C'mon, I know you're out there

One of you, just one of my readers must have been curious enough about the books that I have been reading and recommending on conservative political theory to actually go out and read one.  I know, it's scary taking the time to consider another way of looking at things, but that's what we're supposed to be doing, right?  Considering both sides?  I appreciate the comments from those of you who disagree with me, but it would make this aging professor very happy to hear that someone has done the reading before speaking up.  Go ahead, make my day.  Show me that you've done the reading.

Comments

  1. Fencing BearOctober 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM

    For newer readers, here's what I used to be reading, just FYI: Family Matters. As you can see, I've rather changed my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

    Two questions:

    1) Is your change of heart specifically Republican, or more generally conservative?

    2) You do realize there are more than just two sides to these arguments, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fencing BearOctober 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM

    1) More generally conservative, but that does mean I will be voting Republican next week.

    2) Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that life is complex and most people have strong views on only a few of the things about which we have to make decisions in life. And no, in the sense that there is not a "middle ground" on every position that one might take. Jonah Goldberg has a good riff on this fallacy in his The Tyranny of Cliches which I have been toying with excerpting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. nkhNovember 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

    Why do you expect that anyone would put up with your reading list? Your entire section on "liberalism" is written by self-identified conservatives (and highly partisan ones at that). I've read enough of your authors' columns and articles to know what their ideas of what liberalism are. One might as well form one's entire idea of conservatism from the collected works of Al Franken.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fencing BearNovember 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

    So what would you recommend? I don't exactly include works by atheists in my list on Christianity. I never said the lists weren't biased.

    ReplyDelete
  6. nkhNovember 7, 2012 at 4:20 PM

    Well, that's exactly the point isn't it? Your list on liberalism is analogous to a list on Christianity written entirely by atheists. If you wouldn't do one, why would you do the other? On the other hand, one could admit that while it might be useful to have a counter-perspective on a reading list about liberalism (but why not have Buckley versus, say, Ann Coulter) it might also be valuable to have a few commentaries by atheists on a list about Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fencing BearNovember 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

    Why? To convince Christians to become atheists? Or to help Christians know what kind of arguments atheists tend to make? I think that Alister McGrath does a good job of distilling those. The readings in both lists are apologies (in the sense of defenses for one's position), not disinterested descriptions. Mind you, I don't believe there is such a thing as a disinterested description; I tend to quote C.S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers when pushed on this. You disagree with the perspective of the authors whom I list--that's fine. But I recommend the books to those who might not have read anything but George Lakoff et al. and who are looking for a different perspective. Why not have Buckley? Because I haven't read anything by him yet. I'm sure I've missed a few classics in my list on Christianity as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. nkhNovember 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM

    I don't think that's a very good response. It would make more sense in this context if the books in this list were, in fact, positive apologies for conservatism (in which case the list should be called "on conservatism"; I incidentally think that would have been a better way to go, presenting the positive case for conservative thinking). But this list is primarily concerned with defining conservatism as 'positive' not in itself but by comparison to something (or everything, in some of these authors' case) that is deemed inherently negative which the authors have chosen to call "liberalism". If you wouldn't accept a commentary on Christianity written entirely by, say, atheists, why do limit your view of liberalism to the opinions of conservatives? It's intellectually inconsistent to accept one but not the other.

    Additionally, while I can understand the desire to broaden the horizons of people (academics perchance?) who have a fairly narrowly developed liberal perspective, why on earth would you think any of your target audience would read Ann Coulter or Jonah Goldberg? "Liberal Fascism"? That's not going to attract a lot of readers. And Ann Coulter is as free with her contempt as she is with her science, economics and history.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fencing BearNovember 8, 2012 at 4:58 PM

    @nkh: See today's post in answer to your question.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my blog post. I look forward to hearing what you think!

F.B.

