For Conservatives... an Advantage? (Part 1)

I started writing this back before the election. I was thinking the whole time, "Wow, this is so important for people to read. Wow. Wow, wow, wow. Gotta blog on this baby!" Then I started thinking of insights I wanted to share about the way Catholic Conservatives versus Catholic Liberals are dealt with by the Church. So I put off posting it, and I kept putting it off until now. [Note: I wrote this paragraph on Tuesday, 2/12/19]

Yes; I put this off several more days because I kept thinking of more things to say. Finally I decided to break this up into smaller pieces, this being the main one. So hopefully next week I'll post more thoughts—I have to travel again.

This is a very insightful Quillette article by Matthew Blackwell written about a year ago. Blackwell It examines temperamental differences between conservatives and liberals (Blackwell uses the term progressives). Excerpt:

Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse. Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don’t hold. To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don’t understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives. This he calls the ‘conservative advantage,’ and it goes a long way in explaining the different ways each side deals with opinions unlike their own. People get angry at what they don’t understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don’t understand.

Haidt’s research echoes arguments made by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions and Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate. Both Sowell and Pinker contend that conservatives see an unfortunate world of moral trade-offs in which every moral judgment comes with costs that must be properly balanced. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be blind to, or in denial about, these trade-offs, whether economic and social; theirs is a utopian or unconstrained vision, in which every moral grievance must be immediately extinguished until we have perfected society. This is why conservatives don’t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility. The conservative hears the progressive’s latest demands and says, “I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think you’ve overlooked the following...” In contrast, the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, “I have no idea why you would believe that. You’re probably a racist.”

Does this ring true to me? Certainly, and I am glad we now have scientific evidence to prove what we have experienced as outspoken conservatives for years. I can vividly recall the fierce accusations of a hardline leftist in a heated interaction; most of the heat was coming from his side. When trying to reason with him about why conservatives dislike the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), he told me "You just want people to die!" Had I responded, "Well, you just want to have everything for free, bite the hand that feeds you, and..." then that would be a response in kind, and this "argument" would fall flat. But I rarely hear this sort of rhetoric on the right, and when I have, there is an immediate distancing by other conservatives in the vicinity. Thinking conservatives do not want to be lumped in with unconstructive accusation.

[Side note: In fact, most conservatives do not want to be "lumped in" at all with anything. That is why MAGA hats are such a new phenomenon.]

My friend Nate noticed the same tendency in a very good recent post on his blog, Rotten Chestnuts:

Both sides often make relevant points about important data, and both sides seem to avoid what the other one is addressing leading to a frustration of everybody talking past each other. Yet I couldn’t help but notice that the [Trump] fans seemed to make an effort to confront the counter arguments a bit more often – the [Trump] skeptics rarely so. In fact the skeptics seemed to go out of their way to [avoid] even acknowledg[ing] competing evidence.

(I hope Nate doesn't mind my slight correction – it is what I think he is trying to say. We all could use an editor.)

My theory is that there are really two possible reasons we conservatives don't respond in kind as I described. One is that we don't presume to know motives. I don't really know that someone pushing for Obamacare is trying to stick it to the man and get handouts. The other one is that even if I suspect that this might be his motivation, there is no rhetorical value in throwing this at him. He reduces his chance of winning the argument by accusing me of murderous intent, but I'm not about to give ground by assertions of larcenous intent. Even if I was right I would lose in the mind of onlookers who thought my opponent's motives were pure.

Two conclusions from the leftist's behavior are easy for me to imagine. The first conclusion: the liberal has no desire to convince me I'm wrong or a bit "off" in my thinking. He just means to assert his opinion, usually loudly and in a derisive way which is difficult to rebut. He wants to silence my voice. Whether I shut up out of shame or out of frustration, this is his best hope of "winning" — a forfeit from his opponent. I believe this is why we were all so gratified to hear Brett Kavanaugh swinging back at the "coordinated effort to destroy [his] good name" by false accusations in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. He wasn't having any of it; he wasn't going to give up. We're use to people on our side sitting by and "taking their lumps".

The second possible conclusion: he really does want to convince me he is right and thinks this is the best way to go about it. This is less likely in my opinion, but I admit it is possible. It would mean that I have to "change my mind" in a sort of nominal way to be able to go with the flow — his flow. There is still no logic involved, and probably no real willful change of heart or mind. Maybe the liberal imagines he can pull off the ol' Jedi Mind Trick?

