I review Mike Gibson's memoir/manifesto; Erik Hoel on tutoring; Daniel Williams on the marketplace of rationalizations; Strong response to rent increases?; William Galston on Catholic Integralism
I would be curious if Galston bothered to call up Professor Vermeule or any living person he identifies as a proponent of his description of Integralism and asked them if there views of a properly ordered US society included striking the freedom of association and exercise of religion clauses from the Constitution.
Both (a) and (b) are false - but your note is an excellent example of how an intelligent person can rationalize whatever hypocrisies their heart leads them towards.
But I agree that both kids of violence are not "acceptable."
False? You think that violence against a lot of commercial property is more consequential than trying to change the outcome of an election? You think that the objective of the BLM protests was to permit violence against commercial property?
Galston does, finally at the end, call out the hypocritical individualists, and his audience is exactly those hypocrites who do claim police killing an unarmed conservative who protested in DC what looks like fraud in an election is OK, but have different criteria for Democrat protesters there (against Kavanaugh) or in other places.
Most of Galston's characterization is barely better than a strawman (cardboard man?), Vermeule and Deneen should be read directly: https://postliberalorder.substack.com/
He asks but doesn't honestly answer:
"political liberals should ask themselves some hard questions. Have we truly respected cultural pluralism, or have we been willing to use coercive power to bring about the cultural change we support? Have we used the judicial system to bypass the slower task of democratic persuasion? Have we allowed federalism and localism to serve as sites for the expression of different conceptions of morality and the good, or have we nationalized issues that did not require a unitary and binding national response? Have we inadvertently undermined the credibility of a liberal public square that makes room for conflicting conceptions of the individual and common good?"
Many New Right or Christian Nationalists would answer as I do:
-Democrats use power, often illegally (IRS, FBI) for cultural change.
-Dems often have used activist judges, and Ted Kennedy lied outrageously in demonizing Robert Bork many decades ago in the first Borking of SCOTUS nominee
-Dems nationalize issues & politicize as much as they can, for "unity"
-Dems reject allowing free speech, it's called "cancel culture".
Galston flatters his Dem Brookings readers by inverting the argument:
"Political liberals face a strategic choice. Either we can approach cultural conflict as our adversaries do—as a fight to the finish without the possibility of honorable compromise—..." or compromise.
In fact, Republicans who have been mostly losing the cultural war have been increasingly claiming: either we start approaching cultural conflict as do the Dems - fight as if it's to the finish without compromise - or else we lose, and lose America The Beautiful that we know and love.
Note our Dem adversaries often claim Republicans are evil, and of course Hitler. (Trump was, Romney was, Palin was, Bush was, Reagan was, Nixon was.)
And as Hanania said in an early famous post on why Liberals control the culture - they CARE more. So far. Still. It looks like it will have to get worse before it gets better.
on our communities and that protect our reputation and status within them.
Yes and no. I think of my community as a divers geographic and historical one (a great crowd of witnesses as Hebrews says). Of course I have not reputation or standing with them as most are dead.:)
I would be curious if Galston bothered to call up Professor Vermeule or any living person he identifies as a proponent of his description of Integralism and asked them if there views of a properly ordered US society included striking the freedom of association and exercise of religion clauses from the Constitution.
It is hypocrisy to imply that law-breaking is unacceptable on Capitol Hill but acceptable in Portland and Seattle.
I do not, but a) the consequences of Jan 6 were much greater and b) law breaking was not the objective of the BLM pretests.
Both (a) and (b) are false - but your note is an excellent example of how an intelligent person can rationalize whatever hypocrisies their heart leads them towards.
But I agree that both kids of violence are not "acceptable."
False? You think that violence against a lot of commercial property is more consequential than trying to change the outcome of an election? You think that the objective of the BLM protests was to permit violence against commercial property?
Galston does, finally at the end, call out the hypocritical individualists, and his audience is exactly those hypocrites who do claim police killing an unarmed conservative who protested in DC what looks like fraud in an election is OK, but have different criteria for Democrat protesters there (against Kavanaugh) or in other places.
Most of Galston's characterization is barely better than a strawman (cardboard man?), Vermeule and Deneen should be read directly: https://postliberalorder.substack.com/
He asks but doesn't honestly answer:
"political liberals should ask themselves some hard questions. Have we truly respected cultural pluralism, or have we been willing to use coercive power to bring about the cultural change we support? Have we used the judicial system to bypass the slower task of democratic persuasion? Have we allowed federalism and localism to serve as sites for the expression of different conceptions of morality and the good, or have we nationalized issues that did not require a unitary and binding national response? Have we inadvertently undermined the credibility of a liberal public square that makes room for conflicting conceptions of the individual and common good?"
Many New Right or Christian Nationalists would answer as I do:
-Democrats use power, often illegally (IRS, FBI) for cultural change.
-Dems often have used activist judges, and Ted Kennedy lied outrageously in demonizing Robert Bork many decades ago in the first Borking of SCOTUS nominee
-Dems nationalize issues & politicize as much as they can, for "unity"
-Dems reject allowing free speech, it's called "cancel culture".
Galston flatters his Dem Brookings readers by inverting the argument:
"Political liberals face a strategic choice. Either we can approach cultural conflict as our adversaries do—as a fight to the finish without the possibility of honorable compromise—..." or compromise.
In fact, Republicans who have been mostly losing the cultural war have been increasingly claiming: either we start approaching cultural conflict as do the Dems - fight as if it's to the finish without compromise - or else we lose, and lose America The Beautiful that we know and love.
Note our Dem adversaries often claim Republicans are evil, and of course Hitler. (Trump was, Romney was, Palin was, Bush was, Reagan was, Nixon was.)
And as Hanania said in an early famous post on why Liberals control the culture - they CARE more. So far. Still. It looks like it will have to get worse before it gets better.
on our communities and that protect our reputation and status within them.
Yes and no. I think of my community as a divers geographic and historical one (a great crowd of witnesses as Hebrews says). Of course I have not reputation or standing with them as most are dead.:)