Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.
I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.
Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at phibetacons.nationalreview.com ...
I sure don’t call it intellectual when you get a worse result by being stubborn and making all these protest votes.
To me that is pure ignorance I would expect from 15 year olds.
I would think conservatives would all be mature enough to make the attempted changes in who wins the primary.
Once the Republicans and Democrats have their primary choices, then any vote other than Republican in major elections is a vote for the communist/socialist/liberal Democrats.
Idealist can screw the people with their stubbornness IMO.
Would you care to bet whether there were there were more libertarians who voted for Perot, or more “social conservatives” who sat home and didn’t go vote at all?
I can only say they were all idiots that voted for Perot, or they were very young and did not know any better.
Describe them any way you want, but they gave us Clinton.
I also 100% agree with you that those that stayed home during that close election that were conservative were also just as responsible for Clinton.
I 100% agree with you.
We'll now return to our regularly scheduled program of alternately ridiculing the libertarians for being able to convene in a phone booth, and blaming those 3 votes every time you lose an election.
Most libertarians I have known wanted to be free to do whatever they wanted, but usually were responsible about it to keep from getting in trouble.
I blame them more for trying to get others to also throw their votes down the black hole than I do for just their own voting.
No, the Republicans got down on their knees and begged for Clinton.
How did the Republicans BEG for Clinton?
Perfectly said!
If the culture war is lost then the country is lost. People won’t fight and die for a libertine culture. All one has to do is look at Europe and see how the rise of social liberalism has been accompanied by the rise of the all-encompassing nanny state, passivity in the face of terrorism, and a willingness to concede the continent to Islam as long as the lavish welfare & retirement benefits last long enough for the current generation to live comfortably until they die.
If libertarians are correct, and we can be socially liberal but otherwise conservative, then why do socially liberal places such as San Francisco, Vermont, and Massachusetts become so socialistic and anti-military? Why is a shift to the left on (for example) abortion or homosexuality never accompanied by a rightward drift on economic issues or national defense?
It’s no coincidence that the Great Society, the anti-American radicalization of the ‘Rat party, and the libertine sexual revolution all arose at around the same time in the sixties. They’re all intertwined.
That is in effect, true.
There is no practical means to ensure an amoral position in this government or any other single thing. There is no "moral-neutral" position or any position outside the bounds of morality (whenever morality is concerned), as any position is a moral position by it's nature.
Hence "amorality" is a fallacy for all practical purposes except as a means of definition. The only real control is in whose morality one or all must embrace.
How then may one form a secular view (not to mention govt) when one cannot exist?
We have never been secular, only tolerant. Historically, all of our laws have necessarily been viewed through the prism of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
The only way to change that is to substitute another moral code, as the socialist left is trying to do. Secularism as well as multi-culturalism are simply means to their predictable end: Socialism/Communism.
Hey guys, if you Google with quotes around the expressions, then "Libertarian Marxism" gets only 19,800 hits. While "Republican Marxism" gets a measly 6 (so small a stat that it could be heavily impacted by this very discussion).
Without the quotes you are searching for pages that simply mention both words somewhere on them. Thus there may be 1.5 million pages mentioning "Republican" somewhere and "Marxism" somewhere else.
see post 259
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.