The Math Gene: A Ticket to Wealth or Nerdiness?

To say that a person has the Math Gene[1] is to attribute to him an unusual propensity to handle numbers and the advanced algorithmic processes by which experts manipulate them. Although, among the people who possess these special talents, there is no biological or neurological evidence for any of it. And yet, those of us who exhibit these traits are easily identified among the general population.

My gene became evident at a young age and has remained conspicuous during all of my professional life. Throughout my journey, I have naturally and consciously surrounded myself with others like me. This is not surprising. Human beings always seek companions and colleagues who not only think and behave like they do, but inhabit a world of ideas, attitudes and habits similar to their own.

In fact we mathematicians stand out. We don’t think and behave like the vast majority of our fellow citizens. John Q. Public knows us when he sees us, and – at the risk of overgeneralization – here are some of the more striking of our singular characteristics:

  • We’re often socially awkward. We generally don’t pay much attention to clothes, fashion, or what’s in or hot or cool. Our homes, cars and bodies are often unkempt, and we do poorly at small talk. We tend to be introverted, soft-spoken and not terribly athletic.
  • We excel at abstract thinking, but are notoriously weak at practical affairs.
  • We are amazing problem solvers, especially those of the abstract or theoretical variety; but please don’t ask us to change a tire or balance a checkbook.
  • We sometimes find it hard to look you straight in the eye, and we are easily embarrassed when we find ourselves the center of attention.

I cannot tell you how many times in my life when, in casual conversation with someone I’ve just met, after I reveal that I am a mathematician, the reaction is: “Omigod, math was my worse subject in school; it was soooo hard. You must be a genius.” But at the same time, the one who has just uttered the confession/paean gives a furtive look at a fellow conversant which screams: “What a nerd! I wouldn’t have been like this guy for my weight in gold.”

However, in recent years, I detect another partially hidden reaction – both in stolen glances as well as in meekly asked follow up questions, like “So do you have a software or consulting company? I bet that you do OK?”

This is a result of society’s increasing fascination with technology and the seeming nerds who have pioneered its development. The names Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergei Brin and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind. Which leads to the question posed in the title: Is the Math Gene a ticket to wealth or nerdiness?

Alas, if there is a definitive answer, it is far closer to the latter than the former. Of the four names cited, only Brin can lay any claim to be a mathematician, and in fact his academic pedigree is more computer science than mathematics. Indeed, I know of only one academic mathematician — a former professor at Stony Brook University – who parlayed his math talent into a fortune. There might be others, but I doubt very many. For the qualities that I have identified, which characterize mathematicians, are not those that equip a person with the skills needed to acquire great wealth.

Although the depiction of Mark Zuckerberg in the opening scene of The Social Network suggests some of the math nerd characteristics that I’ve specified, it would be a mistake to suppose that those traits helped Zuckerberg to attain the phenomenal wealth that he enjoys today. No, the traits that enabled him and the other great modern technological entrepreneurs to do the things that garnered massive wealth for them were otherwise. They certainly include: extraordinary creativity and originality – as opposed to mere problem-solving skills; a willingness, indeed eagerness to take great risks; an aggressive, self-confident and strong-willed personality; persistence and single-mindedness; an ability to read people and gauge their desires; and an inclination to defy convention and a lack of concern about what others think of them.

Not exactly the characteristics of your typical mathematician. But, if I might address a wider audience than just the normal Notices’ readership: Not to despair all ye parents and grandparents of a budding mathematician. Your progeny will not be cool, not trendy, probably not a leader of men and almost certainly not rich. But a life of mathematics will yield: the satisfaction of cracking numerous mathematical puzzles; a professional life of honesty, fulfillment, a sense of doing something worthy and occasional serenity; a camaraderie with others who are similarly endowed; and the respect, if not admiration, from the people one serves.

So if your kid can swing a golf club as well as he can juggle numbers, and if you think that he would prefer riches to the contentment of a life filled with numbers, then take away his calculator and jam a putter in his hand. But if he does have the Math Gene and you encourage it to flourish, then I promise you that he will lead a life in which he enjoys what he does for a living, often feels the joy of solving problems – even if they are theoretical and not practical, and finally, through teaching and research, he will take pride and pleasure in his role in the advancement of human knowledge.
[1] The title of this essay The Math Gene is the same as the title of Keith Devlin’s fascinating 2001 book.  But the essay takes a different point of view. Whereas Devlin’s book deals with the nature of mathematical thought, the workings of the human mind, and an intricate comparison of innate mathematical ability with innate language ability; this essay deals solely with the nature and behavior of mathematicians themselves — in particular, their social manifestations and economic motivations.

