Blowhards like Hannity and Coulter could learn a thing or two from P.J. O'Rourke

There was a time when conservative punditry was a gentleman's sport. Back when Sean Hannity was working construction and Bill O'Reilly was an anchor for Inside Edition, classical conservatives like George Will and William F. Buckley—whether you agreed with them or not—wrote thoughtfully in defense of liberal democracy, while P.J. O'Rourke elevated the art of American political satire to an almost English place. Over the past decade, however, conservatives have fallen in love with Jesus Christ and war on the cheap, and the Wills and O'Rourkes of the world have been edged to the margins of political discourse, leaving many Republicans to wonder just where the voice of their party has gone. As if in quiet protest against the neocons, O'Rourke has been revisiting the writings of the early father of conservative thought, Adam Smith, for a new book entitled On The Wealth of Nations, which aims to make the dense writings of Smith accessible to a modern day audience.

Fresh from his immersion in 18th century conservatism, O'Rourke found time to talk to Radar about his new book, his theory that likens the Middle East to a bunch of teenagers, and a dark day long ago when the promise of sex led him down a Leftist path.

On the Middle East: "Sometimes you feel like you're dealing with an entire civilization that just stopped smoking. Um, except that they all smoke, so that can't be it"RADAR: How did you clear-thinking Northeast conservatives get given the hucklebuck by these neocons? In other words, what happened to you and your kind?
P.J. O'ROURKE: Ah, there is a simple answer to that. We took power. You see, it's pretty easy to be smart and reasonable and far-sighted and to have great perspective on the past when you don't have any power, when you don't have to do anything.

Even though we had Reagan in, the conservatives had not yet taken over the reign of government. I mean, the whole story of the Reagan Administration is the fight for the conservatives to actually get power. And then we get George H.W. Bush, the senior, who's kind of a weak sister. His heart's in the right place and stuff, but I mean, he really should have been president of the country club, not of the country. And so the whole thing doesn't really bear fruit until we take over Congress in 1994, and then the problems begin ... and now it's payback time.

So why were you supporting George W. Bush for the White House over John Kerry?
Well, consider the choice!

But wouldn't a benign, ineffective John Kerry operating against a Republican Congress have been preferable to the madness of George W. Bush?
Well, that's the Cato theory, that's the libertarian theory on split government. And although I'm not a huge George W. fan—he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer by a long shot—I didn't think Kerry was so benign. I think evil and stupid would be how I would define Kerry. I just couldn't vote for that guy at all.

Growing up, I always thought of you as George Will's more fun twin.

I like to think younger brother, even though I fear that George and I are pretty close to the same age.

But you were always more of a libertarian stripe.
I was definitely more likely to set fire to the garage than George. I think he was off to book club meetings while I was building a beer bong.

You also resisted the bow tie, which I think will do wonders for your ability to endure.
I do own a couple of them, but I don't bring them out often.

I didn't read The Wealth of Nations in school. I borrowed notes from someone, and I got a B-minus on the test.
Well, you know, Adam Smith would have said that you put your resources to good use—your resources of time and energy to maximum use by not reading it.

"I was definitely more likely to set fire to the garage than George Will. I think he was off to book club meetings while I was building a beer bong"Did you talk to Paritosh Gupta before you wrote On The Wealth of Nations?
I did not.

Because his notes were fantastic for me.
I kind of decided against the Interview the Experts route.

He's not an expert. He sat next to me in Political Science.
Oh ... Ah ... at any rate, I didn't talk to him ... or any other knowledgeable person. I decided that, if something is indeed a book that changed the world, a great work, or whatever, the thing ought to be able to stand on its own in some respects. You know, with a little footnote help or something, but you shouldn't have to go to a dozen experts to determine what a great book means.