tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post4540040477195741688..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: Romney and the (Paleo?)(Theo?)Conservative TestUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-15518813439511040262007-03-08T10:16:00.000-06:002007-03-08T10:16:00.000-06:00Russel Arben Fox writes : “it is not necessarily o...Russel Arben Fox writes : “it is not necessarily obvious either exactly how America's culture and society fits into Western civilization's historical Christian identity”<BR/><BR/>If you mean prior to Descartes, I agree because the US was founded on and has always been a creature of the enlightenment. <BR/><BR/>But if on the other hand you mean Christianity alla the reformation, then I disagree because the reformation is likewise a creature of the enlightenment, and thus the two are of similar root and nature.<BR/><BR/>What the US has become is fitting, given its being a creature of the enlightenment, and not a creature of “historical Christianity” prior to Descartes, but Mormonism is an entirely different creature from either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-42712274437276146322007-03-07T11:33:00.000-06:002007-03-07T11:33:00.000-06:00Understanding Larison as a Reactionary (a self-pro...Understanding Larison as a Reactionary (a self-proclaimed one at that) is key to this, in my view. Anything but adamant fidelity to the Orthodox tradition, in his view, is heresy. With the constant flux that life gives us, Reactionaries weigh the new against the old. discarding many things the rest of the world embraces.<BR/><BR/>Having weighed Mormonism against his Orthodox beliefs and finding it deficient, for Larison to accept a Mormon president would probably require a conversion to Mormonism. I don't see that happening next week. It's also something I hope no one would do without some serious thought and prayer.<BR/><BR/>The issue of whether this is "political thinking" relies on the same principles. Some would define "political thinking" as a matter of give and take, with the end result being what matters. Obviously, this is a broad path, with individuals and groups all having to draw their own lines as to what is acceptable. <BR/><BR/>A Reactionary relying on revealed truths as absolutes will work within the framework of those principles in judging anything new, because if absolutes are really absolutes, any deviation from them can lead to nothing but trouble. <BR/><BR/>A difference (THE difference?) between the Orthodoxy Daniel holds to and Mormonism is this: Who has the revealed absolutes? Either God passed his salvific truths through the Bible and the Holy Traditions that the Orthodox hold to, or the Mormon's are led by a Prophet who speaks to and for God - they're mutually exclusive. Again, this is for individuals to decide. The Orthodox Church's rejection of Roman Catholics wanting to "mend things" between the two could probably be discussed in a similar manner.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of Christianity, or any other group, some hold to the idea of absolutes and some don't. It's a pretty wide field with the "give/take" spectrum proportional to the "absolute truth/relative truth" spectrum.<BR/><BR/>Chris HayesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-53441482376397610052007-03-06T21:33:00.000-06:002007-03-06T21:33:00.000-06:00"You may disagree, or you may say the incoherence ...<I>"You may disagree, or you may say the incoherence is irrelevant, since it makes for a good strategy. I'll admit that it very well may be the latter, but that won't stop me from observing that, I think at least, it's also the former. That's the theorist, as opposed to the activist, in me I suppose."</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting. What's needed, then, is a theoretical reason to justify theoretical inconsistencies that are necessary for political reasons. I think this is doable. In fact, Mormonism does something like this.<BR/><BR/>-Adam GreenwoodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-27979595667868795112007-03-06T19:45:00.000-06:002007-03-06T19:45:00.000-06:00"I'm not sure I understand. You *agree* with Laris..."I'm not sure I understand. You *agree* with Larison? That is, you think its hypocritical for social conservatives to vote for someone who isn't an orthodox, Nicene Christian?"<BR/><BR/>No, Adam--I agree that it would be hypocritical for <I>Larison</I>, and those who emphatically adopt his approach to thinking about Christianity and Western civilization, to vote for president someone who isn't an orthodox, Nicene Christian. I don't adopt his approach; I think his approach to the relationship between Christianity and the West is problematic, at best, and I don't think Mormonism's challenge to that relationship, whatever it might be, ought to control one's votes. But I'm not a deep conservative, like he is, however much I sometimes kind of admire the stands he and other paleocons like him take.