McCain chooses Palin!
Palin's debut (liveblogging)
A Palin view from an Alaskan
The base loves Palin
More Palin love
Will it solidify the base or appease the social conservatives? Or orthodox Catholics, for that matter? Probably, is my guess. A very unscientific survey (as opposed to normal surveys which are just unscientific) could be done on the various comboxes at Republican-cheerleading and conservative blogs everywhere. It appears that Mr. Dreher may be more open to voting for Sen. McCain as a result of his choice. We can look at the reasons for his choosing her--(1) to strengthen support among those who might have been wary of his 'unconservative' positions in the past, and (2) to win over women voters (especially those who had been supporting Hiltary) -- see Gov. Palin's speech for the rather obvious play for them.
But even if Gov. Palin is a 'paleo' of sorts, how many paleos and traditional conservatives really believe that voting is about choosing the lesser of two evils, rather than taking a stand and/or making an endorsement?
The Republic is dead. Deo Vindice.
From Dr. Fleming and Dr. Wilson:
53TJF
To return to several questions raised, which can be summed up as “Where do we go from here?,” I would begin by suggesting that we need to be careful in using words like “politics” and “culture.” The word politics can be used in many ways, though its original sense of acting within the polis or commonwealth in common with other citizens is still the most useful. In this sense, politics is not really possible or practical in a tyranny. It has been said here, quite reasonably, that elections provide an opportunity or necessity of passing a veto on bad leaders, thus one can vote for Obama to throw the rascals out. This would be true under certain circumstances and conditions, for example, where elections are not rigged and where the two sets of rascals are actually opposed to each other. If we live, as is often claimed (by me among others) under a bipartisan party-state in which both parties are agreed upon most fundamental principles and strategies, then it would hardly matter which set of rascals lands in the White House. I do not say that this is entirely true, only that if we thought it was true, we would be less likely to think we could cast a meaningful veto.
As for culture, it is a pretty dodgy word. I have written on this so often I can only summarize here. The human cultura is, literally, the tending and care of human persons within a society, just as agricultura is the tending of fields. Cultural institutions–codes of manners and dress, artistic traditions, education and religion–form the character of the young and enrich and delight the character of the mature. It is perfectly true that governments should not be in the business of creating culture, as C says above. However, cultural traditions and institutions are not private or individual, either. As Thomas Aquinas has said, the commonwealth does not exist to impose virtue but to establish and maintain the conditions that are propitious to virtuous living. Thus, in a healthy society, there are institutions of common life, often involving government, that affirm the identity and principles of the society and censor and repress cultural expressions that undermine that identity. The Greek religious festivals, at which athletic contests were held and songs and plays performed, are an excellent example of how it works.
Our own political rulers either hate what is left of our civilization–and this includes the English language itself–or else they have so poor a grasp of it that they are indifferent. There have been, over the years, a few exceptions, such as Gene McCarthy and, on a lower level, Robert Byrd, but Byrd is a freak in the Congress today. Then what is to be done? The only serious alternatives would seem to be a coup d’etat, followed by a cultural revolution or a grass roots from the ground up program. I believe the first approach to be both dangerous and, practically speaking, impossible. That leaves the second. In this connection, let me quote again a popular bit of Confucianist lore:
The ancients who wished clearly to manifest illustrious virtue throughout the world would first govern their states well. Wishing to govern their states well, they would first regulate their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they would first cultivate their own persons. Wishing to cultivate their own persons,they would first rectify their own hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they would first seek sincerity in their thoughts. Wishing for sincerity in their thoughts, they would first extend their knowledge. The extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
From careful observation of the world, one proceeds to sincerity–a refusal to deceive oneself about perceptions–and then to gain control over personal behavior, which allows one to set a good example within the household, and so on. Rather than imposing order on the world, the ideal ruler sets an example within his own home.
Elsewhere, the Confucianists speak of calling things by their right names. That, I suggest, is the beginning of sincerity, but names are only a part of language. It is true that everyone makes mistakes in grammar and usage, and it is also true that it is increasingly difficult to maintain standards in a society that has taken a nose-dive into stupidity, but, in general, correct English is far from being a trivial or superficial concern. It is a basic step toward the mental clarity and honesty that is the first step toward rectification of society. The same goes for many basic rules of courtesy, violations of which often indicate a deeper disorder. In a real, as opposed to virtual, human community, people meet face to face and understand that they will be exiled or ostracized for offending against civility. It is more difficult in a virtual community.
To show that this street runs both ways, I close with the famous observation of Thomas de Quncey:
“If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination.”
#
on 29 Aug 2008 at 2:53 pm
54Clyde Wilson
Our Jeffersonian forebears—Jefferson, John Taylor, Calhoun, the Confederacy—taught that the purpose of government was to protect society. Society, the creation of Providence, was a given. They lost out. after a gallant holding action, to those for whom government is an instrument to aggrandize themselves and change others.
#
on 29 Aug 2008 at 3:17 pm
55TJF
All too true. Jefferson did think that Virginia should have a state plan for education and helped to found UVA. So long as government is merely reflecting society, there is probably some good it can do–at the lowest conceivable level–in encouraging good manners, morals, music. However, this should not be read as a justification for the NEA or NPR, state agencies that make war on local traditions. This was a point on which the late WFB was quite misled by a kind of do-gooding elitism.
Edit.
From Taki's Mag: Richard Spencer, Palin & Sarah Palin—Buchananite; Evan McLaren, I’ll have the Palin, hold the excitement
CHT: Ron Paul affects McCain’s VP choice
WWWTW: McCain's Veep: A Hockey Mom Who Clings to God and Her Guns
@TAC: Double Standard-Bearers; Thank McCain for small favors; The Incredible Palin!; Palin Drones
No comments:
Post a Comment