Going back to Blackwell's beginning paragraph:

When I disagree with a conservative friend or colleague on some political issue, I have no fear of speaking my mind. I talk, they listen, they respond, I talk some more, and at the end of it we get along just as we always have. But I’ve discovered that when a progressive friend says something with which I disagree or that I know to be incorrect, I’m hesitant to point it out. This hesitancy is a consequence of the different treatment one tends to receive from those on the Right and Left when expressing a difference of opinion. I am not, as it turns out, the only one who has noticed this.

I remarked to my wife last night that reading this made me want to be even more empathetic in by use of rhetoric and conciliatory in my tone when I debate with anyone, especially liberals. I never ever want to respond in kind. It is obvious that Trump is not so worried about this, but I don't think we have to imitate him by any means just because he is the de facto head of the more conservative political party. But typically the people in the Trump Resistance camp are even worse at seeing the other side because they respond in kind almost reflexively and with barely any self-awareness. It's like Cleveland talker Mike Trivisonno famously stated two years ago, "The people who hate Trump the most don't realize how much they're like him."

[In my next installment, I'll talk about the effect this phenomenon has had on the Catholic Church.]

An Option to the so-called Benedict Option?

While Dreher has spilled a tanker-load of virtual ink over at his blog about his so-called eponymous "Benedict Option", he hasn't yet figured out what he means by it.  OTOH, our discussions have identified at least two salient characteristics:  it's self-promoting if not self-aggrandizing (Dreher being the "self"), and it is essentially rolling into a ball and letting others do the fighting.

But just like the question of what the Repubs in Congress are going to propose in place of Obamacare should the Supreme Court (rightly) drive a stake into Obamacare, it is a fair question to wonder whether there are any options to the utopian Dreher Bunker Option.  Only here at EQE, unlike the weak-kneed GOP leadership in Congress, we're going to try to answer that fair question.

Some time back I linked to a blurb of a new book by Charles Murray, author of Coming Apart (which I highly highly recommend) and co-author of the much-discussed The Bell Curve.  The new book is By The People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission:

In last Saturday's Wall Street Journal, Murray contributed the Saturday Essay (read the whole thing, as they say -- no paywall) in which he summarizes this promising concept. Here are a couple of pull quotes:

It was our boast that in America, unlike in any other country, you could live your life as you saw fit as long as you accorded the same liberty to everyone else.... Americans were to live under a presumption of freedom.... 

We now live under a presumption of constraint....The number of federal crimes you could commit as of 2007 (the last year they were tallied) was about 4,450, a 50% increase since just 1980.  A comparative handful of those crimes are "malum in se" -- bad in themselves.  The rest are "malum prohibitum" -- crimes because the government disapproves....

Whether we are trying to raise our children, be good stewards of our property, cooperate with our neighbors to solve local problems or practice our religious faith, the bureaucrats think they know better. And when the targets of the regulator state say they've had enough, that they will fight it in court, the bureaucrats can -- and do -- say to them, "Try that, and we'll ruin you." 

For example, see the sub-headline here :

"relatively unregulated, but that could change".  I bet it could, and I bet it will.

So what to do?  Here's his proposal:

And so my modest proposal:  Let's withhold that compliance through systematic civil disobedience. Not for all regulations, but for the pointless, stupid and tyrannical ones....

The risk in doing so, of course, is that one of the 70-odd regulatory agencies will find out what you're doing and come after you.  But there's a way around that as well:  Let's treat government as an insurable hazard, like tornadoes.

Sounds promising.

At the nudging of others (thanks!), I'm about to start reading Murray's book on the subject.  I'll drop a post here every so often during the process for comment if you are so inclined.  No, not in Dreherian canto-by-canto-Dante style so you can tell me how awesome I am.  Nor will I be fishing for a publishing deal on my book about how someone else's book helped me deal with (sorta, kinda, but not really) my peculiar problems that others caused me.  But maybe, if this makes sense, we few -- we happy few -- can find a way to take action instead of heading to the bunkers.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE (already) :  Great minds ... etc.  Pauli's contemporaneous post immediately below hits this very same point at the very same time.  This passage he quotes is right on point with the above:

...the Catholic enclaves will have to be defended by Catholic lawyers and political activists.

The reference to Catholics is because the piece quoted was written to Catholics.  But as we of course know from history and as Murray notes above, it isn't just the Catholic enclaves that will have to be defended, but the founding idea of the Nation.

UPDATE 2nd:  Thanks, Pauli, for pointing out that I omitted the title of the Murray book.  Fixed that above.

