So, is it possible to create a liberal version of the John M. Olin Foundation? I have my doubts. The success of any idea certainly depends to some extent on whether it can muster financial support, and it may also benefit from effective marketing. But in the end, not all ideas are equal. Some are simply better than others. After all, if money were everything, then liberalism would have nothing to worry about: the Ford Foundation's coffers alone dwarf the combined resources of the conservative grant makers. Conservatives never would have risen to prominence without their compelling critique of the welfare state, their faith in the power of free markets to create economic prosperity, and their belief that religion can play a constructive role in the public square. The economist Thomas Sowell once joked that Hank Aaron was a lucky man, because he was always stepping up to the plate when a home run was about to be hit. Likewise, conservative ideas took flight not because wealthy philanthropists were suddenly willing to finance them, but because they identified actual problems and offered sensible solutions. If liberals now want to create a counter-counterintelligentsia, it's going to take more than money; what they truly need is a set of really good ideas.
Conservatives never would have risen to prominence without their compelling critique of the welfare state, their faith in the power of free markets to create economic prosperity, and their belief that religion can play a constructive role in the public square.
The economist Thomas Sowell once joked that Hank Aaron was a lucky man, because he was always stepping up to the plate when a home run was about to be hit. Likewise, conservative ideas took flight not because wealthy philanthropists were suddenly willing to finance them, but because they identified actual problems and offered sensible solutions.
If liberals now want to create a counter-counterintelligentsia, it's going to take more than money; what they truly need is a set of really good ideas.
This is a totally inaccurate summary of this article. The writer does not say, or imply: "Please liberals come up with some new think tanks and save us." In fact it's the opposite. Please go [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/28/opinion/28miller.html?pagewanted=all]read this for yourself.
Of course the author is full of it here.
What the success of conservatism really shows is that some really lousy ideas with little basis in reality (but big benefits to a privileged class) can be foisted onto the public agenda with enough money and media control, and some luck.
The closing paragraphs are (emphasis is mine, not because I agree with it, but to show how inaccurate rdf's summary of the article is)
I'm not sure rdf deserved a "2" for that, but I always prefer positive reinforcement.
He provides only a very shorthand summary of the article. Arguably insufficient for those not familiar with the history of the rise of the US right. He then goes on and says that he interprets the evidence in fact (and indeed the whole sociological genesis of the article) as pointing to conservative failure, rather than the picture of success provided in the article.
He provides only a very shorthand summary of the article.
I believe I understand his criticism of the results of the conservative programs, and the "tongue in cheek" nature of some of his comments. But these are based on setting up a strawman description of an article that is patently false--and the article requires a subscription, I believe, to link to it, so a number of readers will, I think, accept the strawman. I can't understand your position on this one, Metatone. What is wrong with asking for accuracy on factual things? "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
You phrased things ambiguously:
article. Conservative failure???, it's just not what the article says. The closing paragraphs are
The issue there is that rdf never represented "conservative failure" as the view of the article. He says it is what he thinks. So that got me going.
rdf's summary of the article is clearly inadequate to discuss the article. The sadness for me is that I knew exactly what the article was going to claim before you quoted it. But then, maybe I've read too many histories of the US right so I know how people want to present it. You are entirely correct that whilst I might have interpreted the shorthand correctly, that's not what any sane individual was likely to do.
