The typical complaint one hears about conservatives, particularly from libertarians, is that social conservatives want to use the government to advance their agenda and force their beliefs down everyone’s throats. Normally the first issue that is brought up to defend this proposition is abortion. I find that odd because if wanting to prohibit abortion is akin to being a proponent of big government, then anyone who advocates for laws against murder is clearly also an advocate for big government. The next most commonly cited issue is gay marriage. Again, I find this odd because it is the proponents of gay marriage who want government to make a complete change to the institution of marriage in order to advance their agenda.
At any rate, libertarians and other social liberals usually run out of steam after those two big issues, though the more creative will invent issues that social conservatives supposedly support in order to defend this thesis.
What frustrates me about this is that left-wing attempts to use the government to indoctrinate society are ignored or downplayed, yet examples of left-wing attempts to influence the culture through the government are far more plentiful than conservative ones. One need only look at Mayor Nanny Bloomberg in New York – hardly a raging social conservative – to recognize that.
Want more proof? First, here’s a bill sponsored by Senate Democrats to fund comprehensive sex education.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said Thursday that they’d introduced sex-education legislation limiting funding for “ineffective” abstinent-only programs.
The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act would expand comprehensive sex education programs in schools, while ensuring that federal funds are spent on “effective, age-appropriate and medically accurate” programs.
. . . The Real Education for Healthy Youth Act aims to reduce unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and expand sex education programs at colleges and universities. The bill would also prevent federal funds from being spent on “ineffective, medically inaccurate” sex-educ
ation programs.
To translate, we’re going to spend tax money teaching kids about birth control but we’d be verbotten to teach them “medically inaccurate” information like keeping it in your pants will prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs. We wouldn’t want kids being told off-the-wall ideas about not having sex before the age of 18 or – even nuttier – before marriage. No, no, no – we gotta get to these kids and make sure they know how to put a condom on a banana.
And do we really need to spend federal tax dollars on expanding sex education at colleges? Are college-aged kids that really in the dark about sex that this justifies federal intervention?
Want to know the kicker? One of the co-sponsors of this bill is Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). In that case there will probably be an amendment setting aside funds teaching underage Dominican prostitutes to keep their mouths shut.
And that wasn’t the saddest news of the day. Here’s a story via Creative Minority Report:
Parents across Massachusetts are upset over new rules that would not only allow transgender students to use their restrooms of their choice – but would also punish students who refuse to affirm or support their transgender classmates.
Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify.
The 11-page directive also urged schools to eliminate gender-based clothing and gender-based activities – like having boys and girls line up separately to leave the classroom.
Schools will now be required to accept a student’s gender identity on face value.
“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate.
As long as little Johnnie feels he’s a little Joannie, no one can tell him/her otherwise.
Hey, but these rules only help liberate young transgendered people from being discriminated against. It’s not like this would impinge anyone else’s freedom, right?
Another part of the directive that troubles parents deals with students who might feel comfortable having someone of the opposite sex in their locker room or bathroom.
The state takes those students to task – noting their discomfort “is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”
And any student who refuses to refer to a transgendered student by the name or sex they identify with could face punishment.
For example – a fifth grade girl might feel uncomfortable using the restroom if there is an eighth grade transgendered boy in the next stall.
Under the state guidelines, the girl would have no recourse, Beckwith said.
“And if the girl continued to complain she could be subjected to discipline for not affirming that student’s gender identity choice,” he told Fox News.
“It should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline,” the directive states.
But that’s okay, says a spokesman for the transgendered.
Gunner Scott, of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, praised the directive – and said punishing students who refuse to acknowledge a student’s gender identity is appropriate because it amounts to bullying.
That’s right. Feeling uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with someone of the opposite sex who doesn’t think he or she is a member of the opposite sex is bullying, dont’cha know? And the only way to deal with bullies is to, well, bully them. That sounds reasonable, said Dan Savage.
And yet we’ll continue to hear countless fairly tales about how young modern hipsters would vote Republican if only they’d drop their obsession with silly social issues.
