I've not had time to do a fisking of Alan Wolfe's trashing of Russell Kirk ... and now it seems that I don't have to, because Ross Douthat -- who's not even a Kirk fan -- not only demolishes Wolfe's "argument," but even bounces the rubble. Very, very impressive.
A definitive smackdown
Wednesday July 11, 2007
Filed Under: Conservatism
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Conservatives do love their intercene, theoretical battles over political theory and philosophy. I guess it is a good distraction from the realities of conservative-inspired policy and the politicians they defended and helped elect.
This is a good response on Kirk. Unfortunately, "smug, dishonest, slipshod, ignorant, and willfully obtuse" describes much of what goes on at NR these days, which is one of the reasons I let my subscription lapse some time ago.
The romanticization of one's own authenticity, which in turn makes the authenticity seem faintly fraudulent That was just so nicely put that I had to quote it in order to savor it. All the things Douthat says about Kirk are the things that irritate me too.
And yet--given that the Revolution is now eating its own children, why Kirk? Why now? Obviously, the Sage of Mecosta is dead. So who is Wolfe's real target? What is the real animus behind this savaging of a previously respected forefather? You're far more in touch with the internecine feuds of conservatives than I am, Rod. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?
Sig,
I may be wrong but I thought Wolfe's piece-of-crap essay was ostensibly keyed to the release of the new omnibus edition of Kirk's writings.
It doesn't strike me that Wolfe is leaping into the internecine conservative fray. It feels more to me like Kirk has bugged him for decades (certainly, the fact that Kirk did not reflexively bend his knee to Israel and AIPAC types made him greatly disliked at TNR), and is using this opportunity to finally scratch the itch.
-O
Rod et al,
Rusty Reno's take on Wolfe: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=799
Reno is a theologian at Creighton, a convert to Catholicism from Episcopalianism.
"Conservatives do love their intercene, theoretical battles over political theory and philosophy. I guess it is a good distraction from the realities of conservative-inspired policy and the politicians they defended and helped elect."
Daniel, methinks thou art a knucklehead. The simple fact is that all conservatives DO NOT support the same policies and politicians. The 'intercene' (sic) battles are about exactly this -- what issues and politicians are truly conservative, and who do we therefore vote for? Get a clue, dude.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.