As Phil Giraldi noted the other day, David Brooks has decided that the direction of conservatism is to be decided between two factions: “Reformers,” who are essentially domestic neoconservatives and their fellow travelers (David Frum, Ross Douthat), and “Traditionalists,” who are not, as you might think, followers of Russell Kirk, but in Brooks’s lexicon are instead movement hacks and radio talkers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Brooks, in other words, gives the Right a choice between social democracy and stand-pattism. Either way, the conservative establishment’s commitment to an interventionist foreign policy is not up for discussion.

Needless to say, conservatives should not let David Brooks define their options.  For a debunking of Brooks’s Reformists, whose prescriptions for change have a familiar ring, see Paul Gottfried’s essay in the current issue of TAC. Meanwhile, a few of my own thoughts on rejuvenating the Right may be found here. There are many better choices for the Right than the Great Society conservatism of the Reformers and the catchphrase conservatism of the movement that never moves. But you won’t read about them in the op-ed pages of the New York Times.