*******Squaring the Circle of Our Rad Trad Catholic Girardian Conserberalism******* all 4 1 & 1 4 all
It's an interesting nutshell kind of news reporting on the 1950-2007 time span. But it'd take more than a sound bite take from me, Porthos, to give my take on it. It says a great deal, yet leaves out at least as much. And a few inferences are a leap beyond the ken.
A couple of those inferences I would take to task:many if not most conservatives today wouldn’t undo the broad thrust of these changes even if they could. Depending on the issue, they range from moderately embarrassed to deeply ashamed of the Right’s past associations with segregation, sexism, and prudery.Lumping this little trinity of no-no's is trying a rhetorical guilt by association. Segregation is obviously a social injustice. Sexism - well, perhaps, if one doesn't delve too far into demographics, the Natural Law, and matters of marriage and family. Prudery -- let's see what the author says below:I predict that, in 20 years’ time if not sooner, the recent right-wing panics over gay marriage and Mexican immigration will look every bit as hidebound as the old fulminations against “satanic” rock ’n’ rollAgain, he lumps two strange bedfellows -- immigration and "gay marriage" -- sort of like sliding a piece of legislation through on the eve of a congressional vacation.I have to stake my claim to epistemological certainty with Catholic teaching, Porthos. Not this libertarian's claim to seeing above the fray of conservative and liberal squabbling. Best, A.
Ath, I thought the article was weird and that's why I linked it with double question marks. NRO published a response by Ramesh Ponnuru as a companion piece. (Ramesh is a staunchly pro-life, moral issues type Catholic.)http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI2OGM1MzU0MTQ3NDg2N2FkM2UwYzU1NTcyYWMxOWU=
The only thing I thought worthy of consideration in the original piece (unlike you, I confess I did not read it all the way through--the gay honeymoons in Disney World did not bode well) was the linking of "progressivism" with affluence. Something to consider in its own right (apart from the article).With you, I find the linking of any "conservatism" with segregation, racism, sexism, prudery, etc. to be deeply offensive on many levels. Easily refuted, too, either historically (did more Dems or Republicans vote for the Civil Rights Act? Remember Dixiecrats?) or in the contemporary picture (who is standing up for women's rights around the world now? Generally, not progressives). Etc. etc.Sorry if linking the piece without commentary caused confusion. As I'm a bit slim on commentary right now, that probably means I should make an effort to link/post rather more sparinglly.
Post a Comment