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.
Communication requires a communicator and a communicatee.
ReplyDeleteThe kind of person who points out that "communicatee" isn't an English word, and refuses to budge until the above sentence is rewritten to their satisfaction, is not interested in communication.
Dreher's word definitions are overly fluid and always self-serving. As a result he utterly fails to communicate anything substantive. If Dreher's definition of "conservatism" doesn't include inherent distrust of centralized government -- which it manifestly does not -- then he's not actually a conservative, his fondness for religious orthodoxy notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteIt's the tower of Babel over there.
aw man, my invite to contribute to this blog has expired. dude wtf?
ReplyDeleteanyway, i was going to suggest people vote for obama to win the Heisman Trophy:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Next-help-Obama-win-the-Heisman-63851657.html
Kathleen, it has expired because you are already a blog author. So just go here: http://www.blogger.com/home
ReplyDeleteoh. well then!
ReplyDeleteThanks, that's awesome! I just vote for Barry-O to win the Heisman Trophy!!
ReplyDeleteIt's the tower of Babel over there.
ReplyDeleteIs it my imagination, or are Dreher's comboxes a freak-show? (I mean when Pauli's not posting, of course.)
It is nice Dreher saw fit to answer your post Pauli. Not being in his clique is a curse.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot the synonym 1337.
ReplyDeletethx d00d.
ReplyDelete