This essay also appeared in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society at:

Explaining the Romney Debacle

Exploring the reasons offered for Romney’s defeat — while citing relevant words from two recent books by Gelernter and Crowley that essentially predicted it

Conservatives are stunned by the outcome of the just concluded presidential election. They had rationalized Obama’s 2008 victory as an understandable aberration by the American people. Weary of the deleterious effects of the Bush presidency (two inconclusive wars, profligate government spending, the confusing message of a supposedly conservative administration advancing big government programs and, of course, a dangerous economic meltdown); smitten by the purportedly optimistic, post-partisan, unifying message of a largely unknown and untested neophyte – aided and abetted by an adoring media; and anxious to allay once and for all its heartfelt guilt over American slavery; the people understandably engaged in a risky, indeed somewhat reckless act of installing the least qualified individual ever to occupy the Oval Office.

But after four years of: shrill partisan posturing; failed Keynesian policies that prolonged the economic crisis; weak-kneed foreign policy that heralded a sharp decline in American prestige and power; a massive expansion in the Federal debt and deficit that threatens our children and grandchildren’s prosperity; and a draconian explosion in federal regulations (including Obamacare) that are crippling American business – after all that, surely the American people would recognize the folly of their decision to entrust the presidency to an amateur, pseudo-socialist. Surely they would rectify the mistake.

Wrong! America doubled down on the wretched hand that it dealt itself in 2008.

And so the soul searching has begun. How could this happen? What is the cause? Here are the most commonly offered ‘after the fact’ explanations:

  • Demographics. The size of the groups who support the president’s leftist policies – namely, blacks, Hispanics, single women and young voters – has reached a point wherein they constitute a natural majority. This tilt will only intensify in the future.
  • Schism. The split in the Republican Party between TEA Party conservatives and more moderate establishment types depresses Republican voter turnout and, until it is resolved, it will fatally cripple Republican presidential possibilities.
  • Ground Game. The Democrats are doing a much better job of energizing their base and getting it to the polls – both in early voting and on election day.
  • Cultural Shift. The character of the American people has fundamentally changed. No longer are we the heirs of the founding generation. We have become more like our European cousins. In short, we no longer subscribe to the Founders’ principles, to wit: liberty is paramount, above equality; government should be limited, its influence superseded by that of individuals, families and communities; markets should be free, government only enforces the rules of play, it does not interfere in the game, that is, in the commerce of the people; democracy only works when it is grounded in the moral guidelines of a religious people, not because of any abstract belief in the ‘goodness of man’; and America is exceptional, a beacon of freedom to all mankind. We have reached the point wherein more than half the population believes in the precise opposite of the above five principles.

In fact, the last explanation – Cultural Shift – is decidedly not ‘after the fact.’ Furthermore, while the first three reasons all have substantial merit, I believe it is the last that is the most telling. This is because, difficult as it might be, each of the first three ‘excuses’ could be overcome. First, the demographics don’t lie. But as many have pointed out, the Hispanic and black communities are inherently conservative and with the right approach, Republicans might be able to wean them from their hypnotic obeisance to the siren call of the Left. Next, the Democratic Party has been completely captured by its left wing. What is to say that conservatives can’t take an equally firm grip on the Republican Party? Third, improving a ground game is merely a technical/logistical matter.

In the same vein, one might assert that America has had religious revivals before. Why not another that would shift the cultural foundation back to its traditional moorings? Indeed the likelihood of that is minuscule compared to the possibility of a reversal in any of the other three explanations. In fact, many cultural conservatives believe that we have already experienced an actual cultural/social collapse from which it is probably impossible to recover. Furthermore, to return to the thought at the beginning of the previous paragraph, this explanation for Romney’s defeat was not really discovered only after the election. Many conservatives had been exploring this idea in various venues – well before the election. Two excellent examples of such Cassandra-like warnings can be found in America Lite by David Gelernter and What the (Bleep) Just Happened by Monica Crowley. Both are extremely well written and well researched books. Gelernter focuses primarily on the state of higher education and the role it has played in the transformation of American society. Crowley, on the other hand, while she connects the dots to past administrations, focuses her attention largely on the Obama years and how it represents the culmination of a century-long process by which the progressive movement has subverted traditional American society.

Here are some relevant quotes from the two works. The reader may ponder, based on these trenchant observations, whether there is any hope for a preservation of America in its traditional incarnation.

