If Rod Questions Your Conservatism, Is It a Compliment?
A blogger named Clark Stooksbury recently took a potshot at Rush Limbaugh, and another blogger -- a friend of Rod's named Daniel Larison -- picked up on it, adding his own idiocy.
Dreher has since excerpted Larison's blog entry, saying that Larison "catches Rush Limbaugh out on an astonishingly un-conservative tear." I think a case can be made that, in context, Limbaugh's comments weren't as unorthodox as they think -- that none of these three stooges care too terribly much about the accuracy of their criticism -- but I wonder:
Is it really an insult if Dreher questions your conservative bona fides?
And just who the hell is Rod Dreher make such a charge? Consider how often he cites the New York Times as authoritative, how just this week he referenced Bob Woodward and John Murtha as reliable sources in attacking Bush's policy in Iraq and accusing Bush of lying, and (let us not forget) how he nearly wept for Dan Rather while he called Rush a "pillhead."
In the comments here this week, SiliconValleySteve observes that Dreher "has no center". I believe that's true, though I believe we should be charitable toward people who are figuring themselves out, as all of us could improve and even those of us who know the course we need to chart hardly ever navigate that course unfailingly.
But what I can't abide is this: Rod doesn't know who he is, but he's happy to tell others who we are and -- more appallingly -- that who we are is morally inferior, that we are not only different from him, but also deficient.
A person who's figuring himself out could still write a worthwhile account of his personal journey of discovery or of how others are finding meaning in their lives, but it's overreach to pretend that a comprehensive (and comprehensible) philosophy can be gleaned from the jumbled mess of positions Rod holds, and it's infuriating to pretend that others can be judged by that philosophy.
Dreher has since excerpted Larison's blog entry, saying that Larison "catches Rush Limbaugh out on an astonishingly un-conservative tear." I think a case can be made that, in context, Limbaugh's comments weren't as unorthodox as they think -- that none of these three stooges care too terribly much about the accuracy of their criticism -- but I wonder:
Is it really an insult if Dreher questions your conservative bona fides?
And just who the hell is Rod Dreher make such a charge? Consider how often he cites the New York Times as authoritative, how just this week he referenced Bob Woodward and John Murtha as reliable sources in attacking Bush's policy in Iraq and accusing Bush of lying, and (let us not forget) how he nearly wept for Dan Rather while he called Rush a "pillhead."
In the comments here this week, SiliconValleySteve observes that Dreher "has no center". I believe that's true, though I believe we should be charitable toward people who are figuring themselves out, as all of us could improve and even those of us who know the course we need to chart hardly ever navigate that course unfailingly.
But what I can't abide is this: Rod doesn't know who he is, but he's happy to tell others who we are and -- more appallingly -- that who we are is morally inferior, that we are not only different from him, but also deficient.
A person who's figuring himself out could still write a worthwhile account of his personal journey of discovery or of how others are finding meaning in their lives, but it's overreach to pretend that a comprehensive (and comprehensible) philosophy can be gleaned from the jumbled mess of positions Rod holds, and it's infuriating to pretend that others can be judged by that philosophy.
posted by Anonymous at 1:07 PM
16 Comments:
bubba, assuming you are writing about larison: anyone who tries to make rush limbaugh look like a fool is automatically a greater fool. i certainly don't agree with limbaugh on all points, but Rush is a brilliant commentator. any "stunning displays" of whatever larison objects to in Rush pale in comparison to the sorry sight of a grad student trying to prove to the world that he, not the rich guy with 29million listeners, is the smart one. pathetic. and yet so common as to be a total snooze.
Limbaughs's statement is off the cuff and confused but he appears to be taking exception to an unspoken understanding that people are to be regarded and treated as clientele of the helping professions, one consequence of which is that judgment and punishment (which assume competency) are replaced with diagnosis and treatment. Recent critics of this view have included C.S. Lewis, Thomas Szasz, Christopher Lasch, and Sally Satel. Not a crew of utopians.
Intelligence and earning power are not strictly correllated, and one suspects that is particularly so among people in the entertainment business. Mr. Larison is likely smarter. Thomas Sowell has offered that it is an error of some to confound expertise with intelligence and intelligence with articulateness, an error he adjudges particularly common among the intelligent and the articulate.
Larison is "smarter"? it depends on what you call smart. I find Larison predictable, verbose and unduly difficult to read -- for me, that's not "smart". there are a great many articulate intelligent people (Bill Clinton springs to mind) who are also utterly useless and uninteresting. and i went to law school with a goodly portion of them.
It's often the case that those who can make their point concisely are underestimated by others, because they used five words to express a concept other people use fifty words to express. Because one is more easily understood does not mean one is lacks complexity in his thinking. Indeed, I find the opposite to be more often the case.
and I'm totally confident Sowell thinks Rush is more intelligent than someone like Larison or Dreher.
I find Larison predictable, verbose and unduly difficult to read -- for me, that's not "smart".
