For decades, perhaps long after most of them stopped believing it, most conservatives have objected to the distortions of the sexual revolution and the pretense that there were no meaningful differences between the sexes. Stressing the distinctive and complementary roles of men and women, bristling at the suggestion of an identical equality of the sexes and railing against the idea that men and women are simply interchangeable in their roles, conservatives have pushed back, at least rhetorically, against the destructive and perverse notion that men and women are in all important respects the same. Perhaps it has been the last seven years of embracing the anti-jihadist propaganda praising secular modernity and women’s emancipation that has helped to erase these ideas from the minds of most conservatives, or perhaps it was the quintessential modern conservative delusion that we can “have it all”–complete with political Amazons leading the charge for traditional culture–that has blinded everyone to what is being compromised here. You could hardly ask for a better representation of the spiritual illness afflicting American conservatives than this: the subordination of familial and particularly maternal obligations to the service of party political activism. This is the illness that drives people to Washington to “do something” rather than remain at home preserving and creating the sane culture they claim to desire that the politicians praise and do nothing to protect.This, to me, seems like a great example of over-thinking, over-conceptualizing. I'm not so sure the situation with conservatives is as he describes. Men may just be happy to have an actual conservative on the Republican ticket. His point about sacrificing familial obligations to party politics is taken though. For conservatives, politics is never first or even second (this is one of many reasons McCain's slogan "Country First" is a bit disturbing).
9.08.2008
the modern conservative delusion?
Heavy stuff from Daniel Larison:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As I'm reading it, it translates roughly to,
"What's with all these conservative women getting politically active? They're supposed to be home watching the children!"
Am I overly suspicious, or is "mainstream" feminism having a meltdown over the realization that it's not just the Marabel Morgan types that have left the plantation?
That does seem more or less to be his sentiment. I'm not sure why he is so puffed up about it.
And you're right, the women at "Feministing" are very upset that anyone would call Sarah Palin a feminist, because she does not share their radical socialist ideals.
I think the consequences of this nomination will be farther reaching than we can see at present.
I don't find his slogan disturbing. Back in January I wrote about politicians that use a set of principles to guide their political positions. I didn't quite "get" McCain then, and I think I am beginning to understand McCain as a man. "Honor" is what drives him and I think this is what is intended by "Country First". McCain has put his country ahead of his political ambitions.
Dave
You're right, I think the correct way to interpret it is as innocuous.
McCain is referring to country first in the sense that when is in Washington, he isn't going to serve his career, he is going to serve his country. He puts his country first against his self-interest.
Which is fair enough, but I think the slogan is less than clear and can easily be interpreted as a nationalistic idea, or a violation of the traditional hierarchy of priorities as, God, Family, and then Country third.
Post a Comment