Comments on: She looks like she washes with Comet http://whiteperil.com/2006/05/25/she-looks-like-she-washes-with-comet/ Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:45:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Toby http://whiteperil.com/2006/05/25/she-looks-like-she-washes-with-comet/comment-page-1/#comment-2638 Toby Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:23:48 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=1301#comment-2638 Thought provoking point - but like that obscenity judge, I know conservatism when I see it! (this also ties in with your point about semantic clarity) Seriously, though, I think it rally was the 1970s, not the 1960s, that were the pivotal turning point - or the bottom of the cycle (choose your metaphor). Have you read Frum's <i>The 1970s</i>? A rather good book. <BR /> <BR />The real point, though, is that if you want to be pure and righteous, stay out of politics (a truth the US Founding Fathers knew all too well). Thought provoking point – but like that obscenity judge, I know conservatism when I see it! (this also ties in with your point about semantic clarity) Seriously, though, I think it rally was the 1970s, not the 1960s, that were the pivotal turning point – or the bottom of the cycle (choose your metaphor). Have you read Frum’s The 1970s? A rather good book.

The real point, though, is that if you want to be pure and righteous, stay out of politics (a truth the US Founding Fathers knew all too well).

]]> By: Sean Kinsell http://whiteperil.com/2006/05/25/she-looks-like-she-washes-with-comet/comment-page-1/#comment-2637 Sean Kinsell Wed, 31 May 2006 12:59:39 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=1301#comment-2637 Hmmm. I don't know, Toby. I think it's hard to draw the distinctions you're trying to draw without ending up right back at purity issues. What qualifies as "old-style conservative" to you seems like what I think most of us would call maybe "conservative by temperament" as opposed to strictly "politically conservative." That's fine, but it leaves open the issue of whether someone who supports <i>XYZ</i> policy can be said to be "conservative." Is one aberration enough to disqualify you? Or is it three strikes and you're out? It's tiresome, but I guess people who want to be able to use words with some confidence that their audience will know what they're referring to may have to get into debates over definitions. It would be nice if they could do it without smugness or rancor, but things never seem to work out that way. Hmmm. I don’t know, Toby. I think it’s hard to draw the distinctions you’re trying to draw without ending up right back at purity issues. What qualifies as “old-style conservative” to you seems like what I think most of us would call maybe “conservative by temperament” as opposed to strictly “politically conservative.” That’s fine, but it leaves open the issue of whether someone who supports XYZ policy can be said to be “conservative.” Is one aberration enough to disqualify you? Or is it three strikes and you’re out? It’s tiresome, but I guess people who want to be able to use words with some confidence that their audience will know what they’re referring to may have to get into debates over definitions. It would be nice if they could do it without smugness or rancor, but things never seem to work out that way.

]]> By: Toby http://whiteperil.com/2006/05/25/she-looks-like-she-washes-with-comet/comment-page-1/#comment-2636 Toby Tue, 30 May 2006 05:23:57 +0000 http://whiteperil.com/?p=1301#comment-2636 It's an interesting point you raise, after having cut through the difficult logic twists (not yours) and the tiresome comment sniping in the BfT-GP debate. Both of BfT and GP are publicity hounds when it suits them (BfT more though), I concede. <BR /> <BR />All of this RINO stuff etc smacks a lot of leftist ideological purity drives. Do you think part of what we are seeing is a leftist triumph in discourse? Old style conservatives would probably not care too much about ideological rigour - but with the great take-over of the right in the 70s and 80s by neo-cons on the secular side and Christo-cons on the religious side, we began to see a leftist argument about utopian ideational matters, usually anathema to conservatives, to whom actions tend to speak louder than words. This naturally leads to accusations of want of faith, both by the religious and the lay, traditionally not part of conservative discourse. <BR /> <BR />Politics <i>is</i> sordid and traduces all ideological purity in the end. That is its strength, since it dilutes the heady brew of utopianism of both the left and the right to potable levels. It’s an interesting point you raise, after having cut through the difficult logic twists (not yours) and the tiresome comment sniping in the BfT-GP debate. Both of BfT and GP are publicity hounds when it suits them (BfT more though), I concede.

All of this RINO stuff etc smacks a lot of leftist ideological purity drives. Do you think part of what we are seeing is a leftist triumph in discourse? Old style conservatives would probably not care too much about ideological rigour – but with the great take-over of the right in the 70s and 80s by neo-cons on the secular side and Christo-cons on the religious side, we began to see a leftist argument about utopian ideational matters, usually anathema to conservatives, to whom actions tend to speak louder than words. This naturally leads to accusations of want of faith, both by the religious and the lay, traditionally not part of conservative discourse.

Politics is sordid and traduces all ideological purity in the end. That is its strength, since it dilutes the heady brew of utopianism of both the left and the right to potable levels.

]]>