That’s the question being asked by many discussing Sam Tanenhaus’ new book, The Death of Conservatism. As he’s now making the rounds, it’s difficult to avoid the discussion.  His ultimate prescription of a content-free conservatism is so obviously self-serving for the liberal agenda that I’m not going to waste time addressing it.

A more interesting point I’ve seen him make is the contention that today’s conservatism, and I assume that he’s using the word in a broad sense to encapsulate the totality of small government movements, is lacking in heavyweight intellectuals like William F. Buckley, Jr.  I think he’s looking in the wrong places.

No, there is no one like Buckley in the conservative movement today. Nor is there a Reagan. This is less reflective of the state of conservative intellectualism than it is the fact that the two giants were irreplaceably unique.

Tanenhaus, like many in D.C. circles, looks only in two places for intellectual contributions: Washington, D.C. and the Ivory Tower. In his view, events like last week’s D.C. Tea Party are the result of unsophisticated if not outright moronic masses lashing out because they lack enlightened leadership. I think he’s got it all wrong.

Where he sees no intellectual leaders, I see millions. Thanks to the advances of technology, leadership is no longer confined to positions of great power or influence. With instant communication, political movements are finally able to arise via spontaneous order, the process by which common languages developed or markets function. Direction need not come from on high when outcomes are emergent.

As an example of the kind of intellectualism I see in conservatism, let me recount a short story from my trip to the D.C. Tea Party. As is my habit, I left the event a bit early to avoid the rush out of town, though there were still plenty other folks on the metro with me. A few of them struck up a conversation with a local woman who did not share the views of the marchers, though like them she was respectful and pleasant, taking turns listening and offering her views.

One of the marchers, in the course of a conversation the details of which I do not quite recall, began referencing the Constitution. Specifically, he drew on the manner in which the Commerce Clause has been abused through a misunderstanding of the targets of the clause, as well as the  meaning of the word “regulate” at the time.

Is not such enlightened discourse exactly the model for democratic debate that stuffy elitist types moan is so lacking? Is it accurate or honest to declare a movement with so many such people interested in American constitutional history to be lacking in intellectualism, merely because there is no Ivy League spokesman at the forefront?

Mr. Tanenhaus has asked an important question about a historically significant and influential movement within the American political sphere. It is unfortunate that his cultural blinders have prevented him from seeing the obvious answer.