Gelernter. The quality and content of the education provided is a clear indication of the quality and tendency of the democracy that provides it,” wrote Lionel Trilling in 1952. A famous report called “A Nation at Risk,” in 1983, put the nation on notice that its schools were failing. In 1987, Alan Bloom’s widely read The Closing of the American Mind told Americans that their elite colleges were grossly politicized. The facts of educational decay were intolerable and all around us, like a mountainous garbage dump across the street on a hot day, with thousands of cawing crows spiraling cynically overhead and the stench of rot invading every last cubic inch. It took a powerful act of will to ignore the state of our schools, but we summoned up the will and we did it. And are still doing it.

Those famous reports of the 1980s, and others like them, described changes that had already happened. The big change in U.S. education happened mainly during the 1970s; it was widely and reliably reported in the 1980s—and has been largely ignored ever since. For roughly thirty years we have been aware of massive, portentous changes in how we educate our youth—and we have shrugged them off. And things have only got worse. American students learn little or no history or literature or civics. “Only a third of Americans can name the three branches of government,” noted the former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “But 75 percent of kids can tell you American Idol judges.” We wince and move on.

So long as the educators are left-wing, the rest of the country could be 98 percent conservative and it wouldn’t matter. The left-lib blot will spread; nothing can stop it. If the educators are left-wing, the nation must fill up inexorably with graduates who are left-wing, just like their teachers.

During the 1970s, many left-wing teachers taught their political beliefs — the message of America’s own cultural revolution — to their students. Those students were the leading edge of the Airhead Army. Among this leading edge, some graduated to become teachers themselves. They handed the message on to their students. Every year saw a new group of students emerge for whom the message of the revolution seemed less like radical left-wing politics and more like simple truth. In modern America, the left gets its way not by convincing people but by indoctrinating their children.

Crowley. We’ve had all kinds in the presidency, but Obama represents a first. All previous presidents had guiding political philosophies, which they all bent—to some degree or another—when it became too difficult politically to stick to them or when the American people resoundingly rejected what they were doing. Some of them pressed on anyway, but all of them at least acknowledged the American people and registered their discontent. All previous presidents had at least some degree of responsiveness to the people they led. Not Obama. This president is driven by such a devout and fervent ideology that nothing—not big majorities of the American people, not the Constitution—can stop him. We’ve seen other transformative presidents—Lincoln, FDR, Reagan—but none of them attempted to transform the nation into something wholly unrecognizable as America—until this one.

This was the essence of Obama’s Declaration of Dependence. Instead of treating them [government programs] as temporary helping hands to only those in need, the redistributionists saw the programs as gleaming opportunities for the massive expansion of government power as well as leverage to build a permanent Democratic majority. If they could maneuver the programs into ever-growing entities that covered ever-growing numbers of people, those same people would become ever dependent on government and, therefore, ever grateful to the party and ideology that made that assistance available to them.

The redistributionists have always kept their eyes on the prize. They have played the long game. And they have carefully cloaked another truth: since the balance between government power and liberty is zero-sum, the more power the government amasses, the less liberty there is for the individual. Their massive spending is deliberate: it is a coldly calculated move to destroy the fiscal health of the country in order to justify a constantly metastasizing state. It’s like the classic 1958 horror/sci-fi flick The Blob. The Blob starts out as a tiny jellylike substance. But it quickly grows and grows, until its mass is enormous and completely uncontrollable, consuming everything in its path of destruction.”

We blindly and willingly gave the keys to the kingdom to a stranger who then blindfolded us and took us on a socialist joyride. What a long, strange trip it’s been—and not in the good Grateful Dead way. As all of the Obama weirdness and destruction unfolded, most Americans began to feel like the coed at the frat party who drinks too much wine out of a box, goes home with the guy she thinks is Ryan Reynolds, only to wake up instead with the Situation. But unlike our fictional coed, in our drunken political stupor we actually married the guy. And the divorce is going to be really, really expensive.”

The particular horror is that we are allowing the theft of freedom to be done to us by our own government. While we luxuriate in abundance, complacency, and apathy—many of us knowing nothing else—Obama and the kooks are maneuvering us quickly into bondage. Once we are truly bound, the relationship between the individual and the government will be changed irrevocably: the individual will have dwindling and ultimately meaningless “freedoms” and the people will be led toward European-style dependence; we will be an enslaved mob…If people believe they can vote themselves a raise, they will. And once that mentality finds its way into the middle class, then America as the land of the free will be history.

