I'm usually not one to defend so-called "liberals," since I agree with Brian Blase that there's quite a bit of "intellectual liberalism" around, although I disagree that they are a threat to conservatism.

In my estimation, they are more a threat to real progressive activity because "intellectual liberals" only seem to be visible and active when nothing is at stake. It's the progressive intellectuals who are active participants in politics that conservatives ought to be worried about. However, there aren't so many as there should be in the academy these days. Conservatism's doing fine at most universities. I nearly jumped for joy when Blase went after the "liberals" pronouncing, "Problems cannot be solved by throwing money at them."

Like that trillion-dollar tax cut that contributed to depleting the federal surplus and the likelihood of an economic recession. But that was a "conservative" idea, wasn't it? Sorry. I get the "liberals" and "conservatives" mixed up sometimes.

Barry Goldwater does, indeed, make a fine example of a "conservative thinker." His campaign platform for "smaller government" included ending social security, lessening price supports for farmers, and privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority and, least we forget, opposing federal enforcement of civil rights laws. He also supported the use of nuclear weapons against North Vietnam. Unlike some elections I might mention, I think the electorate got the outcome right on the money in 1964.