I don't give a damn who he was. The idea that you can invoke a name without any personal support of a particular idea or argument that you are making your own, especially in order to dismiss the fundamental genius and revolutionary impact of the Doctrine of Negative Rights on American history is more than personally cowardly - it's ridiculous.
If there is some argument you believe Kirk espoused that you agree with in this matter, out with it. But to invoke his name and expect people to simply toss the very meaning of their country in the trash is some sort of mental illness. If Kirk negated the fundamental importance and uniqueness of Negative Rights, then hold your hat and sit down - I disagree with him. And repeating his name with an aura of breathlessness and showing contempt for someone who doesn't share your codependency is NOT an argument.
A fetish, yes. I'll give you that. But the invocation of his name is irrelevent. And there are oh, I don't know, one or two people through history who might agree with my understanding of the specific American importance of this issue.
Thank you for sharing your fetish with everyone. If you ever want to actually own your own words and discuss specific issues, feel free to share. Otherwise, get help.
“I don’t give a damn who he was.”
I never would have guessed. The post WWII conservative renaissance began with essentially two men, Russell Kirk and William F Buckley. Kirk wrote the first major book of the movement in 1953, ‘The Conservative Mind’ and in 1955 he helped Buckley found National Review.
” If Kirk negated the fundamental importance and uniqueness of Negative Rights, then hold your hat and sit down - I disagree with him. “
He didn’t. You seem to have drummed up the idea that he did all on your own.
“And repeating his name with an aura of breathlessness and showing contempt for someone who doesn’t share your codependency is NOT an argument. “
You’ll have to describe how breathlessness manifests itself in online posting, I’m sure it will be interesting.
It used to be that the conservative reading public had a rudimentary knowledge of heavyweights among conservative thinkers, many of whom had written for National Review. Kirk was one, James Burnham another. You’re evidence that that era is long gone.