Obama Wins: Whither America?

A post-mortem on the presidential election

 

It’s been two weeks since the election and I am still shell-shocked. Alas, I bought into the hyperbole that Morris and other right-leaning pundits were spewing – namely, that Romney was going to win, if not convincingly then at least comfortably. In retrospect, that faulty prognosis was predicated on three premises: the massive 2008 turnout by Obama’s legions (blacks, Hispanics, single women, young voters) would not be repeated; America was fed up with Obama’s Keynesian economic policies that had resulted in the weakest economic recovery in 75 years; and conservatives and independents were so energized that their support would more than compensate for Obama’s legions. The first premise was certainly false. The second, even if true, discounted the fact that Obama’s legions didn’t care. And while there was some truth to the third, the groundswell was confined to a demographic that we now recognize is rapidly being eclipsed by its complement.

Prior to November 6, many – including yours truly – wrote that this was an election for the soul of America. The presumption was that the century-long leftward slide of American society had reached the stage at which another four years of Obama’s statist agenda would surely drive the country past the tipping point. By this it was meant that it would become literally impossible to restore America to its moorings as a constitutional republic based on individual liberty, traditional moral principles and free market capitalism. Those who subscribe to this thesis must now decide if it is truly valid.

There is much compelling evidence to support it. One piece is the aforementioned demographic. The groups who support Obama’s collectivist philosophy are growing percentagewise, while those who oppose it are shrinking. Another piece of evidence is the almost complete control that the Left exercises on the opinion-molding organs of American society. The media is the most glaring example; but the statists also control US education—both higher and lower, foundations, libraries, seminaries, museums and the like. Next, the length of time that the Left has been in control has enabled a shift in the political center of gravity of the nation so far to the left that radical leftists look mainstream and mainstream conservatives appear radical right.

But these political/philosophical reasons are complemented by sobering economic/social evidence:

  • We lack the will to deal with our gargantuan national debt, which is certain to bring about a severe economic crisis.
  • Our Ponzi scheme-style entitlement programs are on an unsustainable path to calamity – and again, we lack the will to repair them.
  • Our military is in the process of a drastic drawdown – necessitated in part by the fiscal consequences of the last two bullets – and we are slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) losing the ability to project power, defend our allies or protect the homeland.
  • Our nation is increasingly secular, which results in a culture of abortion on demand, pornography, same-sex marriage, a skyrocketing rate of illegitimacy and other manifestations of social decay.

I could go on, but you get the idea. And yet. And yet! Surely our beloved country was in even greater danger (although perhaps of different types) during the Revolution, at the time of the Civil War, while enduring the Great Depression, and when confronted by the monstrous 20th century evils of Nazism and Communism. At the height of these crises, there were those who predicted the demise of America. But it did not happen.

In short, my head tells me that America’s goose is cooked; but my heart refuses to accept that gloomy assessment. For sure, Obama will toss more statist bombs in our laps in the next four years: cap and trade again, maybe Card Check, an indeterminate number of ultra-left Supreme Court Justices, full implementation of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and out of control regulatory agencies. But we survived eight years of Wilson, 20 years of Roosevelt-Truman, five years of Johnson and four years of Carter. Surely we can survive eight years of Obama. In fact, the doomsayers would assert that we did not actually survive all of Obama’s leftist predecessors. They set the table that Obama is running to radically alter the US into a Euro-style social welfare state, sans exceptionalism, sans freedom and sans prosperity.

So one must decide; does one follow one’s head or one’s heart? Based on that decision, what does one do? If the former, then the choices are clear. It seems to me that there are four: (i) enjoy the ride for however much longer it lasts and if it ends before you do, then try to adjust as best you can to the grim reality that awaits us; (ii) continue to fight, as hard as you can, knowing full well that it is a Don Quixote-like doomed struggle, but you would rather ‘die fighting than surrender’; (iii) emigrate; (iv) retreat to local enclaves (certain towns and rural communities, counties, even a few states) where it may be possible to preserve what is historically great about America, and maintain the enclaves until they are swamped or miraculously conjoined with others to carve out a new nation from the ashes to which the leftists are leading us.

If, on the other hand, the heart wins, then the struggle continues with a belief that victory is still possible. Perhaps Obama will screw it up so badly that substantial members of his contingents will have a change of heart. Perhaps as yet unforeseen trends or developments will reverse the demographic calamity previously identified. Perhaps there will occur a moral revival in America (as has happened in the past) that will sweep the leftists from power and restore the nation. Perhaps true conservatives will take over the Republican Party – exactly as hard core leftists have completely captured the Democratic Party – and with a clear vision lead America to resurgence. Perhaps conservatives will finally realize that culture trumps politics and conduct a successful guerilla campaign to recapture all those opinion-forming organs of society that the lefties now control. Perhaps!

