Shut up, he explained

This is what drives me nuts about the New York Times. Here's a piece in which the author attempts to find a few tidbits of virtue in conservatism:

What insights, principles, and analyses does this movement have to offer that liberals and Democrats might want to take into account?

I recently posed a question to conservative think tanks: If given a free hand, how would conservatives deal with the unemployed, those dependent on government benefits (food stamps, Medicaid), and, more generally, those who are losers in the new economy — those hurt by corporate restructuring, globalization and declining manufacturing employment?

He received links to five Heritage position papers and a recommendation that Paul Ryan's budget clearly demonstrates EXACTLY how a conservative might govern. But the author didn't like that, so he transmitted none of it, choosing only to provide links for readers to follow. No analysis, no insight, no conservative contribution to his thinking at all. Instead, he decided it would be better to ask liberals what they think of conservatives:

All the answers evaded the question posed and, in my view, amounted to ideological pap.

I decided it might be better to ask liberals what they liked about conservatism. I submitted a new question to a small group of academics and activists on the left: what does the right get right?

This is how conservatives are "understood" by the left. When we speak for ourselves, it is dismissed as "idealogical pap." Instead of actually listening to our pap, they choose to gather together more liberals and ask them what to think about us. It's a thoroughly intellectually shallow circle jerk, but I suppose it is more appealing to liberals than actually listening to the words and ideas of conservatives.