Well, as long as you’ve got useful idiots like Rod Dreherwriting for ostensibly conservative publications, we’ll just keep losing the culture wars.
For some reason, the link to Dreher isn’t working on my computer. What does he say?
Link is working now. It’s similar to the article I blogged about the other day on why conservatives are losing the debate on gay marriage.
Dreher is useful to Ron Unz because he can produce a certain quantum of copy on deadline. The quality is not important, and is often a daily diary of his upsets and insecurities. When he is out of ideas, he’ll tell you what he ate that day, complete with pictures.
Did you catch the Huntsman article? If the behavior of the body of Republican primary voters disappoints you often, you should remember they can be very discerning at times.
It helps when those who would inform the public about a group pushing their agenda. Doesn’t warn us at all. It further assists the social engineers when the media is complicit. It’s pretty Orwellian. I’d be concerned.
It’s similar to the article I blogged about the other day on why conservatives are losing the debate on gay marriage.
He has actually written the same article again and again and again for the last half-dozen years or so. Eventually Unz is going to dock his pay for persistent self-plagiarism.
i know of a kid whose parents let him identify as a girl in middle school for a couple years (name change, hormones and everything) who’s then went back to thinking he’s a guy. certain people don’t seem to acknowledge any line between toleration and full normalization that can potentially have this kinda effect for a small minority of unsure kids.
as far as indoctrination, i get what you’re saying but when people’ve decided they’re merely “correcting” our past on these issues this argument’s naturally kinda stacked against you. you gotta point out why you have an issue with ’em to get anywhere.
for me it all comes down to “tolerance” arguments sort of being fake — society will favor one vision (though this doesn’t mean shunning people obviously) or another. liberals realize this, when they refer to their position as more tolerant they’re only referring to the fact that they generally don’t make distinctions between different behaviors.
re:amconmag, i noticed former writer Michael Brendan Dougherty (orthodox Catholic) snarking on twitter asking why people were messaging him about the Huntsman piece, saying just cuz the magazine ran it doesn’t mean they endorse it (imagine them saying this about a piece arguing in favor of a mildly interventionist foreign policy, or defending Israel on something) and finally arguing (like Dreher) in favor of Huntsman saying that because the tide’s turned, it’s better to focus on religious exemptions. i’m not sure how people expect tenable exemptions if broader society increasingly views religious teachings on the issue to be without merit, plus, simply deferring to “it’s against my religion” and not making a broader argument will just lead to more criticism about it being an irrational belief, etc.
regardless of the different writers there, the important thing to remember about amconmag is that they are first and foremost anti-neocon, as well as anti-whatever the Republican base thinks. their stance is reactive, they do not have any guiding principles besides anti-“Empire” and anti-Israeli sentiment (which is essentially given a pass by their writers who aren’t Israeli-obsessed, who also snark with comments on how the GOP’s too nice to Israel/perpetually on the verge of launching a war with Iran if they ever come back to power)
Showing libertarians that the pro-life position is consistent with the non-aggression principle isn’t that difficult:
http://libertyanddignity.wordpress.com/pro-life-libertarianism-abortion-faq/
The gay marriage issue is a little more complex. I discuss it here:
http://libertyanddignity.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/gay-marriage-a-libertarian-critique/
Most self-identified libertarians I know are very receptive to the pro-life message, because most of them are at least what I would call ethically conscious, if they take the NAP seriously.
But you’re right. There is an unreflective assumption that social conservatism must be federally imposed. I honestly think it is one of these stupid memes that people repeat because it kinda sounds right. “Well, the DEMOCRATS want to tell you what to do with your wallet and the REPUBLICANS want to tell you what to do in the bedroom, and we LIBERTARIANS don’t want to tell you what to do at all.” There’s no evidence to substantiate that anyone in the GOP or the mainstream or even most of the fringe conservative movements wants to tell anyone what to do in the bedroom, but its a nice slogan I guess.
