There are days when I think right-wing commentary has become more show business than scholarly analysis of the issues of the day.
I began to read conservative writers in a serious manner in the late 1960s. As with many conservatives my age, it began with William F. Buckley and his National Review. I can remember rushing to the mailbox to get my copy, and then often reading it in a single sitting, drinking deeply of the work of writers such as James Burnham, Frank S. Meyer, Russell Kirk, Willmoore Kendall, L. Brent Bozell, and Buckley himself.
From there I went to Modern Age, Intercollegiate Review, the late and great Triumph – and The Wanderer. It was an intellectually exhilarating experience for a young man searching for an alternative to the leftwing professors of the time, a valuable counterbalance to their drumbeat of Marxist propaganda.
These voices of conservatism were not always in agreement. Burnham was the champion of a kind of Bismarckian realpolitik, a razor-sharp mind who exposed the double standards of the Marxist sympathizers in the academy and the media. Kirk fought the battle for the standards of Western civilization against the secular relativists who had taken hold of our university systems in the years after World War II. The editors of Triumph and The Wanderer underscored the role of the Church as the underpinning of Western civilization. Frank Meyer wrote column after column, warning of the threat to individual liberty posed by the growth of the nanny-state and creeping socialism.
Sometimes the debate became heated, even acrimonious. At times, Kendall seemed to take delight in devastating critiques of his fellow conservatives. I can remember as if it were yesterday his scorching attack on Russell Kirk, whom he sarcastically called the “Benevolent Sage of Mecosta,” in reference to Kirk’s hometown in Michigan. The feud between Buckley and Bozell led to Bozell’s break with National Review and Bozell’s founding of Triumph. The feud was unfortunate, but the intellectual stimulus provided by Triumph was the by-product – no small contribution to the debate of the time.
But, back then, throughout all this scholarly give and take, there was no reason to doubt that what was being said was being said in the pursuit of truth. Nowadays I have my doubts.
Why? Consider certain ideas that were once central to conservative thought: anti-abortion advocacy; an understanding of the corrupting influence of pornography, opposition to gun control, a determination to use American military power and treasure only when our national interests were clearly at stake, a wariness about one-worldism and inroads against the nation-state system.
Each of these ideas once had prominent proponents on the right. If alive today, Kirk and Bozell would have led the charge against abortion, the drug culture and the impure images promoted by Hollywood and the music industry these days. Burnham would have cautioned us to look carefully at the use of American military power in pursuit of a “new world order” that has more to do with the United Nation’s vision of the future than the American founding fathers’.
But where are these ideas championed these days? There are conservative commentators who make the rounds of the talk shows. Some have their own talk shows: Rush Limbaugh, John McLaughlin, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity. But abortion, pornography and the movement toward world federalism are seldom mentioned in these venues. Instead a kind of stock conservatism has become the order of the day, what might be called a “respectable” conservatism from the point of view of television producers and advertisers: free-market economics, libertarian views on censorship, support for Israel, and an enthusiasm for broadsides against the Democratic Party and liberal activists in the trade union and environmental movements. It is not the conservatism heard on our military bases and among born-again Christians and traditional Catholics.
Am I saying that the modern conservative gurus have sold out to corporate interests? No, I can’t read their minds. But I would say that concerns over radio and television ratings and advertising dollars have entered the picture. When conservative thinking was formed in the pages of the old journals of opinion, such as National Review and Modern Age, there was no financial risk in presenting the conflicting views of traditionalist and libertarian theorists within the pages of these publications. Quite the contrary. Lively debate would likely boost circulation.
The same cannot be said about the modern talk shows, which seem to have replaced the journals of opinion as the forum for right-wing debate. They seem concerned about appearing “extremist,” “xenophobic,” “intolerant,” “racist” and “anti-Semitic.” “Respectability,” as judged by network and corporate executives, appears to be more important than a thorough and vigorous presentation of the ideas once thought central to what was called “movement conservatism.”
Am I overstating the case? I don’t think so. Why has Patrick Buchanan’s image been trashed? Agree with him or not, his concern for the survival of the nation-state and our national culture would have been widely supported in the old conservative journals of opinion. Now William Bennett accuses him of “flirting with fascism.”
And why is Joseph Sobran seldom seen on the talk shows? One can challenge Sobran’s contention that our political leaders are overly attentive to the demands of the Israeli lobby. But why isn’t that challenge made in televised confrontations with pro-Israel conservatives such as William Kristol and Fred Barnes? Why is Sobran not invited to make his case that American foreign policy is being distorted by our entanglement with Israeli interests in the Middle East?
It is hard to accept the idea that such confrontations would not be good for ratings. One is left with the suspicion that another motive shapes the decision of the producers of the talk shows. Like Buchanan’s, Sobran’s views are seen as extremist. Which they probably are at the yacht clubs where the movers and shakers relax on the weekends. I guess their conservatism is the new conservatism. You may think that a good thing. But we should be aware of what is happening. Let the buyer beware.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