Popular posts from this blog

Draco Layer Four: The Anagogic or Mystical Sense

Image
Here be dragons. And doves. Human beings long for transcendence. Such longing is, for the world, always out of fashion because, of course, it is not a longing for the world, and the world knows it. We know what the world wants. The world—by which we mean Satan, the Lord of the World—wants above all our obedience, a jewel so precious that he will do anything to get it: lie, steal, murder, bear false witness, pretend to social standing, pretend to insider knowledge to get us to consent to his influence.  “God lied to you. You will not die.” And suddenly we are anxious about having other people dislike us, about losing prestige in our social circles, about other people being more popular or influential or successful, about other people having secret knowledge, about our own influence and fame. “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” And with that temptation, our first parents fell. The irony is cosmic. There they were in the Garden, privy to conversation with God face-to-face, and
Keep reading

Draco Layer Three: The Moral or Tropological Sense

Image
Learn to discern. We all know what sin is, right? Right?!  Once upon a time in the desert , the hermit Evagrius Ponticus (d. 399) set out to make a list of the most deadly ones, albeit he called them “deadly thoughts,” not “sins.” You probably know the list, even if you don’t think you do: gluttony, impurity (a.k.a. lust), avarice (a.k.a. greed), sadness (a.k.a. feeling sorry for oneself), anger or wrath, acedia  or sloth, vainglory, and pride (two different things).  Not quite the list you were expecting? That is because some centuries later—we’re talking ancient times here, when centuries passed like decades do now (or vice versa)—Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) revised the list, somewhat accidentally, in his commentary on Job.  Gregory had been expounding Job according to its multiple layers—yes, that’s right! Job, like Shrek, has layers! —and he happened somewhere in book XXXI to mention the “seven principle vices” to which Pride,  the “Queen of Sins” gives rise: Vainglory, Envy,
Keep reading

Talking Points: Three Cheers for White Men

Image
1. When white women (see Marie de France and Eleanor of Aquitaine) invented chivalry and courtly love , white men agreed that it was better for knights to spend their time protecting women rather than raping them, and even agreed to write songs for them rather than expecting them to want to have sex with them without being forced. 2. When white men who were celibate (see the canon lawyers and theologians of the twelfth century and thereafter) argued that marriage was a sacrament valid only if both the man and the woman consented , white men exerted themselves to become good husbands rather than expecting women to live as their slaves. 3. When white women (see Christine de Pizan, Mary Wollstonecraft, and the suffragettes) invented feminism , white men supported them (see John Stuart Mill) and even went so far as to vote (because only men could vote at the time) to let them vote, not to mention hiring them as workers and supporting their education. And before you start telling me a
Keep reading

Risus et bellum

Image
MILO really needs to put this motto on a t-shirt: “Laughter and war.” It is what he called for back in November, when accepting the prize for courage in journalism from David Horowitz’s Freedom Center: So let us fight, but let our motto be Risus et bellum , Laughter and war. Because nothing stings our foes, foreign and domestic, more than our hearty laughter at their lies and nonsense. And also because nothing will better remind us what we’re fighting for than the laughter of Chesterton, of Chaucer and of Shakespeare, and of course the God who inspired them all. I have to confess, I am quite weary today. It is taxing withstanding a SJW attack. My colleagues in academia have, over the past week, used every weapon in the standard arsenal: long-running Facebook threads in which they talk about how deplorable I am; an open letter passed round the internet at the speed of light, garnering (at an estimate) some 1,400 signatures from colleagues at large to be sent to my Social Sciences
Keep reading

Progressive is the New Puritan

Image
Joseph Bottum has offered a weak (in the sense of historically shallow) version of this argument in his An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and Spirit of America  (New York: Image, 2014), where he attempts to account for the decline of the mainline Protestant churches in America over the last half century or so. As Bottum tells it, it was above all the new social gospel preached by the Baptist theologian Walter Rauschenbusch around the turn of the twentieth century that was ultimately responsible for the loss of confidence among American Protestants in themselves as Christians, if not in themselves as cultural elites. The story is complicated and involves lots of different currents in American culture from the late nineteenth century to the present, but the result, as Bottum convincingly shows, has been a profound transformation in the way in which American elites identify as religious or (mostly) not. The real question, left to a certain extent unanswered, is why they were so su
Keep reading