If the science fiction meme of time travel ever became fact, I would shove every writer of The American Conservative into Vienna in September 1683. If that did not change their minds, I would shove them into Poland in 1918 and keep them there through 1921.
On the one hand, I would like stuff like the MA transgendered nonsense to be challenged all the way to SCOTUS…
OTOH, one of two things would happen as a result:
1) The Court might uphold it, or
2) The Court would rule against it, but the school districts would pull a collective Andy Jackson and carry on as before…
i dunno that the libertarian position on marriage is stable. it makes sense that the federal govt. would want to endorse a certain vision of what marriage is, whatever that may be, as opposed to having your status change depending on what state you’re in.
abortion is different because it’s a one-time action, and while obviously if you think it’s immoral you’ll likely want it banned, period, giving states the opportunity to decide the immorality/illegality of an action (not a status) makes more sense. however given “Roe v. Wade” it’s impossible to not fight for either the states’ rights or absolute position on the matter at the federal level, unless Congress were to strip courts of their jurisdiction in this specific area, which ain’t gonna happen.
and i’m aware of the “get the state out of marriage” argument where neither states nor the feds would be involved in it. just not something i agree with
one thing about people who won’t vote GOP based on social issues, look out for Mr. or Mrs. Democratic nominee 2016 to be Mr. or Mrs. Fiscally Conservative
“well i was thinking about voting for Jon Huntsman, buuut…”
i noticed former writer Michael Brendan Dougherty (orthodox Catholic) snarking on twitter asking why people were messaging him about the Huntsman piece, saying just cuz the magazine ran it doesn’t mean they endorse it
A certain amount of misdirection and irony is Mr. Dougherty’s trademark. He is one of a minority of contributors to the magazine who does not seem to have issues.
But you’re right. There is an unreflective assumption that social conservatism must be federally imposed.
Bonchamps, the opposition planned to impose their burlesque on the country through the full Faith and Credit clause and did in fact impose abortion on demand through the judicial ukase. Not much option but some sort of cross-state response.
Why does it seem libertarian causes boil down to legalizing weed and gay marriage?
What sense does that make?
America is threatened by graver perils like national bankruptcy, socialism and statism.
And, just how is legalizing gay marriage liberatrian? The motivation is to procure state approval, recognition and coercive enforcement, thus outlawing religious beliefs of millions. We owe perverts Christian charity because as long as they live they may come to a better “mindset.”
In a free state, Catholics wouldn’t be forced to alter our religious beliefs.
I’d like to believe you’re correct, Bonchamps. Alas, in my experience the typical libertarian who attempts to discuss abortion in the context of the non-aggression principle (NAP) will speedily claim that the baby in the womb is aggressing against the mother blah blah blah Judith Jarvis Thompson, blah, violinist, blah blah, my ears are plugged, naah naah, I’m not listening to you, naah naah, the science is settled, case closed.
I worry that you don’t know as many libertarians as I do.
And remember, in a political movement those most committed to it set the movement’s agenda and shape how the movement is defined.
The smear job on Dreher doesn’t make any sense. What are you actually trying to imply? The man has repeatedly reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage, and this piece is simply a lament of society’s understanding of marriage. I’m not sure what there is to take issue with.
AD,
“Not much option but some sort of cross-state response.”
Repealing Roe sends it back to the states. That is ultimately what we would like to see.
Also, the slam on his “View from you table” posts is really bizarre. Usually, the pictures, sent in by readers, include descriptions of the food, the gathering, and the significance behind it. Things like family traditions and cultural customs. You know, ideas that conservatives are supposed to care about and preserve. If you want to take issue with AmCon as a whole, that’s fine, but the attacks on Dreher are unsubstantiated and really pathetic.
ME,
“And remember, in a political movement those most committed to it set the movement’s agenda and shape how the movement is defined.”
