[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Your attitude is the reason the conservative movement is in such a desperate situation. You’re quick to name call and push people to the other side. You push enough people to the other side, then you may have a “pure” movement, but few supporters. If you tell enough people they belong on the other side enough times, they will eventually start to believe it.

But... Oberon didn't call you any names -- or attack you personally in any way.

At worst, he insulted Ezra Pound (if you can call intellectual criticism an "insult")... who's been dead for almost 25 years, unless I'm mistaken. Perhaps you might think it unkind of him to speak ill of the dead, but he certainly wasn't speaking ill of you, personally, in any way.

Speaking only from my own understanding, I thought that his basic observation was a philosophical one, not related to your own Person at all -- he's arguing that Political Philosophies, whether "Liberal" or "Conservative" in name, have always had a foundation of sand in Principle and a habit of appealing to "pragmatism" in Practice to justify every new political excess or philosophical mutation.

I think that his philosophical criticism is very accurate -- witness the linguistic and philosophical evolution of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" over the last 100 years alone! Given what "Liberal" used to mean, and what "Conservative" used to mean, can you have any certainty that those calling themselves "Conservatives" (and ever appealing to "pragmatism") in 100 years will hold any of the principles you personally hold dear?

That's a philosophical observation about the nature of subjectively-defined "conservatism" -- not, IMHO, any kind of "name-calling" or Personal Attack against you.

What do you think?

Best, OP

[Oberon]

Speaking only from my own understanding, I thought that his basic observation was a philosophical one, not related to your own Person at all -- he's arguing that Political Philosophies, whether "Liberal" or "Conservative" in name, have always had a foundation of sand in Principle and a habit of appealing to "pragmatism" in Practice to justify every new political excess or philosophical mutation.

That's precisely it. Thank you, OP, for saying it better than I would have.

Each proponent of every odd and ill-founded political perspective appeals to pragmatism, and that term has been used to defend awful excesses. Being one whose conservatism is not a philosophy unto itself but rather an outgrowth of my fundamental understanding of the role of Man within God's creation, I believe we have a better banner to rally under than that of pragmatism.