I haven't read enough by Daniel Larison to find him any particular way, but I have read a fair amount in the Crunch Con genre, if you will, that is "verbose and unduly difficult to read." I think in particular of Caleb Stegall's now-defunct New Pantagruel, which I found not so much difficult to read as unreadable.
Yes, I get that it's a cultivated style -- although, as a Strunk & White man, I don't much care for using twenty-six words where nine will do -- and I can believe some people enjoy reading and writing that sort of thing.
But if your primary goal is to get your ideas into wide circulation, you shouldn't go about it by writing in a way that turns most people off.
yeah, all those crunchy cons are horrible writers -- except for dreher. the mystery of dreher is that he is a decent writer whose prose, while fluid and easy to read, offers nothing of substance. i've compared him to Naomi Wolf in that respect.
John/Tom, you're right on the money.
..."verbose and unduly difficult to read." I think in particular of Caleb Stegall's now-defunct New Pantagruel, which I found not so much difficult to read as unreadable.
I used to think it was because I was dumb or something, but then I found other folks online who agreed. Besides, it's not like your stuff is exactly Highlights Magazine, but I understand it a great deal more. Whatever these guys are -- excepting Dreher -- they are horrible communicators. And I, like Kathleen, don't know where Rod's going half the time either. "Where's the beef?" I ask.
There's a qualitative difference between reading something by George Weigel, RJN or a lot of the popular conservative writers and wading through a clumsily-written populist rant or overlong diatribe by an agrarianista about the Wal-Rush-Neo-Limbaugh-Suburbocon-Mart problem. Besides having a sense of humor, their writings speak to the heart, not solely the head. Unfortunately, I think these cats, the reactionary radicals, the crunchy cons, et al really believe they are the heart of the heartland. But I think it's all inflated sentimentality which mostly just leaves me cold. There are several exceptions, Cubeland Mystic with whom I've conversed via email often. Definitely a heart guy. But paging through that Front Porch Terrorist book the reader will be confronted with so many unexplained references to obscure persons as to necessitate days of remedial research work at the local university library.
Maybe this would all pay off and one would emerge from the library converted to a Wendell Berry-style world view, ready to start a properly pessimistic utopian community. But when my mind finally understands, albeit partially, the long-winded pontifications from these sages, my heart kicks in and I say "That's interesting, but what good is it? For anyone?"
today's beliefnet blog indicates soon Rod will flirt with the idea of becoming amish. it was only a matter of time!
diane, Rod probably has a lexis/nexis account where you can read subscription stuff through his job. it's another Extra Special Mainstream Journalist badge he likes to flash, probably. (uh oh, i just had a mark shea moment with all those caps)
"siliconvalleysteve" wrote:
"There is one real nut-job that comments on his blog named 'Scott Lahti' that deserves special attention. The guy goes off on screeds that give the impression that he's doubling up on his ritalin prescription. I'd fix a 'handle-with-care' sticker on the guy but Rod seems to have a genuine appreciation for him."
First Cap'n Concrunchy (aka "Bubba") - and now "Hiyo SilVal" (Away!)!
You caught me - you caught The Tater!
And made my week.
And leave me no alternative - but to triple the frequency - and the length - of my posts in Rod's comboxes. And at a dozen other blogs.
You're welcome.
scott, if you make your posts longer it will only facilitate skipping them altogether.
Fah-so-Lah-ti....
Doh!!!!
Man, I'm bored already... what's up with that guy?
Yeah, it's like he's a cat and we're his mice or something...
oh i don't care rod that uses nexis, diane was just wondering about his tone and i thought his gearhead pride in having a lexis/nexis account might be the totally-in-character reason.
"Yeah, it's like he's a cat and we're his mice or something..."
nyyyooooo, it's not really like that
Scott Lahti is okay. He mostly posts snippets and provides a lot of helpful links. When he writes his own stuff it is fun, and sometimes very profound.
A simple life is a conservative lifestyle. It is very empowering. Dreher highlights some characteristics of it in his book. That is why I blog there.
If it is of interest to anyone, my thinking has been influenced by a couple things. I've unintentionally gained a circle of friends who have some political influence. They are all Republicans. But after evenings with them, I don't really see them as cons. They see the Reps as a way to protect their interests, but their social values are not that conservative.
The other influence grows as I work my way up in corporations, I am not seeing a lot of conservatism in corps. I've been at quite a few of them too. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of libs in managment.
So I ask myself what does it mean to be a conservative in 2006? I still have no answer other than I am weary of republicans, and dems are beyond consideration. Does conservative values have anything to do with politics?
On Dreher's blog I do see a lack of focus. Sometimes I think it is a lib blog. There is a lot of crunchy but not a lot of conservative. So I will wait and see how it goes over the next couple of months.
There are big problems in our country which we should be addressing in these blogs. I've talked about raising kids to be active creators not passive consumers. Active Bush bashing is not what I had in mind.
Pauli thanks for the complement. Good night all.
Post a Comment
<< Home