If you need Rod Dreher to save you, are you really worth saving?

I've probably let it seep out that I'm not a big fan of whiners, particularly when it comes to Christianity and conservatism, both of which, it seems to me, should provoke us to more noble postures.

One expression of this that periodically irritates me is when I hear someone say that at the end of the day we can't be too hard on Rod Dreher - the archetype God studied when designing the weasel - because he stands up for us where we can't. Bullshit. Here's a prime example of just the opposite.

Today Dreher has a post up about a cop in Salt Lake City who found himself in some sort of trouble with his superiors for not marching in some sort of gay parade. Dreher's solution? Naturally, his Benedict Option - whatever that really is.

Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally,

This fall, a major university is planning a conference on the Benedict Option, as Christians and conservatives are considering the idea more seriously. I am planning a book about it, as a contribution to the public debate.

While the finer points of that LEO's obligations as an officer under orders remain unresolved, the main thing, the only thing, is that the officer chose to resign rather than fighting for his rights himself based on the abundance of rights and resources he already had available.

Dreher would encourage more to do the same, in the guise of a fatalistic vision of inevitable persecution, because it serves his personal bottom line.

One of Dreher's regular conservative commenters, Glaivester, comes to similar, if not quite as venally motivated, conclusions.

If you need a self-dealing weasel like Dreher to save you rather than standing up for yourself, what sort of Christianity or conservatism, exactly, do you represent that is really worth saving?

For your New Year's weekend amusement, the a Keith Principle

It was probably my comments with Pik about Romney, Jeb Bush, and other Republican presidential contenders that got me thinking about this. Anyway, feel free to beat up on or refine this however you want:

- The less qualified as a chief executive officer the President is (e.g., the more dependent on an ersatz-mommy like Valerie Jarrett), the larger and more bureaucratically self-governing the federal government must necessarily grow to be to continue functioning coherently at all.

- The smaller we make our government, the more skilled our chief executive officer must be at actually running it, i.e., making it go and, even more importantly, making it not go when and where it shouldn't.

- Presidents who are more ideologically qualified than CEO skill set-qualified will inevitably bend their ears to the guidance of some type of grand vizier more skill set-qualified in something than they are, someone, by definition, you didn't elect. Therefore, the best way to elect your federal team is to put the strongest CEO you feel is sufficiently ideologically qualified at President and your strongest ideological leaders in active legislative roles, i.e., where ideology gets translated into the reality of law or non-law.

Okay, there you go, have at it.

Their kind of conservatism

Charades:

Boy Working

Yes. Everyone who guessed, guessed correctly. And now to the main event.

Just recently, to further promote his forthcoming Dante book, our hard-sniffing Working Boy availed himself of an interview with  "philosopher James K.A. Smith" (Is philosopher a professional designation? If not, can anyone be one? If so, how does one rank Smith relative to philosopher Charlie Brown or philosopher Pogo?).


Naturally, such favors must be repaid, head to tail, and so this tongue bath urging readers to subscribe to Smith's Comment magazine entitled Our Kind of Conservatism.

Here's what we need to figure out, though. In the comments under Smith's article Redeeming Conservatism, a commenter named John Tiemstra puts us on this notice:

OK, just as long as we understand that the real conservatives are people who favor market-based reforms, like cap and trade, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank. Most so-called conservatives these days are not conservative at all, but radical libertarians.

Whoa, really? Forgive me, but that sounds more like the Pelosi-Obama-Reid wing of conservatism to me.

And no "Nuh-huh, nooooooooo, no way, Dude!" from philosopher James K. A. Smith.

Is there a nuanced mystery to this redeemed conservatism too complex for my dense and primitive monkey noggin? If not, where am I going astray from real conservatism? I will say Smith appears to me to be successfully "offer[ing] a posture".

(philosopher and noted poultry critic Keith M. Ionlyhaveonemiddleinitial H.)

What have we learned from Dreher & Douthat's opportunistic attacks on Ted Cruz this week?

That a mean junior high school girl faction of conservatism will do whatever it takes to sleep with the quarterback, the quarterback in this case being internet blogosphere popularity at large, measured in site clicks from any comers. Principles are now so 20th Century.

That the facts of the Cruz situation simply don't matter. In fact, the facts of the matter were not only willfully rewritten, but also in the case of the rumor Dreher launched about Cruz cynically fielding advertizing based on his encounter, invented out of whole cloth and never retracted. What matters now are imputed and projected feelings, the universal currency of liberalism, NPR, and most importantly, those wonderful cat videos.

