Via Andrew Sullivan, I see that Kathryn Jean Lopez has officially lost whatever credibility she may have had as an authentically Catholic political voice. Thinking that the abortion issue creates a moral requirement to vote for John McCain is one thing – a mistaken thing, I think, but still a view within the realm of reasonableness. But being openly “enthused by the prospect” that our nation’s next Vice President will be one who emulates the lying, bullying war criminal who currently occupies that position is something quite different, and no one who writes such a thing deserves to be any sort of spokesman for American conservatism.
That Lopez is exactly that – well, she’s a spokeswoman, I suppose, but we’re all okay with gendered language, right? – is of course a telling sign of how far we’ve fallen, and is a perfect example of why the near-complete erosion of respect for conservative movement during the Bush years has been richly deserved. That it is Bill Buckley’s National Review that has become one of the loudest mouthpieces in support of government spying, the Iraq war, the American torture regime, and all the rest seems to me to be as unfortunate a stain on the great man’s legacy as any other. This is not conservatism: it is crude, unthinking, rigidly partisan (dare I say it?) moronoconitude, and American conservatives will continue to get what we deserve until more of us are willing to describe it as such. Let it be clear, then: Kathryn Jean Lopez does not speak for me, and she certainly – and more importantly – does not speak for the Church that she loves. These are truths that cannot be repeated often enough.
One last point, though, which is that as sad as it has been to see publications like NR – and writers like Lopez, whom I once really enjoyed reading – go the route they’ve gone, I do think that the upshot of this tragic chapter in the life of American conservatism will be good rather than bad. There are a great many writers – Andrew mentions Mark Shea, but plenty of others including Rod Dreher, Daniel Larison, several of the Vox Nova bloggers, and of course (albeit in a theologically unorthodox vein) Andrew himself jump quickly to mind – whose self-identification as Christians and political conservatives has not hindered, but rather has been a quite obvious cause of, their recognition of the gravest evils of the last seven years, and the standoff between these voices and those “conservatives” who continue to idolize Dick Cheney is one that has been a long time coming. The great dividing line in American conservatism is not between the Hucksters and the Paulites, the libertarians and the moralists, or the Christianists and the leave-us-aloners, but rather between those whose conservatism means something more than identification with a political party and for whom religion is not a thing to be used only when it is politically advantageous, and those of whom these things cannot be said. Let’s put our cards on the table, and let’s do it now. To borrow a trope from the neocons, nothing less than the fate of the world is at stake. And I’m pretty confident that I know who’s going to triumph.
Filed under: abortion, conservatism, morality, politics, religion
I don’t have any substantive to add. But, amen and amen.
This is a reasonable point of view, but let’s note that K-Lo’s note was not exactly a manifesto of conservatism. And it’s not like K-Lo herself is the pied piper of conservatism.
Once there was William Buckley, Jeffrey Hart, James Burnham. Now there is K-Lo, Jo-nah!, and the like. As mentioned above, how far has been the fall.
Very nice post. Yes, K-Lo is beyond ridiculous.
Interesting litle piece, and it is right on – it’s sad to see how a certain part of the “American Right” have let themselves drift into a very dangerous ideological corner. I will be the first to say there are many who don’t follow through with this line of reasoning; indeed, I think the majority of those who vote as conservatives do not, but — it’s the but which is what makes things very sad indeed– many do and want to push the ideology even further, and many of those have made their voice heard far and wide. Thanks for showing everyone this need not be the last word on the matter!
[...] John Schwenkler posts about the strange moral/ideological gymnastics that devout (”conservative”) Christians must go through in order to support the administration’s torture policy. The real political divide lies somewhere you might not expect: There are a great many writers – Andrew [Sullivan] mentions Mark Shea, but plenty of others including Rod Dreher, Daniel Larison, several of the Vox Nova bloggers, and of course (albeit in a theologically unorthodox vein) Andrew himself jump quickly to mind – whose self-identification as Christians and political conservatives has not hindered, but rather has been a quite obvious cause of, their recognition of the gravest evils of the last seven years, and the standoff between these voices and those “conservatives” who continue to idolize Dick Cheney is one that has been a long time coming. The great dividing line in American conservatism is not between the Hucksters and the Paulites, the libertarians and the moralists, or the Christianists and the leave-us-aloners, but rather between those whose conservatism means something more than identification with a political party and for whom religion is not a thing to be used only when it is politically advantageous, and those of whom these things cannot be said. Let’s put our cards on the table, and let’s do it now. To borrow a trope from the neocons, nothing less than the fate of the world is at stake. And I’m pretty confident that I know who’s going to triumph. [...]
The whole attempt to smear as liars and crooks those who disagree with the left sad and tired. I guess when your trumpet seems to hit a note you like, you continue to play it over, and over, and over…
“Thinking that the abortion issue creates a moral requirement to vote for John McCain is one thing – a mistaken thing, I think, but still a view within the realm of reasonableness.”
Exactly! Reasonable (just barely) … but wrong, wrong, WRONG. And as I am leading a traditionalist Catholic discussion group, I would love some citations to contemporary articles demonstrating just how mistaken this is. Thanks.
Well, here’s our present Pope, then a Cardinal, saying something that’s clearly relevant:
This document from the USCCB is also relevant, though traditionalist types might roll their eyes at it.
My own view is that Obama’s few good qualities are clearly insufficient to make him worth voting for. But McCain’s bad ones, together with his connection to the Bush-Cheney axis and even overlooking the fact that there’s no guarantee that he’d even do anything worthwhile on the abortion issue, make him far, far, FAR worse.
Sorry that I can’t do better than that by way of suggesting contemporary articles … that sort of reading isn’t really my strong point.
Without a doubt Buckley’s urbane sophistication was vastly preferable to today’s shouters. But was his brand of conservatism really all that different? He supported a vast national security state and pretty much every ill-advised Cold War foreign adventure that came down the line (including Vietnam). Seems to me that, for NR-style conservatism, winning the Cold War pretty much trumped every other conservative principle (not entirely unlike how winning the “war” on terror functions today).
To Buckley’s credit, he was an Iraq war skeptic, but more and more I wonder if today’s conservatism isn’t simply the fruit of a poisonous tree.
Even bracketing her policy positions, odd personal loyalties, and the like, how does one go about taking seriously someone called K-Lo? As for Lee’s question: Good point. However, despite there enormous flaws and their complicity in leading the post-war conservative movement off the rails, at least people like Buckley and Burnham were a pleasure to read.
[...] As I have said (and then ably demonstrated), I simply don’t know how to talk to people who can’t see the light on this issue, [...]
[...] health care, taxation Every now and then, as I find myself disowning movement conservatism over torture and foreign policy, or admitting vague sympathies with the possibility of government-run health [...]
[...] only the guardians of American conservatism would be willing to say the same sorts of things about those who really deserve it … No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI [...]