Definitions of conservative vary, and I grant that many of the things French believes fit my description as well as his. I don 't want to back everyone into a corner of "believe this or you are not a true conservative." I was not a big fan of either McCain or Romney, but frankly, that attitude is how we got Obama, twice. But i think the shoe is on the other foot with French. He is the one staking out the position that this is a true conservative, you others don't quite qualify if you are voting for Trump. I think this attitude has grown in him over time.
It happens. Rod Dreher did that.George Will did that for a while but seemed to back away from that arrogance. David Brooks did that. Heck, Barry Goldwater did that. It seems to go with the territory of being a notable conservative that you think you get to define the movement. French is worth reading, but I hold him at arm's length now.
That's all quite fair. I'm just struck by the framing: "It is my conservative principles that have led me to embrace the lady with the lunatic price controls; it is my pro-life principles that have led me to embrace the most pro-abortion candidate yet."
Abortion for Harris/Walz doesn't consider the existence of the child at all. They frame it as purely an issue of reproductive freedom, one into which the child and the child's life does not rightly come as any sort of consideration. It's a more unrestricted liberty for them than the first amendment's, which Walz says doesn't apply to people who are spreading 'hate speech or misinformation,' certainly more than the second's, and based on Ms. Harris' prosecutorial days, more than the fourth, fifth, sixth, or eighth. It's the only genuinely unrestricted Constitutional liberty in their opinion; I notice it's also the one the Constitution doesn't protect or mention at all.
But yes: "As a conservative; because I'm pro-life."
I, too, generally steer clear of statements about this person, or that person not being a "real" conservative. Conservatism is more of a philosophy than a dogma or an ideology. However, there comes a point when that philosophy is simply incompatible with certain public policy positions. For instance, you can't claim to be a supporter of free markets or limited government and simultaneously support draconian price controls, the enforcement of which would only increase further centralization of power. You can't claim to be pro-life and also support partial birth abortion and abortion on demand.
I believe that David French has simply found a financially rewarding position as the "house conservative" at a liberal news outlet. In that role he regularly argues for left-wing candidates and measures to give liberals a person to point to and claim that even conservatives support these measures and candidates. . His self-proclaimed persona as a "conservative" is nothing more than a grift.
3 comments:
Definitions of conservative vary, and I grant that many of the things French believes fit my description as well as his. I don 't want to back everyone into a corner of "believe this or you are not a true conservative." I was not a big fan of either McCain or Romney, but frankly, that attitude is how we got Obama, twice. But i think the shoe is on the other foot with French. He is the one staking out the position that this is a true conservative, you others don't quite qualify if you are voting for Trump. I think this attitude has grown in him over time.
It happens. Rod Dreher did that.George Will did that for a while but seemed to back away from that arrogance. David Brooks did that. Heck, Barry Goldwater did that. It seems to go with the territory of being a notable conservative that you think you get to define the movement. French is worth reading, but I hold him at arm's length now.
That's all quite fair. I'm just struck by the framing: "It is my conservative principles that have led me to embrace the lady with the lunatic price controls; it is my pro-life principles that have led me to embrace the most pro-abortion candidate yet."
Abortion for Harris/Walz doesn't consider the existence of the child at all. They frame it as purely an issue of reproductive freedom, one into which the child and the child's life does not rightly come as any sort of consideration. It's a more unrestricted liberty for them than the first amendment's, which Walz says doesn't apply to people who are spreading 'hate speech or misinformation,' certainly more than the second's, and based on Ms. Harris' prosecutorial days, more than the fourth, fifth, sixth, or eighth. It's the only genuinely unrestricted Constitutional liberty in their opinion; I notice it's also the one the Constitution doesn't protect or mention at all.
But yes: "As a conservative; because I'm pro-life."
I, too, generally steer clear of statements about this person, or that person not being a "real" conservative. Conservatism is more of a philosophy than a dogma or an ideology. However, there comes a point when that philosophy is simply incompatible with certain public policy positions. For instance, you can't claim to be a supporter of free markets or limited government and simultaneously support draconian price controls, the enforcement of which would only increase further centralization of power. You can't claim to be pro-life and also support partial birth abortion and abortion on demand.
I believe that David French has simply found a financially rewarding position as the "house conservative" at a liberal news outlet. In that role he regularly argues for left-wing candidates and measures to give liberals a person to point to and claim that even conservatives support these measures and candidates. . His self-proclaimed persona as a "conservative" is nothing more than a grift.
Post a Comment