That for its loudest proponents, "Christian" has become nothing more than a marketing tool, like "new improved Tide". Dreher, Douthat and their fellow opportunists have seldom previously given a flying f*ck about the fate of Mideast Christians, but given the chance to score some internet hits at the expense of a Senator calculated to be most widely perceived as SNL material, they weep ostentatiously like the Walrus and the Carpenter. Next week something else will be the big blog hit score, and the Mideast Christians will once again be forgotten.

That the very, very best position to take is all positions. We saw this exemplified in Dreher's blogging this week (links in my posts below), where each subsequent post was recalibrated based on both responses to his previous ones and to the buzz on the internet at large and new, nuanced talking points contradicting his previous ones introduced to capture those eyeballs who might have frowned at something previously .

Welcome to the land of conservatism beyond principle or, rather, conservatism where "principle" now means how many "likes" and blog hits you scored today.

Natives agree: Emperor Dreher wearing no conservative pants

Our anonymous commenter Anonymous and I aren't the only ones who see that Rod Dreher's dramatic, pearl-clutching resignation to SSM is nothing more than a phony, cynical pose to drive hits to his blog. Several of his most loyal commenters see right through his pose, too.

Read through the comments on this post and you will see jaws drop, stutterings of incredulity, direct challenges like "Let’s be clear here Rod – would you or would you not have supported the passage of the Arizona bill?", smirking recognition of Dreher's overly flamboyant vogueing - "The blogger doth protest too much, methinks.", and this devastaing exposition from one of Dreher's most loyal followers:

Rod’s been saying for years that socons need to fight for carve-outs for religious freedom. Then when the Arizona bill comes out, he not only refuses to discuss its actual contents, but says he hasn’t even read it because it would just get vetoed, anyway. That’s a staggering cop-out which sounds more than a bit petulant. I mean, he’s been constantly pushing for carve-outs, but keeps it kind of vague what exactly that means, and then when something specific comes down the pike, he refuses to discuss it. Even if it were un-passable (as it was), it would be interesting to discuss its merits and demerits. Right?

I’ve said this before: Rod seems extremely conflicted and I think he knows that he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

I think "conflicted" probably expresses Dreher's whole problem in this area in the most face-saving way possible.

But the jig is up.

Dreher's no conservative, clearly no anti-SSM conservative, and despite all the loud chatter and the self-medicating, therapeutic performance art he devotes to his impressive collection of religions to date, he really doesn't seem at heart a very religious persom either.

What he is publicly, though, unequivocally, is an enthusiastic food hedonist, ferociously interested in odd sex wherever he can dig it up to blog about it, who opportunistically writes in whatever niche won't actually drive him out - hence his current home in the dog's breakfast that The American Conservative has become.

Let's wrap this up with a final commenter quote that expresses this whole sorry exposure best:

Again? Seriously? Isn’t it time for an installment of “View From Your Table” about now?

Just give up the pretenses to social conservatism, Dreher. Just quit. Leave the space for real social conservatives flying true colors.

Instead, put your energies into getting yourself a cooking show snuggled between gay designers on Bravo or somewhere, somewhere you can finally be true to yourself.

Somewhere you can finally be happy, kick your drug addiction, and get an honest night's sleep for once in your life.

Pimping out a child

Now what in the world kind of American Conservatism do we have here?

Could it be a release from the Tea Party looking for some kinder and gentler press from all sides?

Maybe it's an early draft of The Road to Serfdom scrawled by a toddling Friedrich Hayek after observing a servant doing what they do best.

Nah, as it turns out, this is what your tax-deductible dollars buy at The American Ideas Institute's The American Conservative blog by Rod Dreher: otherwise mommy blog-typical content filched from his unsuspecting 7-year-old daughter Nora, a frequent contributor of such child labor, and pimped out as his own cheap and easy post-filler. Not only your tax-deductible dollars, by the way, mine as well, because who do you think has to pay more now to cover your tax deductibility?

And yet not only does a child's stolen refrigerator art (it's highly unlikely Nora received a proportionate cut of Dreher's pay for this effort as an allowance bonus this month) qualify as a legitimate government tax expenditure these days, it apparently also qualifies as some sort of example of conservative "culture" - in some Downton Abbey conservative-cultury sort of way.

Yep, that's what conservatism has now been reduced and degraded to in some quarters: the government-subsidized pimping out of someone's 7-year-old daughter's labor in order to earn their own daily bread.

