A fairly interesting post from Jonah Goldberg over at National Review's "Corner" yesterday questions whether liberal thinkers know their roots. I don't think he's spot on, but interesting anyway. In any event, my hunch is to agree with him that conservative thinkers ally themselves and discuss more often conservative forebears. At least, so they perceive.

But one thing that really does fascinate me -- and which doesn't divulge too much about my book -- is the generalized ignorance or silence of mainstream liberals about their own intellectual history. Obviously this is a sweeping -- and therefore unfair -- generalization. But I read a lot of liberal stuff and have attended more than a few college confabs with liberal speakers speaking on the subject of liberalism itself. And it seems to me that liberals are intellectually deracinated. Read conservative publications or attend conservative conferences and there will almost always be at least some mention of our intellectual forefathers and often a spirited debate about them. The same goes for Libertarians, at least that branch which can be called a part or partner of the conservative movement.

One response I offer, Goldberg kind of answers. That is, one might define conservatism, at least in part, as a mindset geared to revere past conservative thinkers, and to not stray afar from said thinking. Liberalism, on the other hand, is often regarded to more easily stray from traditional solutions in favor of new ideas.
I think, more importantly though, that Goldberg's emphasis that this is a sweeping generalization should be taken to heart. He may be on to something, even if it broaches on truism, when saying conservatives are more beholden to dead thinkers. But, without even googling for details, I can think of two fairly recent uses of history from the liberal side. Dean, in Wisconsin, urged voters to connect him to the progressive LaFollette. And in the spring last year, an edition of The New Republic is entirely dedicated with the roots of liberal thinking as regarding the use of American force.
Dean's use of an great Progressive was rhetoric- he wanted the crowd to associate him with the vision and drive of the late Senator. The New Republic articles were more of a discussion of past thinkers- as opposed to the rhetorical use and a presumed understanding from the crowd. However, TNR's discussion of history had much the same motivation as Dean's--TNR wanted to argue that liberal thinkers have a tradition of using force to spread liberal democracy. The use of the past, then, was to affect the present mindset.
My question, then, is this: do subjective political thinkers (meaning those allied with conservative or liberal motivations) use history in the same way--evoking past thinkers to stir current theory? (and thus, Conservatives do this more often.)
And all this, finally, begs the question; what are liberals and conservatives? Shall we make a judgement on whether it is good or bad to evoke often past thinkers? Goldberg's post does not seem to make such a judgement- it is rather, and I agree, simply interesting to ponder.