In my opinion, conservatism is currently facing the same crisis it did in the fifties and early sixties, when the John Birch Society threatened its legitimacy as a movement. Part of the problem was at least a result of a liberal media overly eager to paint the opposition as guilty of extremism by association, but there was indeed a genuine threat of total delegitimization of the movement, as many self-proclaimed mainstream conservatism were all to willing to let the Birchers into their ranks, but thanks to the efforts of William F. Buckley and the National Review, the Birchers were purged from their ranks, and the JBS effectively lost all credibility and influence. As it turned out, this was to the betterment of the entire world, as it led to the mainstreaming of conservative ideas in the public consciousness, and the eventual election of Ronald Reagan.
History is now repeating itself, with creationism being regarded as a plank in conservatism not just by its opponents, but by a distressingly high number of its proponents as well. Ichneumon is completely correct and accurate when he says that this is as damaging to conservatism as anti-anti communism has been to liberalism. Creationism not only has nothing to do with conservatism, it is directly opposed to it; conservatism is about the rejection of ideology and idealism, and the acceptance of reality, no matter how uncomfortable that reality may be. At the moment, there is a viewpoint continually being hammered away in the media that conservatism is the opposite of this realist perspective, that it is somehow inherently anti-science and anti-reason. Long after the elections, with its constant reminders of all the Nobel science nominees opposing Bush (even Frank Wilczek felt the need to politicize the award by putting on a Kerry-Edwards button during his press conference), we keep hearing the "Bush and the Republicans are the enemies of science" mantra. Chris Mooney is apparently writing a book on science and the contemporary conservative movement, and you can be certain that it will try to be hatchet job on all of us-and what's worse is that not all of it will be untrue. If conservatism wishes to win future hearts and minds, it will have to look inwards, and admit that there is a problem with creationism, and try to solve it.
So where are the equivalents of National Review and Bill Buckley today, to counteract the creationist cancer eating up conservatism from within? Well, until some magazine devoted to the "Rationalist Right" comes around (I've lost hope in Reason after Virginia Postrel left), Free Republic is taking the place of NR, and the role of William F. Buckley has been taken up by Patrick Henry, Physicist, RadioAstronomer, Ichneumon, Longshadow, Rightwhale, and all the other members of FR's science squad. Not only does a layman such as myself value your input on the science threads, but I salute each and every one of you, for the valiant battle you are fighting for the soul of conservatism. If we beat Dan Rather, than we can beat back the creationists.
I am honored to find my name in the same sentence with ANY of the others; to be included with all of them together is too generous.
The essay as a whole is brilliantly written, and on-point. You have earned the right to have your name aside the rest.
I am honored to find my name in the same sentence with ANY of the others; to be included with all of them together is too generous.
The essay as a whole is brilliantly written, and on-point. You have earned the right to have your name aside the rest.
Don't forget Stultis, our resident historian of the crevo debate. (The one out in the real world, not just FR.)
I could not agree more. In fact, I was having this very conversation (almost a verbatum) with some friends of mine.
Thank you for putting what I feel so succinctly. :-)
I'm just the ping list guy -- the clerk at Darwin Central. It's way over the top to include me with the others, but the sense of your post is entirely correct.
I hadn't seen the historical connection between the Birchers and the Luddites. Excellent insight.
Jim Robinson has the opportunity to fill the Buckley role, if he chooses to do so. I'm tempted to ping him to this.
Many Creationists are ardently politically conservative, many self-proclaimed "progressive-thinkers" (say Bill Maher, Pete Singer), or--dare I say it-- "brights" (athiests) are both anti-Creationist and anti-conservative.
But not all.
Perhaps it would be as well to say that "politics makes strange bedfellows"--
Let's take a vote on those definitions, shall we ? ;-)