Jay Nordlinger’s latest NRO “Impromptus” column contains the perfect answer to a question I’ve been asking myself for some time now (in fact, I ask the question every time I find myself cheering for some Bush policy or other): How does a semi-hip, fiction-writing academic who teaches in a university English Department suddenly find himself mocking the Kyoto Protocol, or sneering at Noam Chomsky and Barbara Kingsolver?
The answer is simple, ‘t turns out: I’m as “progressive” as I ever was! In fact, it’s the political compass that’s gone haywire, not me:
Since this is a day of repeating the basics, bear with me. I will keep saying it until someone hears me: Mitch McConnell and the other staunch anti-McCainiacs are reformers too, when it comes to campaign finance. But their reforms are liberalizing; these guys aren
4 Replies to “The “C” word…”
So true, Jeff. Getting stuck in a party, no matter what the platform, is dangerous. It’s the idea that you have to register for a party and stay that way that worries me—if I declare myself a Republican, does that mean that I’m anti-abortion? Or if I declare myself a Democrat, does that mean that I am against drilling in the Arctic?
The same rule applies to social movements, too, though. If I call myself a feminist, does it mean that I’m against the war in Afghanistan because women will be hurt? And if I declare myself not a feminist, does that mean that I am sexist?
Rallying together in groups does lend weight to a cause, and gets things done, but have we taken it too far?
Conservatism is the new progressivism? Let’s see…
1) Reagan-era deficit spending
2) Reagan-era calls for $100 billion missile defense shields that won’t work.
3)More nuclear power plants. (With apologies to Nevada.)
4) Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans–how revolutionary!
5) Average Citizen has to work two minimum wage jobs at Walmart just to survive while millionaire CEOs don’t pay taxes. Progressive conservatism!
6) No CFR! Keep it the way it’s always been! That’s progressive.
7) Let’s be progressive and mutilate our last protected wildlife area by drilling for a six month supply of that progressive non-renewable energy source, oil!
8) A return to slavery via “free trade”–take that, Lincoln repubs!
9) Pickering for the 5th Circuit Court! What’s more progressive than repealing Roe V. Wade?
10)Limits on stem cell research
11) Let them eat cake! (France, 18th Century)
12) Bread and circuses (Rome, 100 AD)
Hmm. A.D. seems to be confused by…
1)The word “now”
2)the difference between conservatives and “Republicans”
3)the meaning of the word “slavery.”
4)the meaning of the words “free-trade” (get down from your anti-global soap box and check out the facts, why don’t you? Simply tarring me with the “oppressor’s” brush is hardly convincing. In fact, it’s dogmatic and silly as a mode of argument—much like calling anyone who disagrees with affirmative action a “racist”).
5)the meaning of the word “mutilate.”
6)the meaning of “reform” (as in, Shays-Meehan is a “reform” to the campaign financing process. Well, it <i>is</i>: but in the same way “hate speech” is a “reform” to the First Amendment).
And so on…
I’m on record here as saying I disagreed with the original Bush “stimulus” package. As well as with this administration’s stand on stem cell research. And the “war on drugs.” In fact, I’m on record on a <i>lot</i> of these issues (though I haven’t taken a firm stand on either 18th-century France or 9th-century Rome just yet). Whereas you, “A.D.”, refuse to give your actual name or an actual email address on your posts. Why is that, I wonder?
Roe v. Wade is codified in law. My new “conservatism” would tell me not to go tinkering around with laws allowing for individual choice. So sure, let them eat cake, or whatever else they choose to eat (organic or GM, makes no difference to me). Freedom and choice—that’s the ticket!
About a year ago I was writing a paper in which I described one side of a controversy as “conservative” (because they favoured no change to existing arrangements) and the other as “radical” (because they basically wanted to do away with existing arrangements and start again from scratch). I considered both terms to be purely descriptive and value neutral.
My co-authors considered the term “conservative” to be perjorative (though not the term “radical”). They could not conceive of anyone viewing the term “conservative” as anything but an insult. Appeals to dictionaries and usage guides were to no avail. In the end we had to use the term “stasists” instead – not really an improvement.
Russell