help.
It’s a lot like those atheists who “agree with Jesus more than most Christians” and enthusiastically tell you so every chance they get. Meanwhile, here’s John C Wright with a genuinely reasoned and conservative take on distributism.