I think you meant barrels, not gallons were spilled, no?

Brad,

The odd thing about this is that four years ago, one of the best
pieces about the waywardness of modern-day conservative punditry was written by...Steven Hayward:

http://articles.washingt...-f-buckley-intellectuals

I interviewed Hayward on my old radio show in 2009 about
his book on the Reagan years and the right's problems since:

http://www.blogtalkradio...ard-on-the-age-of-reagan

The thing I don't get about Hayward is that he has often argued that conservatives need to take environmental issues
seriously, while at the same time insulting progressives who take environmental issues seriously (see his "Green Weenie" pieces on Power Line). If conservatives are to take environmental issues seriously, they will have to show respect for the progressives who do the same, no?

D.R. -

I would, of course, ultimately defer to your expertise in matters of "conservative" intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I haven't gotten to listen to your interview with Hayward yet, but based on the WaPo article you cite, I'd say there are a number of insights there that you, understandably, may have missed, or willfully overlooked, when reading it the first time around.

For a start, it appears that he, like you (probably around the same time) and so many other previously legitimate conservatives, was going through a bit of hand-wringing and navel-gazing in the 2009, early post-Dubya era when virtually all of the long-extolled elements of modern conservatism had been both implemented and proven to have failed in dramatically spectacular ways.

At that point, it seems, there were two choices: 1) The road you took, coming to the realization of the con/failure and choosing to expose and shed light on it. 2) The road Hayward seems to have taken, digging in one's heels, biting the bullet and becoming what he had once (at least pretended) to abhor. One simply cannot be serious about the type of arguments you must have read in to his WaPo piece and then go to work for the execrable and self-discrediting PowerLine blog, as Hayward ultimately did.

But there were many hints in that WaPo piece of his you link to (one that I hadn't read previously). At the time, I suspect they were easy to overlook. For example, he wrote about Buckley's lack of sinking to the type of angry, intellectually dishonest wingnuttery we see from his party and movement now, thusly:

But suppose that instead of his formal addresses and his weekly "Firing Line" show on PBS, Buckley had hosted a talk radio show 15 hours a week for 20 years, or hosted a nightly hour-long cable news show, sliced into six-minute segments.

Clearly, that was just before, or just at the time, that Hayward was realizing that that's what his party and/or discredited movement had become. He would either need to join the equivalent of today's talk radio/cable news show in 6-minute segments (that would be an angry, non-credible disinformation site like PowerLine) or become a lost, irrelevant remnant of history.

He continued offering hints of same in the graf that followed it:

Mind you, what had become of the "conservative movement" was not discredited in his mind, as it would have been, by then, to any intellectually honest observer, but simply "thrown off balance". The cause: those darn populists! And because both Kristol and Coulter both start with the same consonant sound, the clown Kristol (who offered the "populism" of Sarah Palin as a way to same the movement in 2008) gets to fall on the not-discredited side of that argument. Imagine that! (Hayward knows well on which side his bread is buttered, it seems, as Kristol, of course, is the editor of the Weekly Standard which continues to offer Hayward a healthy amount of wingnut welfare in exchange for long, wrong, pre-discredited cover stories which offer "intellectual" insights like the case for Global Warming "is flat-lining" and "ClimateGate" email proves it was a hoax. Oh, and Al Gore is fat.)

But did Hayward offer any true intellectual honesty at all, even in that 2009 WaPo piece? He offers this whopper that suggests otherwise: "President Obama has done conservatives a great favor, delivering CPR to the movement with his program of government gigantism".

Seriously, dude? "His program of government gigantism"? That was not an intellectually honest man, even back then when he was appearing to exhibit oh, so honest introspection on what had become of his beloved party and movement.

Need more evidence? He characterized the "'tea party' phenomenon" as "authentic" in the very same piece. Really? Do you believe anyone with a straight face could characterize the Fox-created, GOP/Koch-funded Tea Party as "authentic" even back then??

Finally, he knew what was going on. He wrote: "The brain waves of the American right continue to be erratic, when they are not flat-lining" and then wrote "There are still conservative intellectuals attempting to produce important work, but some publishers have been cutting back on serious conservative titles because they don't sell."

Indeed, his type of "conservatism" no longer sells, and he knows it. His only audience is now a flat-lining American right. What better way to serve that very audience than by tossing out discredited nonsense and red-meat in exchange for Kristol dollars at Weekly Standard (and, likely, some form of tip from the fossil fuel industry, I'd imagine) and in the pages of today's equivalent of Right-wing loon radio: the PowerLine blog. Next stop for Hayward: Breitbart.com, if The Blaze doesn't scoop him up first.

He and you both faced a similar crises of conscience, it seems, right around the same time. You took the honest way out in exchange for little more than a good night's sleep and the ability to look in the mirror. He decided to dig in in his heels and keep the filthy dirty pipeline of wingnut welfare flowing.

Brad,

Good point, and thanks for pointing out the flaws I overlooked at the time. I went back and listened to my interview and, well, let's just say it doesn't hold up after 3 1/2 years.

With regard to your point: "Indeed, his type of 'conservatism' no longer sells, and he knows it. His only audience is now a flat-lining American right. What better way to serve that very audience than by tossing out discredited nonsense and red-meat in exchange for Kristol dollars at Weekly Standard (and, likely, some form of tip from the fossil fuel industry, I'd imagine) and in the pages of today's equivalent of Right-wing loon radio: the PowerLine blog. Next stop for Hayward: Breitbart.com, if The Blaze doesn't scoop him up first." Sadly, I think the entire conservative punditocracy, with rare exceptions (i.e., every one who has been branded a "RINO" by the right wing), made the collective decision to pander to the lowest common denominator, which is why I now go out of my way to avoid most conservative commentary. The quality just isn't there anymore.

I certainly can't gainsay the value of "a good night's sleep and the ability to look in the mirror." It felt great to regain that ability!

Happy Earth Day to all Brad Blog bloggers.

Great exposé Brad!

Steven F. Hayward is of Oil-Qaeda, the number one terrorist group on Earth.