In a world where Charles Krauthammer's not conservative enough...

Yeah, you should probably read that subject line in the voice of Don LaFontaine.

While the original post that this one's spinning off of was originally intended only to contrast a true conservative writer with a pretentious scrunchy con clown, it turns out, news to me, that Bubba and Kathleen and so probably others - Bubba linked Andrew McCarthy - don't think Charles Krauhammer is conservative enough, or is the wrong kind of conservative, or in some major wholesale way doesn't serve the conservative cause well or even at all.

Let me right now distinguish the wholesale standard or non-standard I just described from just disagreeing with Krauthammer periodically on different points or statements he may make. For example, I strongly disagree with his sympathies toward amnesty, but I think he probably settles there in what is probably just academic naivete simply because he doesn't know enough working class black and white and legal Hispanic people displaced from potential jobs in construction or hospitality by the illegal aliens which took those jobs and depressed the wages they used to pay. If that's the only sort of dispute any of the people named above have with him - just occasional disagreements on points - say so now and consider that my retraction of what I claimed above.

However, anyone, McCarthy included, who is taking a disagreement on particular isolated points or statements and extrapolating them to generally define Krauthammer's conservatism as a whole, if that's what it turns out they're doing, is leaving rationality behind in pursuit of a more subjective, purely personal disregard for him.

Speaking of which, it could also be that someone just straightforwardly dislikes Krauthammer personally - that haughty little nose, for example - for reasons ultimately having nothing to do with his writings. I'm the same way, just not with Krauthammer. In that case, they might agree perfectly well with many of the things Krauthammer actually writes but find he somehow puts a stink on them they just can't abide.

There is also the possibility that Krauthammer is being measured in some quasi-religious way against some sort of idealized potential conservative savior who will not only perfectly embody all conservative principles but will also unilaterally bestow some sort of conservative salvation on everyone else as a matter of grace without them having to do very much themselves. If that sort of perception is out there, I'm sorry, but, unlike Christianity, I just don't think politics, any politics, has ever worked that way or ever will. If someone is waiting for someone to act conservatively on their behalf, the person they're really waiting for is probably themselves. Unlike in Christianity, in politics there are no saviors, and there is nothing and no one involved in politics which is not to some degree incomplete, broken, impure, or dirty.

Which brings me back to my original point. In a world where Charles Krauthammer with his canon of writing as a conservative is not considered conservative enough - what sort of world, exactly, do those who feel that way imagine they're really living in? What are their realistic expectations for the present and the future, of conservatism, and particularly for conservatism to actually shape the world they and their children inhabit in ways it's not doing now?

Let me point out that, if they're in fact not doing anything less than repudiating Krauthammer in that wholesale way I first described above, then what they're effectively doing is repudiating everything that's only Krauthammer-type-and-degree conservative and below and accepting only that more complete, more fully realized, more pure, more intense, or more whatever conservatism cream that is somehow better or richer or more intensely pure than the mere Krauthammer-type-and-degree conservatism they reject.

If so, given what I and a number of others find as Krauthammer's sufficient conservatism, I can see only two alternatives.

First, if their view is conservatively incorrect, their view of the world may be, to use a term from Krauthammer's psychiatry, "cognitively dissonant": their view of how they want the world to be is so realistically out of joint with the way the world will necessarily be that it will never serve them well.

Second, if their view is in fact the only true conservatively correct one, they may find that they're in fact able to practice it themselves in some ways in the world, but just not in any way that has any noticeable effects on the world beyond them and those particular co-conservatives who share that same rarefied vision with them. In other words, they might be confining themselves to permanemtly limited and circumscribed, impotent academic cult status. Conservative, perhaps, but permanemtly limited and circumscribed, impotent academic conservative cult status nevertheless.

Finally, here's Krauthammer's most recent column, Obamacare Laid Bare and his take on the

three pillars of Obamacare: (a) mendacity, (b) paternalism and (c) subterfuge.

Read it - or not - and decide for yourself.

Charles Krauthammer seems conservative enough for me.

So how does Rod Dreher actually practice his beliefs out in the real world?

Brave Sir Roddy stamps his foot and runs away. Takes a powder. Hits the road, Jack. Becomes a late Catholic (or parrot, depending on your species). Bats for the other team in protest.

He explains here:

In a few minutes, I’m going to walk over to the courthouse and vote either Democrat or Libertarian as a protest, which is to say, I’m throwing my vote away to object to the Tea Party. The current crisis in Washington is the last straw.

