|
July 19, 2010
A preference in legs is no small disagreement?
As a longtime conservative, I believe in building coalitions. We can't agree on everything, and it doesn't help the cause to concentrate on areas of disagreement.So says Robert Knight in a Washington Times editorial which concentrates on an area of disagreement on which I'd love not to concentrate. In fact, I would so love not to concentrate on this particular area of disagreement that I will not even say what it is. I'll just keep it in the closet. But even though I'd love it if it became as irrelevant as I think it is, Robert Knight thinks it is highly relevant. So relevant and so important that he believes it constitutes one of the three legs of the conservative "stool": There's no law against changing one's mind, but honesty should impel these former conservatives to recast their affiliation if they abandon a paramount conservative value and embrace a paramount plank of the left. The conservative movement - and the nation - prospers when it honors all three vital legs of the stool: traditional values, lower taxes (less government) and national security. If I woke up one day and suddenly began agitating for higher taxes and bigger government, I wouldn't be surprised if other conservatives saw that as a deal breaker. And if I joined a group advocating higher taxes, well, that would seal it.Well, clearly, then, if Knight is right, I don't have a reliable conservative stool to sit on, because I don't like Knight's version of traditional values. I don't share his view of tradition, which I think is basically a modern rehash of 1930s Hays Code morality. I prefer the freer, more fun, pre-code tradition. The traditional values of Mae West. Hmmm... What she would say about my "two-legged stool," I do not know. Being able to sit on a two-legged conservative stool is quite a balancing act, if I can pull it off. But the thing is, I never really laid much claim to being a conservative. (In fact, I've lost count of the number of times I've specifically said I was not!) Is there any law that says I have to be? Sure, most of the online political tests I've taken show that I'm a conservative, but I'm also a libertarian. To Knight's "as a longtime conservative, I believe in building coalitions," I can just as easily say "As a longtime libertarian, I believe in building coalitions." And I agree with Knight that it doesn't help the cause to concentrate on areas of disagreement. So rather than attack Robert Knight's traditional leg, I'll just say that I prefer Mae West's and not get into the details. AFTERTHOUGHT: To put it simply (and a bit less facetiously), I think this country has a multiplicity of traditional values. They result from our tradition of freedom. To be blunt, saying "FUCK YOU!" to whoever would tell us what to do is as American as apple pie. (The Democrats have crossed the FUCK YOU line. Republicans would be wise not to do the same.) posted by Eric on 07.19.10 at 11:57 AM
Comments
From what I see a distinction between the Republicans and the Tea Party is that the TP has replaced the "traditional values" leg with a more libertarian "individual rights" stance. Hopefully the establishment Republicans will wake up and take notice. Southern Man · July 19, 2010 12:41 PM As Mae West would say, "The less I say, the more I mean." Eric Scheie · July 19, 2010 01:54 PM It's funny how often people who want to "compromise" and say, "It's not that important" want you to compromise and agree with their position. The gov't should not be involved in personal issues, that should be the conservative position. Thinking the Judeo-Christian ethic is a good does not mean you believe in God. I wish someone had asked Jesus about being gay or that they had written it down if the question was asked. I'm sure the answer would have been something about how they're not hurting you so leave them alone. Veeshir · July 20, 2010 12:57 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
barking back at authoritarian dogs
House of Cards A Decline In Morals NAACP Audience Applauds Racism At The Economist, rationing is in demand Fascism A preference in legs is no small disagreement? Moral Authority But what if you don't consent? Are provocateurs now running the Justice Department?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I see what you mean about keeping the issue closeted.
I can see that keeping certain things closeted in public might assist in keeping public order. (don't scare the horses) But how do you police people who are nominally in private?
I do see why conservatives hate privacy so much. It is not just Roe.