Ron Paul’s campaigns have challenged the monopoly of opinion enjoyed by pro-abortionists. And Libertarians for Life have been around for some time. We also have Tom Woods, Judge Napolitano and others who oppose abortion. So it is no longer credible for anyone – either anti-libertarians or pro-choice libertarians – to insist that pro-abortionism is the default and necessary libertarian position. In fact it is absurdly easy to take apart Rothbard’s pro-abortion ethics (without viciously hating every word the man every wrote and even finding some value in it).
Bonchamps,
I think AD was referring to gay marriage and the use of the full faith and credit clause to inevitably force states that do not recognize same sex marriage to recognize same sex unions from states that do.
Ah. That’s what he meant by “burlesque.”
Well, the point basically remains. I wouldn’t view a refusal to recognize gay marriage at the federal level to be an example of imposing morality at the federal level. Whether it is a state or the federal government refusing such recognition, it has nothing to do with the regulation of individual, personal behavior. There are no sodomy police, nor is anyone calling for them – but to hear some libertarians and leftists discuss the issue, they sound as if this is exactly what is being proposed.
“If you want to take issue with AmCon as a whole, that’s fine, but the attacks on Dreher are unsubstantiated and really pathetic.”
Pathetic actually sums up Dreher’s frequent changes in religion and ideology. His preoccupation with food seems to be one of the few constants in his career. A man really should not write opinion pieces when his own opinions have all the rock solid stability of a weathervane.
Classic Jonah Goldberg takedown of Dreher in his insipid “Crunchy Con” incarnation.
http://old.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200603020807.asp
JL: i don’t think anyone’s saying that a blog has to be all politics, all the time. however, since “crunchy cons” Dreher has tried to extrapolate his personal tastes & preferences into a unique form of conservatism in a way that i think is really silly, especially since, let’s call them the “greedy cons,” i’m sure have their own things they enjoy doing & don’t think amassing wealth is the sum of all human existence like he claimed they do.
“Things like family traditions and cultural customs. You know, ideas that conservatives are supposed to care about and preserve.”
well sure. the problem is that this can get vague to the point that trying to attach any political label to it is reading too much into things in my view. for instance i come from a family that’s almost all Democrats and you’d think of as upstanding, good people. does this have much to do with the “Burkean conservatism” defined by amconmag? not really, and personally i try to avoid imputing politics to every little aspect of life.
on the pro-life thing, i don’t doubt that libertarians can have that view (although i never understood Paul’s stock “get the federal government out of it” response when the issue’s been unavoidably federalized since 1973, at least as far as the courts go) however given the amount of emphasis that libertarianism puts against the state and on personal autonomy it’s unsurprising that the liberal and libertarian position would converge for a lot of people
I wonder how long before boys start declaring they “feel” like they’re women just to get into the girls’ locker rooms… 😉
If you want to take issue with AmCon as a whole, that’s fine, but the attacks on Dreher are unsubstantiated and really pathetic.
“Unsubtantiated”? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
JL, Mr. McClarey, among others, has experience directly tangling with Dreher and others have observed him for some years. Persistent features of what he has to say are as follows:
1. An almost compulsive need to display himself.
2. Great anxiety about his appearance and juxtaposition to others.
The content of what he says is incidental. It’s all in the stances.
A man really should not write opinion pieces when his own opinions have all the rock solid stability of a weathervane.
He is 46, he has three kids, his wife has a spotty job history, and his employment at The American Conservative (a publication with a paid circulation less than a tenth of the one he resigned from a decade ago) would appear to be the result of a career crash. He may not have too many alternatives.
“Pathetic actually sums up Dreher’s frequent changes in religion and ideology. His preoccupation with food seems to be one of the few constants in his career. A man really should not write opinion pieces when his own opinions have all the rock solid stability of a weathervane.”
Ahh yes. This trope. If only we all had life figured out before we turned 11, like you Donald. Blokes like Chesterton are incapable of opining with any credibility!
lotta strawmanning goin’ on
“”“Unsubtantiated”? I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
It means that if someone’s making a claim, I’d like to see some sort of justification for it.