His very first commenter, sk, wonders how this makes a bit of sense at all:

sk says:   
October 12, 2013 at 1:05 pm   

“Jay Morris is pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-traditional marriage! Jay Morris will lead the fight to build the wall along Mexico and protect our nation’s borders!

… The single most important action facing our Congress is to defund Obamacare.”

I really don’t get what is wrong with these statements, per your own standards. He wants to restrict abortion, he wants to restrict illegal immigration, and he wants to restrict gay marriage. He wants to defund Obamacare. He also believes in the right to bear arms, and supports freedoms related to gun ownership. I feel like I understand pretty clearly where he stands.

Are you expecting him to write a replacement for Obamacare (perhaps his own 3,000 page alternative document)? Are you expecting a freshman congressman to have a plan for rewriting the laws in these five issues? Are you expecting that a freshman congressman that you vote for will have any direct, independent power to do any of these things? You are the political analyst: as you know, freshman congressman basically have the power to vote.

So perhaps you expect each candidate for their first time in national office to understand the legal and bureaucratic outlines of how to genuinely make changes on the five hot button issues of our time, to have written appropriate legislation to say how they would independently change things, and then acknowledge that they actually won’t have the power (due to their inexperience and freshman status) to do any of it?

I’m just not getting your complaint.

sk

Rod feels exactly the same way, then goes on to explain why voting for this Republican candidate is the wrong approach, but voting for the Democrat or Libertarian instead in protest is the right one:

[NFR: For immigration restriction? Me too. But "build a wall along the Mexican border" is unreasonable, and I don't think he really means it. I think he's pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment. And if he does mean it, that's worse, because it's crazy to think we could build a wall that long. Against abortion? Me too. But what is he going to do about it, given the realities of the Supreme Court's rulings? What can be done in the real world? I'd like to know. He doesn't say. Gun ownership? I probably agree with him, but I don't get the level of panic many conservatives have over the issue. On Obamacare, you know what I would like to see? Republican Congressmen talking about how Obamacare can be reformed. For better of for worse, defunding the thing is not going to happen. They're tilting at windmills. I get that he hates Obamacare. That was a respectable position two years ago. Today, though, Obamacare is in place. Continuing to fight its very existence is futile, and dramatically hurting the party. That all these GOP candidates are taking these maximalist positions, despite the political realities on the ground having changed, is very discouraging. It tells me that conservatives who don't like Obamacare are going to lose bigtime because these Tea Party people are unwilling to compromise at all. If it's all-or-nothing, and you lose, then your side gets nothing. -- RD]

See, it works like this. As long as everything is theoretical, whether religion or politics or "culture", Dreher's catch-all term for that vast universe of things he doesn't understand and can't articulate, it's all good. There aren't any consequences in theory, except, of course, only theoretical ones. It's safe and warm in theory, because theory doesn't have to exert and defend itself out in the real world, only real choice and action does. If you're only theoretically a conservative, everyone can still like you, because you haven't actually done anything real to them out in the world through any sort of boots on the ground political action. You haven't taken any less than perfect actions that might get you scorned or laughed at. You can "be" against abortion and your friend's wife, who just had one, will still invite you over for dinner, because you're harmless. You're safe, like your wife or girlfriend's gay guy friend. Better to stay safe, not like those actual real world Republicans whose hands, unlike Pilate's, can never be absolutely, perfectly clean.

Of course, in theory, safe you hasn't actually restricted abortion, or illegal immigration, or gay marriage, or anything else worth doing either, but you are still a hero, because of course you believe in heroism. And you just know that, when exactly the right opportunity presents itself, you'll be that hero you believe in, or that conservative. Because that's how the world works. In theory. And in the 8-year-old mind.

Unless, of course, the porridge or the Congressman is not just exactly right, the way you demand they should be. Then you can play your get-out-of-heroism card, because, you know, they're not playing by your rules. Rod's all for the theoretical conservative bowl of porridge, you see. It's just that, just as with the case of his personal Rodist Catholicism, out in the real world where there isn't any theoretical Conservative Party, only Democrats or Republicans, the real world Republicans haven't made the porridge exactly the way Rod would have prepared it in his own theoretical kitchen. Too hot perhaps. Or too cold. Maybe not seasoned to perfection. And what sort of hero eats an imperfect actual porridge? I mean, really? Or remains a communicant in an imperfect Catholic Church? Or votes for a real Republican Congressman over a theoretical conservative one? Or a Democrat?

