seattle.politics

The kindly Rev. overheard usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) saying on
Wed 08 Aug 2007 07:12:36p:

>> > You're the only one saying Chairman Mao was a conservative. Not
>> > a lot of empirical data to support that one.
>>
>> Cite.
>>
>> You did it again, Paul. You attributed the statement to the wrong
>> damn guy!
>>
>> Bet he won't admit it or apologize for it this time either.
>
> Yeah, you're right. I did get it wrong this time. Unlike last
> time, when I meant what I said, and then meant what I said about
> what I meant, and then *you* got it wrong.

The absence of the apology is noted. Again.

> But please: Continue telling about how your definition is the
> empirical definition, when clearly you're the only one defending
> it in a roomful of people.

Oh yes, having exhausted everyone's patience with your argument from
authority, let's by all means turn to argument from popularity. For
the love of God, let's not look at what real people on the far right
call themselves, and what other people call them.

It's clear you're looking for self-congratulatory definitions of
conservatism and a free pass for every instance of racism and fascism
from the Right that goes *un*criticized, *un*noticed, and (most
importantly) *un*corrected by rank and file conservatives,

And so I'm wondering why you stopped at Webster's and didn't go
straight for this:

My own view is that conservatism is fundamentally rooted in
skepticism about the human mind and its capacity to change
society. So it’s basically resistant to large-scale change, but,
on the rare occasions that such change happens, is necessary and
turns out okay, conservatives can live with it. Our skepticism is
not absolute or ideological; it’s temperamental. Our belief in
markets, for example, is not based on some idea that markets
produce the most wealth. It’s based on the idea that markets
devolve decision-making to the most personal, immediate level and
so tend to minimize the risk of big, bad decisions, made by
fallible, distant brains. Markets devolve decision-making to the
people closest to the issue at hand and so lead to collective
outcomes that best represent the actual choices of most people.
It’s just a plus that they also generate more wealth than any
other system yet devised. At the root of this is - yes -
individual freedom. Why else would you want individuals’ personal
choices best reflected in social or economic policy? Because
individual liberty is what counts - because we can only fully
know ourselves. The link between skepticism and freedom is a
vital one.

That's by the guy who Baptists for Brownback called "that abominable
sodomite, Andrew Sullivan," and it's the smuggest definition I ever
saw. It ought to be right down your alley.
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
revbob at crispen dot org
Ex Cathedra weblog: /

You say Car-MEE-na and I say Car-MEYE-na
You say Bu-RAH-na and I say Bu-RAY-na
Car-MEE-na, Car-MEYE-na, Bu-RAH-na, Bu-RAY-na
Let's Carl the whole thing Orff.