Posted on 02/22/2017 5:25:08 PM PST by madprof98
First, post-1960s social conservatism — the bigger-than-the-religious-right tent that once included a lot of moderately religious fellow travelers — has collapsed back to its zealous core. On practically every issue save abortion, liberals won the culture war decisively, and religious conservatives awoke to find themselves strangers in their own country, dismissed as bigots from liberalism’s pulpits and stuck on the wrong side of 40-60 or 30-70 public-opinion splits.
But social liberalism’s sweeping victory produced new forms of backlash — less traditionalist and more populist, less religious and more rowdy, not sacred but profane. These forms of resistance take aim at liberalism’s own forms of social-justice sanctimony, which have smothered academic life and permeated notionally apolitical arenas from late-night comedy to sportswriting. The resisters don’t exactly have a program. Instead, they’ve got a posture — a “whaddya got?” rebellion against any rules that the new liberal order sets.
It is telling that it took a seeming defense of pederasty, a breach of the last taboo uniting our fractured culture, to make conservatives pay more attention to Milo’s own excesses than to the excesses he sets out to provoke.
And it will be equally telling, I suspect, when he finds a way to rebound from this setback, to escape shunning and find a willing right-wing audience again.
Milo would be a queer champion indeed for a cultural or religious conservatism confident in what it stands for and what kind of society it wants to build.
But for a cultural conservatism united only by a shared outsider sensibility, neither consistency nor propriety are consensus virtues any longer — and indecency in the service of attacking liberalism is no vice.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Agree Diogenes!
IronJack Allowing yourself and other conservatives to be Alinsky-ed by the left is a much greater issue.
It shows your ability to be manipulated and is why we lose, constandly and consistently.
The only reason Trump wins is that he out-Alinskys the left including the press.
This isn’t a matter of principle, this is a matter of life or death, see my tagline
Whether your children and the future survives depends on whether you are able to fight back.
The Jews didn’t. The capitalists in China didn’t, many didn’t and they are dead.
this is for keeps.
Baby, if their boot is on your neck, they won.
You have been Alinsky-ed.
So “fighting back” means rallying round a creepy, loudmouthed fag who thinks his poofdom makes him invincible? It means embracing the very people and principles we claim to despise?
No thanks. You can be part of the “win-at-at-costs” crowd if you want. I’ll pass.
I think Milo got what he earned, and we can do better anyway.
Should be “win-at-all-costs” ...
“Baby, if their boot is on your neck, they won.
You have been Alinsky-ed.”
Their boot is not on MY neck, woman.
It is on the neck of the citizens. thus they have won.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.