“JL, Mr. McClarey, among others, has experience directly tangling with Dreher and others have observed him for some years. Persistent features of what he has to say are as follows:
1. An almost compulsive need to display himself.
2. Great anxiety about his appearance and juxtaposition to others.””
OK, well pardon me if you stating these “facts” doesn’t amount to substantive evidence in my eyes. If these two have tangled, I’d love to see the primary source for myself and form my own opinion.
“The content of what he says is incidental. It’s all in the stances.
A man really should not write opinion pieces when his own opinions have all the rock solid stability of a weathervane.
He is 46, he has three kids, his wife has a spotty job history, and his employment at The American Conservative (a publication with a paid circulation less than a tenth of the one he resigned from a decade ago) would appear to be the result of a career crash. He may not have too many alternatives.”
Ha, thanks for the conspiracy theory Art. Clearly it’s an impossibility that he could actually have convictions that GASP! aren’t identical to ones he had 10 years ago.
Now let’s get back to bashing “The View From Your Table!” Take this iteration, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/view-from-your-table-170/, where Rod, an alleged “conservative,” has the balls to say this!!! :
“That, my dears, is a vasilopita, or, St. Basil’s Cake. Today, on the Old Calendar, is the Feast of St. Basil. Inside the cake is baked a coin, in honor of a tradition that says St. Basil wanted to distribute money to the poor, but to allow them to retain their dignity. So he baked gold coins into cakes he distributed to them. Today, people put a single coin into the batter. The the tradition is that the first slice is for Jesus Christ, the second for his Holy Mother, and the third for St. Basil. And then on you go, through each member of the family. Whoever gets the piece with the coin in it is said to be blessed throughout the year.
St. Basil got the coin in our house tonight, but Nora (see right) got that piece. She holds the coin in her hand. This was the first year we had such a cake. It was completely delicious.”
Clearly talking about Orthodox customs has no value to conservatives at all. He’s obviously desperate for content! Instead he should devote a blog post to a Russian folk song.
Chesterton and Dreher, please! Chesterton was a Catholic in belief long before he converted, and when he converted he stayed converted. He remained remarkably consistent in his political and economic beliefs throughout his career. A better example of Dreher’s career is actually that of Gary Wills, although Rod mercifully does not have the rancor of Wills for people believing what he used to believe.
JL i have been familiar with Dreher for a while now. it’s not inaccurate to say he conflates his own personal lifestyle a lot with what he thinks conservatism should be. it’s not the same as offering certain critiques of modern conservatism.
as far as the post you mentioned…cool? like i mentioned above these things might be interesting for some but i do not view them in political terms. i’m averse to affixing liberalism or conservatism to what are basic human experiences
The conversion from Methodist to Catholic to Orthodox is far less radical than that of an agnostic steeped in the occult ending up in the RC. I’m not attempting to make the claim that Dreher is somehow on GKC’s caliber. I’m saying your dismissal of a man’s opinions and beliefs because they’re not the same as they were 10 years ago is petulant.
“well sure. the problem is that this can get vague to the point that trying to attach any political label to it is reading too much into things in my view. for instance i come from a family that’s almost all Democrats and you’d think of as upstanding, good people. does this have much to do with the “Burkean conservatism” defined by amconmag? not really, and personally i try to avoid imputing politics to every little aspect of life.”
I think I get what you’re saying, but I don’t really follow. So Value A is inclusive to both Group 1 and Group 2. Therefore Group 1 is forbidden from talking about it?
I’m glad I don’t have an opinion-maker in this fight.
I read Taki’s 🙂
“JL i have been familiar with Dreher for a while now. it’s not inaccurate to say he conflates his own personal lifestyle a lot with what he thinks conservatism should be. it’s not the same as offering certain critiques of modern conservatism.”
So his actions in life are actually informed by his convictions? Ok…I’m really failing to see the harm in any of this.
