America's most influential conservatives

Toby Harnden of The Daily Telegraph has been compiling a list of America's top 100 conservatives and top 100 liberals.  He's published the top 20 conservatives today.  It is interesting - and probably a fair conclusion - that no movement religious conservative appears in the top twenty.

Top of the list is Rudy Giuliani - the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.  Many conservatives won't agree that a candidate with liberal views on homosexuality and abortion is a conservative at all.  Some will think he should be in the list of liberals - where Toby has put Governor Schwarzenegger.  The conservative differences between Giuliani and Schwarzenegger are on tax, crime and national security.  There's also a big difference in attitude.  Giuliani relishes attacking liberals.  Governor Schwarzenegger has decided to make constant accommodations with them.

Petraeus is number two in the Telegraph list.  With the news out of Iraq more and more encouraging, Petraeus may well be a GOP candidate for the White House in years to come.

Matt Drudge is number three and well-deserved, too.  Over the last month his site enjoyed nearly 500 million visits (according to Mr Drudge himself).  Incredible influence.

John Roberts is at number eight in the list.  I'd have probably placed him higher.  Appointing Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was probably Bush's finest single decision.  Not only is Roberts a conservative, he's also a persuader.  Other conservative Judges on the Court are capable of winning arguments but not winning people.  Roberts is different.  David Frum has suggested that Roberts' people skills almost make him worth two judges.  Aged 52, God willing, he'll be Chief Justice for at least a generation.

Unlike Iain Dale's list of most influential UK conservatives, Toby has included some journalists.  Paul Gigot, Editorial Page Editor of the Wall Street Journal is at number fourteen.  Can't disagree with that.  The WSJ's opinion pages have been a platform for conservative views for a generation.  They have played a leading role in propagating conservative ideas.  No UK newspaper performs the same role for British conservatism.

President Bush doesn't even make the top twenty.  Toby explains his reasoning here.  In short, he says, it's because his list is about the future and not the past.  Why's Dick Cheney at number six then?  I'd use Toby's own words to suggest Bush deserves to be near the top of the list of conservatives: "For good or ill, the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption, unilateral projection of US power and dividing the world into those for and against the US will also endure. Major elements of it will probably be adopted by, for instance, a President Hillary Clinton."  Surely this is about the future?  The future of Bush's tax cuts will be central to the next election.  His appointments of Roberts and Alito will shape American law.  He still has the capacity to raise many millions for future candidates.  Whether or not he and Petraeus fail or succeed in Iraq will be one of the most important influences on who is the next President.

Other odd decisions: putting Christopher Hitchens, Joe Lieberman and Andrew Sullivan in the list of conservatives.  Hitchens is certainly a supporter of the Iraq war but he's much more liberal than Arnie - who, as already noted, is classified as a liberal.  Hitchens is more of a liberal interventionist than a neocon.  The same could be said of Senator Lieberman although he leans conservative-wards on many cultural issues.  On civil liberties and lifestyle issues, Sullivan is increasingly liberal.

Fascinating exercise by Toby, however, and - Bush aside - his judgment calls are largely very good ones.

The top twenty liberals - a list headed by Bill, not Hillary - can be found here.  I'll comment on that list soon...

Comments

[Moral minority]

Don't confuse opposition to neo-conservatism with liberalism. Andrew Sullivan is a Oakshottian conservative. To call him a liberal is nasty and cheap shot. Arnie is a libertarian, e.g. a supporter of Milton Friedman, who realises that he has to compromise to retain power. California is a different state, particularly as a result of immigration, to the one governed by Reagan.

The real liberals are the neo-con cabal that controls the GOP and hijacked the conservative movement. Their roots can be traced to working for war-mongering imperialist Democrats like Henry Jackson and Daniel Moynihan. Guiliani is in the same mould - an authoritarian, big government, open borders liberal who is to the left of most Republicans in issues like abortion and immigration.

[Tony Makara]

I'd put Rush Limbaugh at the top of the list because Rush has a mass daily audience in the states and he covers so much ground. What's more Rush gets the message across by entertaining people with his caustic wit. Randi Rhodes does a similar job for the progressives although playing to a much lesser audience.