So the only way for Rod to really register the depths of his developmentally arrested, petulant rejection of the imperfect real adult world that won't conform to his childish, imaginary demands is to vote for that Republican Congressman's Democrat opponent. That'll show them how he wants his porridge. That'll show them all!

Makes perfect sense to me.

Coda: so how did Rod really vote? Only he knows. Hell, he might have even voted Republican, for that very same Congressman he tore apart in his blog post. So what? What difference does it make? As with all things Rod, the important thing here is not what Rod actually did, but what he talked about doing. Oh, not what he talked about doing to further conservatism, or to restrict abortion, or illegal immigration, or gay marriage, or to preserve religious liberty. What he talked about doing that parroted what the Obamacons who pay him want to hear said about their political opponents. About Republican Congressmen running for office.

So maybe Rod Dreher really is a principled, man of action conservative after all - at least when it comes to conserving his own livelihood. When it comes to actually standing and fighting for anything else, though...

Brave Sir Roddy ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When real world choice it reared it's head
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes Brave Sir Roddy turned about
He gallantly chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat.
Oh bravest of the brave, Sir Roddy.

Obama is a problem, but Obama is not THE problem.

We're back!

Red State reports how conservatives are pushing out the "establishment" Repubs. Excerpt:

Consider another fact: Conservatives, led by Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin, are potentially creating the most conservative Senate Republican Conference in the last thirty or so years: Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Pat Toomey will be joining Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and David Vitter.

Best Criticism of Glenn Beck I've Read Yet

Not surprising to me, it is served up by Bill Bennett.

Glenn is among the best talkers in the business of broadcast. I am not sure he’s a very good listener.

First, there is a good and strong tradition in alcohol and drug treatment that personal failings should not be extrapolated into the public sphere; that too often when this is done, conclusions are reached based on the wrong motives and, often, the wrong analysis. Glenn has made that mistake here and taken to our politics a cosmologizing of his own deficiencies. This is not a baseless criticism; they are his own deficiencies that he keeps publicly redounding to and analogizing to. It is wrong and he is wrong.

Second, for him to continue to say that he does not hear the Republican party admit its failings or problems is to ignore some of the loudest and brightest lights in the party. From Jim DeMint to Tom Coburn to Mike Pence to Paul Ryan, any number of Republicans have admitted the excesses of the party and done constructive and serious work to correct them and find and promote solutions. Even John McCain has said again and again that “the Republican party lost its way.” These leaders, and many others, have been offering real proposals, not ill-informed muttering diatribes that can’t distinguish between conservative and liberal, free enterprise and controlled markets, or night and day. Does Glenn truly believe there is no difference between a Tom Coburn, for example, and a Harry Reid or a Charles Schumer or a Barbara Boxer? Between a Paul Ryan or Michele Bachmann and a Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank?

Third, to admit it is still “morning in America” but a “vomiting for four hours” kind of morning is to diminish, discourage, and disparage all the work of the conservative, Republican, and independent resistance of the past year. The Tea Partiers know better than this. I don’t think they would describe their rallies and resistance as a bilious purging but, rather, as a very positive democratic reaction aimed at correcting the wrongs of the current political leadership. The mainstream media may describe their reactions as an unhealthy expurgation. I do not.

Bennett acknowledges Beck's talkshow talent off the bat which sets the rest of the piece up as a criticism and not a screed. Then he provides the evidence that Beck ignores, namely the real differences between the parties and their members.

I'm tired of the endless calls for the GOP to offer "mea culpa" Kodak moments. Anyone who has been involved in politics for any substantial amount of time knows that the Republican Party has a very calculated relationship with conservatism and conservatives. This is because the GOP's job is to win elections as well as promote an agenda in the realm of the written and spoken word. Sometimes a conservative wins big time, sometimes a conservative falls flat... big time. It simply doesn't help to shout RINO! or sell-out!

So if Beck is determined to use the tortured drunk analogy for the party, he should at least grant that we have gotten past the first step. The "admission of powerlessness over moderates" in the party is almost a mantra. However, I'm with Dr. Bennett--the cosmologization of ones own experiences and shortcomings is not helpful and will not lead to some type of corporate "spiritual awakening" within the leadership of the party via some sort of collective 12-step process.

The Other McCain on "Other Conservatisms"

Your homework for Monday is to read this piece by Robert Stacy McCain. Here's a teaser:

Beyond this, however, is the basic confusion caused by the fact that no one holds a copyright on the word “conservative,” and there is nothing to prevent anyone from saying, “I am a conservative and therefore . . .” Which brings us to the problem of Rod Dreher, who has provided what he calls “A Conservative Read On Palin’s ‘Going Rogue’” at National Public Radio.