“as far as the post you mentioned…cool? like i mentioned above these things might be interesting for some but i do not view them in political terms. i’m averse to affixing liberalism or conservatism to what are basic human experiences”
I’m not sure Dreher views them in “political terms” either, whatever that means. The entire idea of Burkean/Kirkean liberalism is that its non-ideologocial, and is simply the articulation of what was generally accepted as true about life and society before liberalism sprang up, but never before needed to be summed up in some grandiose political programme.
Burkean conservatism*
–There are no sodomy police, nor is anyone calling for them – but to hear some libertarians and leftists discuss the issue, they sound as if this is exactly what is being proposed.
Because such tactics work in changing the conversation. If you’ve had any dealings with young turks on twitter and other social media you realize that they don’t have any ability to cogently put forward an argument in defense of same sex marriage. What they can do is offer jeremiads about “hate” and “bigotry.” It’s a beautiful tactic, really, because it plays on people’s emotions.
They seem to be under the impression that opposition to “gay marriage” is tantamount to a legal prohibition on personal behavior. This is the great lie I am trying to defeat.
no i’m saying there is a line between a particular lifestyle you live and taking it to be some unique form of political philosophy. you don’t typically see eccentric liberals who maybe don’t quite fit in with some of their peers try to invent a new subset of liberalism based on this for example.
also the “political” comment was in response to you, you’re the guy who said that people here were being mean to the guy by supposedly refusing to acknowledge the relevance of these things to traditional conservatism, and then pulled the all-purpose ill-defined “Burkean/Kirkian” card to make my point on AmCon for me
“They seem to be under the impression that opposition to “gay marriage” is tantamount to a legal prohibition on personal behavior”
no one thinks this. people like those mentioned above are just playing on the fact that opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to homosexuality are related, though not always, and their view that you shouldn’t be allowed to make a distinction between traditional and SSM
If minor childen must be in school by law, then the public schools must accomodate their needs for modesty and privacy until they are adults. This would outlaw strangers talking to the minor children about sexual intimacy, soul raping through indoctrination and kidnapping by the state. Every civil right in the Constitution by its nature has sanction against the violation of its freedom. Atheism is sanctioned by freedom of Religion. Perjury is sanctioned by free speech. Social engineering is sanctioned by peaceable assembly. Peaceable assembly is freedom not only to petition government for redress but for persons, especially minor children, to be secure in their virginity and innocence, as they are created, because innocence and virginIty are the bone and sinew of JUSTICE.
Ha, thanks for the conspiracy theory Art.
JL, that term does not mean what you think it means, either. (For one thing, ‘conspiracy’ implies common action with some other individual).
To make it more explicit for your understanding: Dreher’s career has been producing commentary. That is what he does. He has been variously a film critic, columnist, editorial writer, and now a a daily blogger. He has lived in six different cities and been employed by seven different publications, but admits to no history as a reporter (a trade not in the best of straits as we speak) Retooling at his age is difficult and his last attempt (an editorial position with the Templeton Foundation) came a cropper. Even if he makes a buffoon out of himself, his options to do something other than topical commentary are constricted.
OK, well pardon me if you stating these “facts” doesn’t amount to substantive evidence in my eyes. If these two have tangled, I’d love to see the primary source for myself and form my own opinion.
JL, just to recall the history of this exchange, Dr. Zummo referred to Mr. Dreher as a ‘useful idiot’. That’s an insult. It is not something one substantiates or fails to substantiate. My remarks are as follows: He has actually written the same article again and again and again for the last half-dozen years or so. Eventually Unz is going to dock his pay for persistent self-plagiarism.. There are two parts to that. One is readily verifiable if you assemble a bibliography of his writings. It is not that difficult for you to rummage through the archives of The American Conservative or Beliefnet or find Maggie Gallagher’s replies to Dreher in various fora if you are at all curious as to how often he returns to this theme. My second sentence is what is known colloquially as a ‘joke’. That is not something you substantiate either.
—
That Dreher has an atypical impulse to publicize his opinions and impressions is one he admits to himself. It was his explanation for resigning from the Templeton Foundation, which had insisted as a condition of employment he discontinue his Beliefnet column.
