Google+
Close

Mail Call Cont’d



Text  



From a longtime reader:

Jonah,

 

Almost done LF, and loving it.  It will be a book that alters our political dialogue for a  long time to come, in a good way.

 

Something I’d love to see you expound on is the issue of the items which you gloss over in your book.  To be over broad, you frequently in the book note that LF results in X, though some of the fruits of X good conservative whigism doesn’t disapprove of or if it did once disapprove, now it doesn’t so shut up already.  The biggest obvious example is the positive rights and anti federalism Civil Rights movement.  You will note in LF and elsewhere that Goldwater and Buckley once didn’t support Civil Rights.  And rather than explain the reasons for that lack of support (classical liberalism etc consistently followed required them not to) or explain why it was right to reverse on those principals and carve out this massive exception, you just give the “all right people agree” treatment to it as unquestionable dogma –“oh they changed their minds later!”.  The very same approach, I would remind, that drives you mad when liberals use it for the rest of their agenda, from whatever entitlement to abortion rights and all the other fruit of the Living Constitution.

 

It seems you constantly note how Liberals abandon principled defense and ideas and say “its just obviously right and you therefore must be bad to question it” or “its right because I feel it is so strongly”.  But on a variety of issues you seem to give the same response.  While settled dogma is useful, when it is obviously a poor fit with the data, or in this case with the body of principals otherwise consistently applied and defended, it can’t stand without defense.  If maintaining the factuality of the Holocaust seemed a poor fit with all your other theories and facts on history, and even many of your historical thinker heroes were at one time Holocaust deniers, you would not be able to maintain the prohibition on Holocaust deniers or refuse to give positive evidence and defend its actual existence.

So, since the positive rights racial Civil Rights revolution, as well as other liberal fascist/ progressive advances such as popular safety net entitlements like social security or popular regulations on the market that have helped tame the business cycle, can not be accounted for by classical liberalism,  but are approved by you, it seems  you owe an explanation of why.  After all, civil rights is so popular now, thanks in part to a big propaganda push by government along with intrusive enforcement, many people would say they accept liberal fascism as fascism if it results in Civil Rights (and social security and medicare etc) and classical liberalism does not.  Simply saying, yeh, but we classical liberals eventually “me too’d” on those issues doesn’t help much.  And under that approach and explanation, why not just wait for classical liberals to merely ‘me too’ on the other issues like abortion or government health care. Go with the fascist on what feels right, knowing the classical liberal whig conservatives will come around someday anyway.


Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review