Why was this invitation extended to Rod Dreher? Because he was willing to do what NPR wanted: Slam Sarah Palin.

We will stipulate that it is possible to dislike Sarah Palin — or at least to believe her not to be an ideal Republican presidential candidate — and still be a conservative. But the person who accepts an invitation from a liberal outfit like NPR to be the token “conservative” who attacks Sarah Palin has a few other hurdles to clear. And over these hurdles, Dreher stumbles badly.

When you are finished reading it, please comment for an automatic passing grade. If you finish before Monday, you are a geek. That's fine, just don't go complaining about the popularity of the prom queen and the quarterback. They got their gig and we got ours.

And, oh, yes—extra credit for a full paragraph on the last line explaining how and why it applies in spades to the subject.

(Hat Tip to Dianonymous.)

I still don't know what he's talking about

Rod Dreher replied to a comment I made to a recent post where he continues his perpetual theme of good conservatism (his) versus bad (mainstream) conservatism. But before I get to the comment, check out this line.

The thing that seems most cult-like to me about this degenerate form of conservatism is the irrepressible urge to denounce anyone who criticizes them, or even questions them, as being the Heretical Other, not just wrong, but despicable.

This seems to be projection par excellence on Rod's part. If you are not sure what I mean, please review Kathleen's excellent points here.

But my comment referenced Rod's discussion of the words elite, elitist, elitism. His first defense of a narrow use of the word is weak. I think every conservative would agree that the great literary works of dead white guys are far better than Maya Angelou's dreck, but this has nothing to do with the pejorative use of the word elitist when used by a conservative to describe, say, the leftist faculty of large universities or the 95% of mainstream network reporters and anchors who were in the tank for Barack Obama during the Presidential election.

To make his argument sound even more ridiculous, Rod then tries to equate being elite to being morally good, which is an extremely uncommon, if not practically non-existent, use of the word. He says:

We should all seek to be elitist in morality, in the sense that we should live up to high standards of truth, justice, charity and so forth.

To which I responded:

Rod, who in the world uses the term 'elitism' to mean moral seriousness and aspiring to perfection in the virtues? This is an example of why people like you and Joe (who?) Carter find yourself talking past mainstream conservatives frequently.

Rod, to his credit, sees my point, but then tilts once more toward the same strawmen.

I see your point, Pauli, but I think mine still stands. By rejecting arguments and criticism they disagree with as "elitist" on their face, without even trying to counter them rationally, these folks send the strong message that thinking is what snobs do, and to prove that you're One Of Us, you have to suspend your critical thinking and join the herd. This is the kind of thing that can both infuriate conservatives and break their hearts when they see black conservatives (for example) having to go through it, being called traitors to the group for questioning the consensus view. Note well that I'm talking about black conservatives whose arguments are not taken seriously enough to question by other blacks. They are prima facie traitors because they don't agree.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about in intra-conservative disputes. It plays to some of the worst elements of human nature: the "my tribe, right or wrong" impulse, which covers a lot of wrongdoing and sheer stupidity.

I'm not even going to deal with the first paragraph. This continuation of his post is rambling and devoid of examples which actually back up his assertions.

In a sense I agree entirely with his second paragraph, but I see Rod Dreher—author of Crunchy Conservatives—as the primary example of one trying to stir things up vis-à-vis "intra-conservative disputes". As I've mused aloud often to my readers and friends, these disputes are all pretty much a waste of time at this point. Let's put away the fiddles; Rome is on fire.

To sum up my targeted point: words mean something. We can say that America's founders were liberals, but we mean that in a different sense then when we say Senator John Kerry is a liberal. If I want to talk about a brain surgeon or a F-15 pilot being a member of an elite class, I mean something different than when I call Katie Couric an elite, and not just because her salary is twice that of a brain surgeon plus a few fighter pilots.

To the mainstream conservatives I'd only offer the suggestion that they should work on their communication skills with a focus on their vocabulary. Don't overuse a word lest they give liberals and picky people like Mr. Dreher and Mr. Carter a stick with which to swat you. Get a Thesaurus out and look up the word elite. You'll find a lot of the kind of synonyms you want—patrician, aristocrat, privileged class... snob. And my favorite, of course: haut monde. But at the same time be comforted that your argument is obviously sound since pointing out your lack of verbal skills appears to comprise most of their attack plan.