Whose Role to Monitor the Conservative Movement?

William F. Buckley and National Review magazine took on as part of their role in the conservative movement defining the movement excluding all of the conspiracy theorists, objectivists, and other assorted wackos.  With Buckley gone, the wackos have been coming to the forefront, with the help of Glenn Beck.  Paul Ryan was accused of collusion with the objectivists during the campaign, still a charge to make some shutter although they probably have no idea what objectivism is.  Agenda 21 is being mentioned at City Council meetings and state legislatures.  The conservative movement is losing focus and getting sidetracked with a lot of nonsense.

The latest wave of activists to invade the Republican party, the Tea Party activists, still seem reluctant to define conservatism, other than vaguely part of the Liberty movement.  Establishment Republicans like John Boehner not only are withholding funds and support from Tea Party politicians, but have no real political philosophy themselves to help define the movement.  Unlike the Goldwater and Reagan conservatives before them, the Tea Party movement is unwilling to take responsibility for its role in the movement and as such unable is partly responsible for its lack of  efinition.  The main spokes person for the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin, seems to prefer DWS than trying to be a political leader, she can't be blamed considering the ferocity of the attacks against her, but interest in her and SarahPAC has disintegrated.

The Bushies time has come and gone, outside of Fox News no one really cares what they think.  Karl Rove lost any credibility he may have had in the recent Presidential election.  Dana Perino is nice to look at but a policy lightweight.  Bush 43 owed much of his policy decisions to the neocons, a group that has lost meaning as its main objective was foreign policy and Obama has completely undermined their middle eastern initiatives.  I have alot of respect for the intelligence of William Kristol, but he too has now lost any relevance in a post-Bush world.  The Weekly Standard, the house organ of the neocons, outside of Roger Ailes, no one really cares what they have to say.

The Libertarian Party has strictly defined the liberty movement, but feels it is not important to actually win elections or gain any influece politically preferring philosophical purity.  This defines the liberty movement but keeps the liberty movement from having any influence on national politics other than as spoilers.

Robert Bartley as Editorial Page Editor of the National Review helped define free market capitalism.  The page now under the watchful eye of Paul Gigot does not have quite the same panache.  Bartley brought the WSJ Editorial page to new heights, as a Reaganite he was an avid supporter of Jude Wanniski and supply side economics.  He even wrote a book about it 'The Seven Fat Years and How To Do It Again', never wavering from his principles unlike some of the opportunists like David Stockman and Bruce Bartlett.  The conservative movement has no real spokesman defining a good economic message outside of Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore.  Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio are supply siders but fail to deliver the message with the enthusiasm of a Jack Kemp.