Of course, I recognize that a lot of libertarian-minded Republicans don’t agree with any of what the kneejerks (it’s a noun now) have to say, which is fine. But I believe that there are at least a few thoughtful social conservatives out there, and I would hate to see their views marginalized by a kneejerk reaction in the opposite direction, which would cut off all association with social conservative positions, no matter how well-reasoned or articulately presented. This is why I think Posner’s abortion criticism is too simple; it implies that pro-life policies should be put on the back burner. Well, maybe they should be, but not just because they’re supported by the vocal Bible thumpers; you need a better reason than that.

Basic conservative principles would argue that government should refrain from interfering in personal liberties absent a clear necessity to do so. The need to infringe on any personal freedom should be demonstrated by a clear and convincing argument that the exercise of that freedom either unreasonably infringes on the rights of others, or that it undermines the orderly operation of society in a material way.

For too long, the only argument conservatives have articulated against abortion has been based on Christian religious doctrine. Each person should be free to act according to the tenets of their faith, but not to impose them on others. We have to be concerned when we begin asking government to create laws based solely on religious principles.

Either we can make a clear secular argument for how banning abortion is in the public interest or we can’t. If we can’t, then it seems to run counter to basic conservative philosophy to seek government intervention to impose our will. If we can make the argument, then we should set aside the faith-based justification for the purposes of forming public policy.

While we may revile abortion, we need to have the courage to act in accordance with the principals we espouse. If we can’t do that, perhaps we should admit that we don’t really believe in a limited role for government. At least not when we’re getting our way.

I couldn’t have said it better myself, Mark.
- Zenmervolt

By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.

Posner seems to be speaking of the Republican party, not “conservatism” as a whole. Certainly the fact that he explicitly mentions “conservative intellectuals” as having no party would indicate his belief that there does, in fact, remain a strain of conservatism that admits intellectuals. Given this, let’s look at his criticisms as they apply to the Republican party specifically and not to conservatism as an overarching political theory.

1) The failure of the military to secure foreign policy objectives. I see this as meaning that, while military force to accomplish foreign policy aims is not necessarily bad, it has failed in recent cases. As much as I agree that Iraq is better off as a democratic republic (indeed, the entire world is better off when dictators are replaced with republics), the simple fact is that the deposition of Saddam was not the stated foreign policy goal. The initial stated foreign policy goal was to remove WMDs, which were later discovered not to have existed.

To be sure, I believe that this was due to a lack of intelligence data and not to any intentional deception by those in power. That does not, however, change the fact that the initial foreign policy goal was never reached. Similarly, the foreign policy goals in Afghanistan regarding Al Qaeda have not been reached. While good things are indeed coming out of our intervention in Iraq, it strikes me as disingenuous to claim that those results were the original goals. The overall impression of both actions is that we blundered in without a clear plan or exit strategy and this, I believe, is where the failure comes into play.

2) The inanity of substituting will for intellect. To deny that there are religious litmus tests within the current Republican party is to be oblivious to reality. The amount of pull that the “religious right” has within the party very effectively stifles the party’s ability to put forth any national candidate who does not adhere to some form of Christianity. The plain fact is that a person’s religious orientation, something that is properly an irrelevancy, is considered to be of vital importance to a significant (and highly vocal) portion of the Republican party.

As regards the denial of global warming, I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, there does exist legitimate research that is highly critical of many claims made by those who push the global warming agenda and many proposed actions to counter global warming would provide little, if any, measurable benefit if implemented. On the other hand, it is reckless to claim, as many do, that global warming is categorically not occurring. This is an area that requires rather extensive scientific study, especially considering that there is still a lack of consensus within the scientific community about mankind’s contributions to climate change. The Republican party is clearly losing face here by making categorical denials of climate change which are no different from the Democratic party’s claims of certainty. To be truly friendly to intellectuals, the Republican party would need to admit that climate change is an open issue that requires additional study.

3) A continued preoccupation with abortion. I believe that this gets blurred a little with the religious litmus tests that exist within the current iteration of the Republican party. It is one thing to develop a logical and secular argument against abortion. It is another to merely invoke “faith” or “the sanctity of life” and use that as an excuse to engage the opposition in any rational discussion. While I agree with your evaluation that the Republican party has always contained a large segment that opposed abortion, this did not become its own litmus test issue until recently. The problem is not so much that many Republicans are against abortion as it is that anyone who attempts to identify himself (or herself) as a Republican while simultaneously supporting a woman’s right to choose will quickly find himself (or herself) disparaged on all fronts by his (or her) own party.

A person may agree with every other Republican position, but if they are not staunchly pro-life, they are very clearly unwelcome within the party. I believe it is this phenomenon to which Posner is referring.

4) Fiscal incontinence. No arguments here. I think that you’ve said it all on this one.