So, dear reader, which organ has triumphed in your body – your head or your heart? As soon as I figure out the answer for myself, I will let you know.

Holding My Breath

According to all the pundits, the forthcoming presidential election will be one of the closest in US history. The candidates are virtually tied in all the national polls. Moreover, when specialized polls are taken – whether by state, issue or voting demographic – the advantages of either candidate in certain areas are counterbalanced by those of his opponent in the remaining areas. We are led to believe that it is impossible to predict the outcome and that it may well come down to which of the parties has in place the stronger ‘ground game’ (to get their supporters to the voting booths).

Now all of this is great political theater and certainly wonderful for TV viewership and newspaper/magazine readership. And while historically, the polls give a generally good indication of what a presidential election portends, they are far from foolproof in their predictive accuracy. They did not forecast the 1980 Reagan landslide, and they did not foretell the agonizingly close and nebulous outcome of the 2000 Bush-Gore contest. I have a feeling that the election next week will not be as close as the forecasters are predicting. There are in fact a few prognosticators who have predicted a Romney landslide; and although no Obama supporters are predicting a romp for their candidate equivalent to the stomping of McCain, there are some who believe that the President will win comfortably. The uncertainty is in part what makes it all so interesting.

But all of that overlooks the fact that this election represents a contest for the soul of America. It has become common to hear that this is the most important presidential election in a generation, perhaps in several generations. I believe it is much more than that – it is an election which will determine the ultimate fate of our nation. It is so much more than which pundit or poll has the best crystal ball. It will determine whether America restores itself to its historical role in the world or whether it continues down its seemingly inexorable slide from a constitutional republic of limited government, individual liberty and unbounded economic prosperity into just another statist, social welfare state of stagnation, serfdom and secularism.

The country has been leaning strongly to port since the dawn of the twentieth century. There have been brief interruptions (during the 20s under Coolidge, 80s under Reagan, and even more briefly in the 90s under Gingrich), but these right turns have been easily overmatched by sharp lurches to the left under Wilson, FDR, Johnson and now Obama. We have reached the tipping point, beyond which it will be impossible to restore America to its founding principles. If Obama is re-elected, the tipping point will surely be passed in the next four years and the glorious American experiment will draw to a close.

It is possible – even likely – that Romney is not the savior who will reverse this horrible slide. But he might be. Moreover, if he fails to unseat Obama, then we are domed for sure. If on the other hand, Romney can prevail, we have a chance – if not via Romney himself, then at least he buys us some time until the true savior emerges.

And so with all this at stake, I – and many others I am certain – approach next Tuesday with tremendous trepidation. I am consumed by a mixture of dread and desperate hope. I am literally holding my breath. I fear the outcome, but I am hopeful that the American people will do the right thing. I believe that enough people are cognizant of the stakes – in fact, I think that Romney’s estimate of 47% who are either clueless or co-opted by the left is too high. Well, we shall know soon. Then next Wednesday morning, I can either retain my hope that my grandchildren will continue on in the glorious American experiment; or I can start to think seriously about Australia, or maybe Israel. I am waiting to exhale.
____
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

The Legacies of Goldwater and McGovern

George McGovern died recently. Coincidentally, I just reread Barry Goldwater’s 1960 classic, The Conscience of a Conservative. These men are linked by the identical fate that they suffered in their sole presidential run (in 1972 and 1964, respectively). Namely, both were thoroughly demolished by an incumbent president. Each was viewed as emanating from the extreme wing of his party – Goldwater on the far right of the Republican Party and McGovern from the ultra left side of the Democratic Party. Their crushing defeats were interpreted as rejections by the voters of the extreme politics that they supposedly represented. However, that is where the similarity ends; for their legacies on their parties and on the American drama has been totally dissimilar.

