Like many freshmen, I left the comfortable world of my quaint suburban hometown and came to Princeton ready for intense intellectual development. I imagined attending the lecture of a famed conservative scholar and walking away with new ideas that challenged ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Ok, at the end of your article, you say that you wouldn't mind the death of the conservative movement. I think it's obvious, then, that there's nothing about you that would cause you to self-describe as a conservative. Is that why you're bringing up all these conservative straw men?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I don't think the author's claiming that George's inaccessibility makes him wrong as much as it limits his persuasive influence on behalf of the conservative cause.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"Despite my earnest attempt to understand [Professor George's] worldview, I found his scholarly approach utterly inaccessible." Sound like your main complaint about Robbie George is that you don't understand his arguments: I don't understand him, therefore he must be wrong! That says more about you than about Prof. George. And perhaps, Prof. George was just discussing his view of religion - not everything in life is political, you know.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
john mccain is actually 25 years older than barack obama
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I agree with the commenter who said that to say Coulter or Horowitz are conservative thinkers is as absurd as to hold up Michael Moore, Al Franken or Jon Steward as liberal luminaries. If you are truly interested in conservative and libertarian thought, I suggest you read some Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell. At Princeton, most conservative and libertarian students will be more than happy to discuss politics and philosophy with you, as long as you don't approach them with the kind of condescending attitude your article exhibits - they're actually very nice and reasonable people.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
If you think the conservative movement is dying or being replaced by only "young grotesque caricatures", I'd suggest taking advantage of being surrounded by brilliant Princeton students and having some discussions with your conservative peers. Most of us have no problem sharing our opinions as long as the listener has an open mind and doesn't throw Michael Moore "facts" or Bush-isms back in our face. (The same, of course, is true for the oppositte scenario.) Or start reading the editorials in the Wall Street Journal, which has arguably the most consistently well-written editorial page of the mainstream media.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ Fact Check, you're not making much of a point here. You're just reciprocating. Both what you and what Anon said is true: there are good liberals and bad liberals, good conservatives and bad conservatives.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Hmm. I've never before heard anyone characterize Professor George as hard to understand. I think that despite the complexity of the ideas students wrestle with in his classes, he's probably one of, if not the clearest and most straightforward professors I've ever had. His student reviews are top notch all across the board.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Anonymous: That comment is absurd. I've been a thoughtful, deeply rational liberal for many years, long before Obama came onto the scene. To reduce liberals to swooning idiots who fall for soundbites is just really offensive. I could say the same thing about conservatives who like to call themselves "pro-life" while supporting a president who oversaw dozens of executions in his career, some of which are likely to have been innocent. I could say the same of conservatives who like to say they "support the troops" while demanding a continuation of tax cuts at wartime, an unprecedented degree of selfishness considering that we've never cut taxes at wartime in the history of this country. So take a deep breath, Anon., and face the music... there's plenty of ignorance, hypocrisy, and stupidity on your side of the aisle.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Take one or Professor George's class. Using Frank Luntz and David Horowitz as examples of conservative thought is like me saying Al Franken and Michael Moore are the best the left has to offer intellectually. Your column lacks any "intellectual stimulation." I would offer that young people tend to be more liberal because they cannot fully understand and appreciate conservative views, but rather fall for empty soundbites from good looking politicians. They want "hope" and "change," but aren't willing to take the intellectual effort to examine what kind of change they want or where they should place their hope. There are smart liberals and smart conservatives. If you want to assume the conservative movement is dead, be my guest. But if you aren't willing to take it seriously, you do yourself a disservice.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
All in all though, I tend to disagree with your main point here. It sounds to me like you're not so much of a conservative seeking insight, but a self-hating conservative. If you are, then I can see why tiny things like Scalia's dated humour and a sophisticated explanation by Professor George are off-putting. If you're really seeking conservatism, those little things shouldn't bother you. Princeton is a fine place to be a conservative, and, to be honest, it's the conservatives that are embodying rational discourse and the liberals that are becoming complacent.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I think you might be looking for conservatism in all the wrong places. I'd suggest taking a class with Professor George, instead of his occasional lectures. Everyone--liberal and conservative--likes Professor George's classes.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
"conservative movement" = oxymoron
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!