Exactly how many “inane and incoherent conspiracy theories” that you think Beck has that you can disprove?

Oh how the progressives would love us to sit on the sidelines and let them dismantle capitalism because we don’t want to be labeled a conspiracy nut.

J.C. wrote: “Beck, who believes the founding fathers were prophets of an all-powerful being, is one example of this trend. It’s a real shame.”

J. C., I’ve never heard Beck say this…is this your conspiracy theory? If he does believe that, what is the worse that could result in that ideology?

I have heard plenty of progressives try to marginalize the Founders in an effort to discount the value of the Constitution. If you’re a conservative you should be very careful about lying in the grass with the progressives.

Samuel

You accuse him of being a religious fanatic and a crackpot conspiracist. He’s neither.

It seems you’ve perhaps been influenced by the Salon article attacking the 5000 Year Leap. It seems you’ve adopted the leftist smear of Beck as a conspiracist. (There was an article in The New Republic recently promulgating this smear.)

I’ve blogged against both of these perceptions.

First in my Crackpot Chronicles series:
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/17/the-final-word-on-the-crackpot-conspiracist-mindset/

And second in my Leaping Back to the Founding Series which is ongoing:
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/01/leaping-back-to-the-founding/

There are plenty of things to get on Beck about. He does make mistakes, he does go too far sometimes, and often his rhetoric is over the top. But your attacks against him and postmodern conservatism are not valid.

I’m aware of your definition of “postmodern conservatism”. I’m merely saying that the similarities between leftist postmodernism and your postmodern conservatism (assuming Beck truly is a representative of this movement) run deeper than you realize.

Leftist postmodernism failed because of its wild irrationality. Beck is just taking conservatism down that same path with his inane and incoherent conspiracy theories. When belief in those conspiracy theories becomes a “litmus test” for conservatism, that’s a problem. Yet this seems to be the way things are going.

Conservative judge Richard Posner talks about “the intellectual decline of conservatism” exemplified by this “new conservatism” powered mainly by “emotion and religion”. The ideas coming from this “new conservatism” have “for the most part weak intellectual groundings.” Unlike past conservative leaders, the new faces of conservatism are “strident and populist”, and “substitute will for intelligence” to the point where “anti-intellectualism is embraced and extolled” by the Right. The result is a party led by “mean-spirited, out-of-touch, know-nothing deniers of science (e.g., evolution, climate change).”

Beck, who believes the founding fathers were prophets of an all-powerful being, is one example of this trend. It’s a real shame.

Irving Kristol made up neo-conservatism. People define schools of thought as they develop. Deal with it. There’s nothing controversial about this.

I can begin the discussion to define what postmodern conservatism is. Furthermore, as I’ve demonstrated “postmodern” has many definitions. Just pick up a dictionary and see. And one of the definitions is the way that I’m using it here.

I think the reason you’re so pissed off that you start insulting me is that you have no idea how to deal with what I’ve presented to you. As an Objectivist True Believer you see everything in black and white. I’ve presented you with something gray with one term that is black to you (postmodern) and another that is white (conservative.) And you don’t know how to take it. You’re trying to weigh to see if there is more white or more black in it. Judging by how you’re lashing out at me you seem to be choosing the latter path. Oh well. Not much I can do.

And no, the question is not irrelevant. You’re attacking me for allegedly not understanding David Horowitz’s ideas. I take that as a big insult. You refuse to answer it because if you did then it would reveal that I’m probably better qualified to judge what he thinks than you are.

both share a contempt for science and reason; both reject well-considered and supported arguments in favor of hyperbole and personality and both glorify the “crank” while mocking “so-called experts”

None of these are traits of postmodern conservatism as I’ve defined it in my article. They’re just slurs concocted by you.

Horowitz rejects the term as it’s defined by Kevin Mattson. According to Mattson a postmodern conservative is one who lies to pursue his policy objectives. Horowitz does not reject the term as I defined it in that essay. And the fact that he’s hired me to work full time editing two of his publications leads me to believe he thinks I understand his work and support his ideas.

I’ll ask you again since you dodged the question the first time: how many of Horowitz’s books have you read? Which ones have you read? Because I think I know his work (and him personally) a hell of a lot better than you do.

Postmodern philosophy was born on the Left, where it seemed to have died; but its spirit has found new life on the Right.

OK, my apologies. You just seemed to be leaping at my use of “postmodern” and condemning “postmodern conservatism” before you understood what it was I was articulating.

I’m still curious, though, which books by David Horowitz you have read. Because if you disagree with my definition of what “postmodern conservatism” is or you don’t think he fits into this developing ideological disposition, then that’s something I’d want to discuss. (Because part of the whole postmodern conservatism thing is being very open to finding new ideas from others.)

I’m always eager to discuss his work with others to gain new insights for my book.