With conservatism becoming increasingly decadent, I worry for the future of America.

I worry, like Ben Adler, that true economic conservatism has been lost to a crude pro-corporate mindset:

In yesterday’s New York Times, Jason DeParle writes about the Heritage
Foundation’s cushy summer internship program for young conservative activists and
intellectuals. One sentence in particular stands out: “Katherine Rogers, a junior at
Georgetown … is working in donor relations, which she thinks will be useful in her
intended career as a pharmaceutical lobbyist.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The earnest young right-wing politico dreams not of a
job where she learns new things every day, or grapples with ideas, or experiences the
satisfaction of helping other people. She dreams of shilling for a self-interested
corporation. And forget the political implications. What junior in college dreams
of lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry?

And I worry, like Andrew Sullivan, that conservatives are increasingly confusing ideological journalism with pro-GOP propaganda:

I found myself watching the Sean Hannity “interview” of vice-president Dick Cheney last night on Fox. I must say I have chortled through quite a few Larry King-style, fawning interviews by liberal journalists of liberal politicians in my time – all under the rubric of “objectivity.” But I don’t think I have ever witnessed a more fawning, sycophantic and simply rigged interview than that between Hannity and Cheney. In fact, the whole conceit that this was an actual interview is preposterous, along with the notion that Hannity is in any way a journalist. The first instinct of an actual journalist is to ask the tough questions even of someone you admire – perhaps especially of someone you admire. Hannity’s instinct is the exact opposite: ingratiation of his interview subject and his audience. The transcript reveals no distinction of any meaningful kind between the interviewer and interviewee…

This is a free country, and Sean Hannity and Fox News can broadcast what they want. Fox is far more entertaining than the other cable news channels and I can see its appeal, and the need for a less liberal network. But this was not journalism. It was propaganda, cloyingly arranged between interviewer and interviewee, based on talking points adhered to by both sides, and broadcast as if it were a real interview. I worry that viewers actually begin to believe that this is journalism, that asking questions designed to help the interviewer better make his case, in fact often supplementing his answers to improve their rhetorical power, is somehow what real journalists do. It isn’t. I wish I could provide a better kicker for this blog item than Sean Hannity did. But I can’t. So here’s his sign-off: “Lynne, I was too tough on him.”

And I worry, like Sullivan, about the censorious impulse to lump books by some of the leading thinkers in Western history together with those of Hitler and Mao:

I guess it’s not crazy to come up with a list of the “ten most harmful books” of the last two centuries. But it’s not a sign of intellectual health. It implies that some ideas are worth suppressing for the harm they might do. To my mind, an argument or a book should be read with as open a mind as possible. Its errors or moral failings are better brought to light by exposure than buried. But some of today’s conservative intellectuals believe otherwise; and this list by “Human Events” contributors is a disturbing one, and a sign of increasing morbidity in conservative intellectual circles. Sure, it’s hard to dispute the evil power of hackish tracts like Mein Kampf or Mao’s Little Red Book. (I’m surprised the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ didn’t make the grade.) But Darwin and Nietzsche, two of the greatest minds in Western civilization, whose works still mesmerize and intrigue smart readers and whose ideas are subject to countless interpretations? And Mill and Keynes and Freud? Please. If I were a young conservative mind, the first thing I’d do is read these Indexed books and make my own mind up. It should be possible to be a conservative with a genuinely liberal approach to intellectual inquiry. And that excludes exclusion of ideas deemed “harmful.”

Have conservatives forgotten that what’s good for corporations isn’t always good for the economy? That what’s good for the Republican Party isn’t always good for conservatism — or the country? That the free exchange of ideas strengthens democracy?

I worry.