<BR/><BR/>"I would have thought this phenomenon of an outsider informing a group what its *real* objectives were would be beneath you in any case..."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if what I wrote came off sounding somewhat offensive to you; I genuinely meant to articulate a challenge that I see operating in the worldview of certain paleo- and theocons. To be sure, "social conservatism" is not exhausted by those categories.<BR/><BR/>"A Christian civilization theocon could certainly support Romney on the grounds that he was the best option available....[T]his sort of failure to think politically is probably the major political difference between me and the paleocons."<BR/><BR/>Well, and that's where we come up against our slightly different assessment of things. As I've written before, it seems to me that a lot of the <I>First Things</I>, theoconservative critique actually implies, or indeed <I>requires</I>, a degree of deep discontent with, a MacIntyre-esque rejection of, the modern liberal order. And yet, the <I>FT</I> is nothing if not adept at incorporating America's liberal history and civic religion into their arguments for change. I don't begrudge them that; I have my own interests in promoting a stronger civic religion, as you well know. But I also think, when all put together, it comes out somewhat incoherent. You may disagree, or you may say the incoherence is irrelevant, since it makes for a good strategy. I'll admit that it very well may be the latter, but that won't stop me from observing that, I think at least, it's also the former. That's the theorist, as opposed to the activist, in me I suppose.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-7020338221034982022007-03-06T16:40:00.000-06:002007-03-06T16:40:00.000-06:00I'm not sure I understand. You *agree* with Laris...I'm not sure I understand. You *agree* with Larison? That is, you think its hypocritical for social conservatives to vote for someone who isn't an orthodox, Nicene Christian?<BR/><BR/>Even if your assumptions about what social conservatism meant were true--they aren't, and I would have thought this phenomenon of an outsider informing a group what its *real* objectives were would be beneath you in any case--you agreeing with Larison would, I think, show how unpolitical most of your political thinking is. That is, you seem to see politics as a realm for expressing ideas of the good rather than as an attempt to move the polity towards the good by fits and starts. A Christian civilization theocon could certainly support Romney on the grounds that he was the best option available.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, this sort of failure to think politically is probably the major political difference between me and the paleocons.<BR/><BR/>-Adam GreenwoodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-43207088030851894752007-02-22T14:11:00.000-06:002007-02-22T14:11:00.000-06:00Comassia, those unitarians have been retroactively...Comassia, those unitarians have been retroactively turned into evangelicals.<BR/><BR/>Rusell, in terms of people's actions not living up to their words of epic struggle, please note that that is how the administration waged the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only not acting as if they were wars for national survival, but also not even acting as if they were real wars which would need some real fighting, instead of airstrikes=>parades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-28060429140050279562007-02-21T12:49:00.000-06:002007-02-21T12:49:00.000-06:00Camassia, that's an excellent point--one that I wi...Camassia, that's an excellent point--one that I wish I'd included in my post! Obviously the Unitarians of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were much more connected to the Christian tradition than the Unitarians of today, but still, the fundamentals of the Unitarian faith, while nominally more "mainstream" or orthodox that Mormonism, is in practice certainly about as far from orthodoxy as any Christian can probably be. Hence, if the sort of conservative complaints which Larison identifies are to be taken seriously, then one must assume they've been complaining about American presidents pretty much from the beginning.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-49369180907597322492007-02-16T16:45:00.000-06:002007-02-16T16:45:00.000-06:00I would add that the "great apostasy" idea actuall...I would add that the "great apostasy" idea actually has currency among a lot of American low churches -- many evangelicals today seem to basically ignore the 1,900+ years of post-Apostolic tradition that Daniel mentions. And since we had Unitarian presidents in the first few decades of the Republic, it seems a bit late to be worrying about having heretics in the White House.Camassiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09183087564923218343noreply@blogger.com