Has the Conservative Movement become "Too Dumb"?

I recently read (rather listened to) Matt Lewis's new book, Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots). As Matt take coincides with a lot of my recent thinking, I wanted to share some notes and ideas.

Too Dumb to Fail takes a look at the rise and decline of the Republican party and that of the conservative movement. His main point is that conservatives no longer provide fundamental intellectual policy discussion, and have dumbed down their message (or allowed it to be dumbed down) into talking points, personal and partisan attacks, demagoguery, and nativism. This may help win the next election, but sacrificing the long-term battle of ideas.

Here are some key points that resonated with me:

1. Large segments of the conservative movement have become anti-intellectual; overly emotional and irrational; less thoughtful; reliant on talking points; dependent on anger and resentment; divisive, mean-spirited, and personal rather than principled.
   
2. Political professionals and bad actors have hurt the conservative movement. The former have no accountability and profit even when Republicans lose elections. The latter includes charlatans who use the conservative movement for their own aggrandizement or enrichment.  We need to call out bad actors.
   
3. Winning elections dominates the conservative movement’s energy. This has come at the sacrifice of trying to win the policy debate, win the philosophical argument, and win the culture. The electoral incentives reward dumbing down our politics and “acting dumb”—sacrificing long-term gains for short-term results.
   
4. Many critics of “the establishment” are themselves establishment actors who profit from politics.
   
5. The populism of helping the “little man” take on big government; fighting against those who get rich from government; ending cronyism, earmarks, and corporate welfare has taken a back seat to the populism of demagoguery, xenophobia, nativism, protectionism, blame, bitterness, and partisan scare tactics.  

Let me add areas where I quibble with Matt:

1. First, he over-emphasizes the importance of presidential elections as the sign the GOP and conservatives are losing. This ignores victories in Congress, and certainly overlooks both electoral and policy victories in the states.
   
2. Lewis’s concerns about today’s populism, which I share, extends too far and seems unwelcoming to new people in the movement. I don’t agree with his prescription (or his examples) of “paying your dues.” Likewise, he pays too much respect to certain “old guard” conservative entities—I would specifically mention Phyllis Schlafly/Eagle Forum and CPAC, which I find to be part of the problem.
   
3. In this vein, he often goes to the example of “shutting down the federal government” in the effort to defund Obamacare—and criticizing Ted Cruz and Heritage Action in the process—as a prime example of the problem in the GOP. Yet this is hardly the most egregious case study: Its impact was little felt (and quickly forgotten) outside the Beltway, and had little electoral significance.
   
4. Finally, he focuses primarily on “conservative” and “traditional” political principles, rather than libertarian and classical liberal thinkers, though the latter would largely agree with the problems he identifies. This isn’t a shortcoming, but merely a fact that rebuilding the “conservative movement” must include the traditional wing and the more libertarian wing of conservative intellectuals.

Lewis’s take looks particularly prescient in the wake of a presidential election long on rhetoric and drumming up fears of voters, and short on policy discussion. His prescription is easier said than done, but he’s right on that the conservative movement must return to intellectual roots to engage in the war of ideas, and avoid dumbing down our policies.