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh during the dark winter months on AFN Europe during the Clinton years and Rush used to count down the days to the end of the Clinton era, as if it were a prison sentence. I don't agree with Rush on Iraq but on most other stuff I think he's definitely on the ball. Now thankfully the internet makes listening to Rush a whole lot easier. If anyone in the UK hasn't heard Rush you can tune into his show weekdays at 1700 on the link below.

http://www.wtic.com/index.php

[Tony Makara]

A quick tip. If you go to WTIC to listen to Rush Limbaugh click on the 'listen live' box to listen to the show for free. Don't click on the Rush Limbaugh box because it leads you to his website and Rush will expect you to pay to use it (A true capitalist!)

[Jonathan Powell]

It seems absurd to classify Arnie as a liberal when not only Giuliani but Christopher Hitchens is classified as conservative. I don't see him as a libertarian either, if he were he would not support gun control and would do more to reduce the size of government. I would classify him as a centrist, myself, but definitely leaning to the conservative side, whereas Tony Blair would be a centrist who leans to the left.

It seems a bit depressing that being in favour of civil liberties--effectively of limiting the power of the state--should be regarded as liberal, but I would agree that Sullivan has moved to the left on a range of issues, particularly iraq, and he inclusion in the conservative category does seem strange.

[Moral minority]

Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan opposed the Iraq War from the start. By Jonathan Powell's ridiculous logic that makes them left-wingers! He should at least read Andrew Sullivan's new book on conservatism before smearing him as a leftist.

[Jonathan Powell]

Moral Majority:

I didn't call Sullivan a leftist, I was merely agreeing with the Editor that he has moved left on several issues. The fact is that he currently agrees more with the people on the liberal list than with the those on the conservative side, which is why he supports Obama for president and is against Guiliani. At least Arnold still supports the Republican Party. But I would agree that Sullivan is a conservative in some regards.

On the Iraq war, I am simply following the consensus that the being anti-war is the left-wing position, so yes on that issue Buchanan and Paul are on the left of the debate. But the thing about Sullivan is that he's always been liberal on social issues, so when he moved left on the war (along with related issues such as interrogating terrorists etc.) there were few issues where he actually agrees with conservatives.

[Simon Newman]

Although Buchanan opposes the war, he shares the neocon view that a hasty exit would display a lack of 'willpower'. Most Paleocons agree with Ron Paul that we should leave immediately.

[Simon Newman]

I see Buchanan is at #80 and Ron Paul at #96. Overall the list seems to have a strong neocon bias - ok, the neocons are dominant and I can see them occupying the top 20 or 30 slots, but no paleos in the top 79 slots?!

[Moral minority]

Jonathan Powell, if he read Andrew Sullivan's blog, would know that he is supporting Ron Paul for President. Sullivan has not moved to the left, it is Bush and Guiliani who have ignored the constitution moved to authoritarian extremism. The Bush administration has an appalling human rights record, e.g. rendition and torture. I look forward to Bush and Cheney being tried as war criminals.

Toby Harden seems to be another Torygraph lightweight with little knowledge of the American conservative movement and its Old Right, paleo-con roots. Simon Newman should not be surprised at his list.

[mamapajamas]

Tony, re: "Don't click on the Rush Limbaugh box because it leads you to his website and Rush will expect you to pay to use it (A true capitalist!)"

The LIVE broadcast of Rush's show is free on his website. If you want to listen to it after normal hours (the latest show is usually posted by 6pm Eastern), or any archived show, THEN you have to pay for it ;).

[Jonathan Powell]

Moral Minority is being quite disingenuous when he says Sullivan supports Ron Paul, because he (Sullivan) clearly does not believe Paul has a realistic chance of winning. Given the choice between likely conservative candidates (Giulliani, Thompson, McCain--all of whom are moderate on social issues) he repeatedly voices support for Democrats, particularly Obama. He also increasingly embraces left-wing issues like global warming and has argued for higher taxes and impeaching the President and Vice President.

All this DOES represent a move to the left, because between 2001-2004 Sullivan was a cheerleader for the Neocons and supported Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. He changed his position largely because he opposed the Republican focus on gay marriage during the 2004 election. Thus he supported arch-liberal John Kerry and has been a de facto Democrat ever since. Nothing wrong with that, it's just the fact of the matter.

[Simon Newman]

I have difficulty with the idea that the neocon agenda is right wing, and to oppose it is left wing - is Tony Blair right-wing? Christopher Hitchens? This is really the world turned upside down. Neocon ideology seems to me to bear far more resemblance to that of JFK and LBJ than to any Conservative Presidents pre-2000. Some of Reagan and Thatcher's words may have sounded neocon-ish, but their actions were very different and I can't see either favouring 'creative destruction', 'bear any burden', or even 'ask not what your country can do for you' type ideas.