Rod Dreher is right on target
Mr. Dreher's July 12, 2002 article posted at National Review Online is right on target. Anyone who considers themselves to be a conservative or libertarian yet who also values organic produce and hates blandness must read this article. It raises fundamental questions about those of us who think we are conservatives or libertarians yet have those secret yearnings for things normally considered "liberal" by the multitudes.
I consider myself a hybrid libertoid-neoconservative contrarian (many contradictions, but hey, that's me) who can appreciate the left's culture without falling into their intellectual spider webs. I also wonder: why are so many "conservatives" hostile to demonstrably better ideas like truly fresh veggies?
A partial answer, aside from Fr. Murray's categorizations, might be the old switcheroo that liberals and conservatives have made since the founding of our country. Specifically, the term "liberal" in its original meaning meant "suitable for a free man; not restricted". Our founders would certainly have filled this bill, especially with regards the usual modern (post-18th century) meaning of liberal: open to new ideas and concepts.
Now it is certainly true that many so-called conservatives in today's culture are merely cranky about the kids and want to roll back the clock to some imagined golden age. These folks aren't conservative, they're radical. As for the religion aspect dealt with in the article, traditionalists usually creep me out in their public behavior (or, swing that censer).
However, insofar as wanting to realize transcendence in their daily lives, thoughtful traditionalists I've talked with are usually grounded in the Truth (yep, capital "T") in the most natural way. This is in stark contrast to secularists, whose moral compass is prone to change with the winds of fashion.
To sum it up, what works definitionally for me is a simple role reversal. Today's "conservatives" are actually liberal; and today's "liberals" (think Sens. Daschle and Kennedy) are narrow-minded "aginners", nattering nabobs of negativism (sorry, Bill Safire), hung up on the New Deal mentality but eliminating the New Deal's equality of opportunity with today's politically correct, victimization approach where people are not people, but members of groups --- the cultural apartheid approach to governance.
Who wouldn't prefer organic produce to the processed veggie sims they sell at the grocery? Who wouldn't prefer a lively neighborhood, with a decent mixture of cultures, incomes, and ages to the bland hypersameness (mom, dad, 2.5 soccer playing kids) of cul-de-sacville (think Fairfax County, Virginia, or Nassau County NY)?
The conclusion must be that we are all individuals first, communal creatures second, and, at the foundation of both, spiritual beings seeking He who Is. All of these attributes are essential in order to be fully human.
Thanks, Rod Dreher.
Mr. Dreher's July 12, 2002 article posted at National Review Online is right on target. Anyone who considers themselves to be a conservative or libertarian yet who also values organic produce and hates blandness must read this article. It raises fundamental questions about those of us who think we are conservatives or libertarians yet have those secret yearnings for things normally considered "liberal" by the multitudes.
I consider myself a hybrid libertoid-neoconservative contrarian (many contradictions, but hey, that's me) who can appreciate the left's culture without falling into their intellectual spider webs. I also wonder: why are so many "conservatives" hostile to demonstrably better ideas like truly fresh veggies?
A partial answer, aside from Fr. Murray's categorizations, might be the old switcheroo that liberals and conservatives have made since the founding of our country. Specifically, the term "liberal" in its original meaning meant "suitable for a free man; not restricted". Our founders would certainly have filled this bill, especially with regards the usual modern (post-18th century) meaning of liberal: open to new ideas and concepts.
Now it is certainly true that many so-called conservatives in today's culture are merely cranky about the kids and want to roll back the clock to some imagined golden age. These folks aren't conservative, they're radical. As for the religion aspect dealt with in the article, traditionalists usually creep me out in their public behavior (or, swing that censer).
However, insofar as wanting to realize transcendence in their daily lives, thoughtful traditionalists I've talked with are usually grounded in the Truth (yep, capital "T") in the most natural way. This is in stark contrast to secularists, whose moral compass is prone to change with the winds of fashion.
To sum it up, what works definitionally for me is a simple role reversal. Today's "conservatives" are actually liberal; and today's "liberals" (think Sens. Daschle and Kennedy) are narrow-minded "aginners", nattering nabobs of negativism (sorry, Bill Safire), hung up on the New Deal mentality but eliminating the New Deal's equality of opportunity with today's politically correct, victimization approach where people are not people, but members of groups --- the cultural apartheid approach to governance.
Who wouldn't prefer organic produce to the processed veggie sims they sell at the grocery? Who wouldn't prefer a lively neighborhood, with a decent mixture of cultures, incomes, and ages to the bland hypersameness (mom, dad, 2.5 soccer playing kids) of cul-de-sacville (think Fairfax County, Virginia, or Nassau County NY)?
The conclusion must be that we are all individuals first, communal creatures second, and, at the foundation of both, spiritual beings seeking He who Is. All of these attributes are essential in order to be fully human.
Thanks, Rod Dreher.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home