Prior to McGovern, the Democratic Party embraced a spectrum of points of view that could legitimately be characterized as from far left (Henry Wallace, JW Fulbright) to centrist (John Kennedy, Edmund Muskie) to even mildly conservative (Scoop Jackson) – especially in matters of foreign policy. But beginning with the 1968 Democratic convention and culminating in McGovern’s nomination, the center of gravity of the Democratic Party shifted sharply to the left. It has remained so, in fact so much so that today what are really far left leaders – at least as left as those cited above – like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi are viewed as mainstream Democrats. The Party has plenty of room for loony leftists even further to the left than those just cited – e.g., Maxine Waters, but there is virtually no substantial person of any stature in the Democratic Party who could be considered centrist, much less right of center. The sole exception, Joe Lieberman (like Scoop Jackson, largely in foreign affairs), was driven out of the Party. The extremism that McGovern represented is absolutely mainstream today in the Democratic Party.

Goldwater’s lasting influence on the Republican Party has been far less dramatic. It is true that the Party has experienced conservative surges in 1980 (Reagan), in 1994 (Gingrich) and in 2010 (via the TEA Party). But the center of gravity of the Republican Party has moved to the right nowhere near as extensively as that of the Democratic Party has moved to the left. This is manifested in three ways. First, the roster of the most prominent leaders of the Party still includes substantial numbers of centrists or moderates. Examples include both Bushes, John McCain, Jon Huntsman and, arguably, the current GOP presidential nominee. Whereas every Democratic nominee for president since McGovern has been a hard-core liberal – and in a few instances (e.g., the current president), a doctrinaire leftist; with the exception of Reagan, no Republican presidential nominee since Goldwater comes even close to resembling a hard-core conservative or committed rightist.

Second, the Party apparatus – at both the federal and (most) State(s) levels – has remained to a large extent ‘country club’ Republican. By that is meant those who qualify as ‘big government’ Republicans – people who endorse the huge role that government plays in the lives of the American people, believing that Republicans can discharge the attendant responsibilities more effectively and more economically.

The third manifestation is more subtle. Polls repeatedly show that twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservative than those who identify themselves as liberal. Yet, the numbers who self-identify as Democrat is at least as large as those who self-identify as Republican. The inescapable conclusion is that there are a huge number of Republicans who are not really conservative.

Thus Goldwater’s lasting effect on the Republican Party does not match McGovern’s long-term influence on the Democratic Party.

Concerning their affect on the American people, the legacies are more nuanced and difficult to characterize precisely. The substantial shift to the left of the Democratic Party both reflects and influences a corresponding shift in the electorate. Positions and phenomena that, prior to McGovern, would have been considered extreme by the American people are viewed as mainstream today. Same sex marriage, blatant and wanton promiscuity in the entertainment media, abortion on demand, banishment of religion from the public square, a government takeover of the auto industry, massive federal deficits and debt, and a popular president who denigrates US history, abrogates America’s founding principles and apologizes for American behavior are but some examples. What is unclear is what percentage of the American people is politically and philosophically in support of these radical developments and what percentage just acquiesces in them, either because those folks are not really paying attention or because – while perhaps philosophically opposed – they see some good consequences for themselves.

At the same time, a substantial minority of Americans, appalled at the severe leftward drift of the country, has begun to organize a counterattack. These would be the TEA Party contingent. Such people subscribe to the ideas expressed in Goldwater’s book, believe that America has been betrayed by those who have led the country down the McGovernite path and are determined to restore America to what they see as its classical moorings. But if they are to match the success enjoyed by the McGovernites the last four decades – indeed, by the progressive movement over the last century, they must do two things:

  1. Take control of the Republican Party exactly as the McGovernites took (and retained) control of the Democratic Party.
  2. Build numerous, robust conservative social entities (e.g., media outlets, educational institutions and foundations) in order to have the same lasting influence on the public as the uncontested leftist analogs have had.

As an inspiration to do so, let me close with a relevant quote from Goldwater’s book:

Though conservatives are deeply persuaded that our society is ailing, and know that Conservatism holds the key to national salvation – and feel sure the country agrees with us – we seem unable to demonstrate the practical relevance of Conservative principles to the needs of the day. We sit by impotently while Congress seeks to improvise solutions to problems that are not real problems facing the country, while the government attempts to assuage imagined concerns and ignores the real concerns and real needs of the people.

Perhaps we suffer from an over-sensitivity to the judgments of those who rule the mass communications media. We are daily consigned by ‘enlightened’ commentators to political oblivion: Conservatism, we are told, is out–of-date. The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the conservative political position is based have been established by a process that has nothing to do with the social, economic and political landscape that changes from decade to decade and from century to century. These principles are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by the circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle’s Politics are out of date. The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply the wisdom and experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today. The challenge is not to find new or different truths, but to learn how to apply established truths to the problems of the contemporary world.
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at
and in The Land of the Free at