As for my understanding of the common threads in Dreher’s writing, well, that is a matter of opinion as well. We could assemble his stray topical commentary over the years, his articles and columns, and in particular look at aspects of form, which, in Dreher’s case is important (emotionalism is standard fare). There was a period during which Rod Dreher was all over Catholic discussion fora and anyone who perused it got to be familiar with him. For Dreher, the personal really is the political (and the religious). Honestly, though, this is a blog posting, not a master’s thesis, and the man’s a rank and file pundit, not Karl Barth. (And I have wasted too many pixels on this already).
“JL, that term does not mean what you think it means, either. (For one thing, ‘conspiracy’ implies common action with some other individual).”
Well clearly his wife and kids are in on it. But you’ve nabbed em, Art!
Again, nothing you imply about Dreher’s convictions or lack thereof amounts to anything more than overwrought, contrived conjecture, “reading” your own nefarious motives into another man’s actions. Apologies for taking the man at his word.
“JL, just to recall the history of this exchange, Dr. Zummo referred to Mr. Dreher as a ‘useful idiot’. That’s an insult. It is not something one substantiates or fails to substantiate. My remarks are as follows: He has actually written the same article again and again and again for the last half-dozen years or so. Eventually Unz is going to dock his pay for persistent self-plagiarism.. There are two parts to that. One is readily verifiable if you assemble a bibliography of his writings. It is not that difficult for you to rummage through the archives of The American Conservative or Beliefnet or find Maggie Gallagher’s replies to Dreher in various fora if you are at all curious as to how often he returns to this theme. My second sentence is what is known colloquially as a ‘joke’. That is not something you substantiate either.”
Actually Art, opinions can and should be substantiated if their issuer wants them to be perceived as anything more than a string of baseless syllables. Calling someone a “useful idiot” without much explanation, save a link to an article which seemed anything but idiotic, isn’t just insulting, it’s flippant and wrongheaded. As is implying that someone resorts to showing pictures of food when they run out of ideas.
“, which, in Dreher’s case is important (emotionalism is standard fare).”
Depends on what you mean by “emotionalism,” but probably another unsubstantiated claim.
“For Dreher, the personal really is the political (and the religious).”
Good, I hope it’d be.
“no i’m saying there is a line between a particular lifestyle you live and taking it to be some unique form of political philosophy. you don’t typically see eccentric liberals who maybe don’t quite fit in with some of their peers try to invent a new subset of liberalism based on this for example.
also the “political” comment was in response to you, you’re the guy who said that people here were being mean to the guy by supposedly refusing to acknowledge the relevance of these things to traditional conservatism, and then pulled the all-purpose ill-defined “Burkean/Kirkian” card to make my point on AmCon for me”
I don’t think it’s a “unique form of political philosophy,” I just think alleged conservatives should be less derisive of a nice feature that celebrates tradition, family, and culture.
I think Dreher’s brand of conservatism differs substantially from other forms. He might generally vote GOP, but there’s nothing wrong with distinguishing his approach to politics from the approach of others who happen to vote for the same candidates as him, but for different reasons. The more specificity the better.
“I just think alleged conservatives should be less derisive of a nice feature that celebrates tradition, family, and culture.”
if someone’s not allowed to mock a post about kale, the terrorists truly have won
me myself i eat conservative food, take conservative walks and drink conservative beers on a regular basis
in seriousness i get that people would have certain issues with the modern-day GOP, certain Team Red conservative commentators, i get it. and i appreciate that there’s an interest in other, less partisan arguments with a different focus. i just don’t find AmCon to be a useful alternative for reasons Art has outlined before
Art Deco has outlined
Donald, I agree Chesterton was a Catholic before he converted. I also think he retained a personlity that was quintessentially Protestant throughout his life. That was his paradox.
There are many words that I would use to describe Chesterton in his adult years, and a “Protestant personality”, whatever the devil that is, would not be among them. On my father’s side all my relatives are Protestant and I have never noted any difference in personality between them and me attributable to our difference of religion.