Let's recap. I've been on the crevo threads and it's nice to find someone to *agree with* for a change.
Ten or fifteen years ago, any introduction of neocons, let alone "crunchy" cons into a serious political discussion on the right would have met (rightfully so) with utter derision.
Minnesota's own Hubert Humphrey (a flaming liberal in his day) would now be derided as a "mind-numbed robot" by the left.
To that end, Dr. Sowell's use of the terms, "anointed" and "unenlightened," as well as his characterizations of the constrained and unconstrained visions are as locally accurate as and far more temporally durable than "conservative" or "liberal."
I prefer "self-annointed" or, even better, "precious".
Adopting stricter attitudes toward diet and health, more liberal modes of dress, and communing with nature does not a political stance make. It is the fact that those we call liberal behave in these ways as a collective imperative that makes the political statement. It is when one attempts to impose the behavior on others by governmental fiat that makes a political statement.
Joe Sobran referred to the left collectively as "The Hive".
One of the most insightful articles I have ever read.
I think the separation of the values of diet, health, dress, and communing with nature, ("crunchy") with a free-market, government-hands-off approach ("con") is what does it. The problem is when one gets so...well, *frustrated* with people (say chronic smokers who sue over lung cancer) that the temptation to intrude government becomes unbearable. Think of, who was it, Rousseau? His line "forced to be free" has a certain chilling logic.
About to start that vanity now, I promise.
Thanks for the wonderful, thought-provoking, and DEAD-ON comments. :-)
Cheers!
Looking forward to your new commentary!