We need real world policy prescriptions, not high-minded slogans, to deal with the problems this country faces.
There’s a phenomenon in psychology known as “parallel conversations.” Put succinctly, it’s when two people are talking to each other — but past each other. They appear to be addressing the same subject matter, but each is in his/her own world, so to speak, that is separate and distinct from the other. Rather than engaging in conversation or debate, they’re just adding to the background noise that envelops all of us.
Anyone who’s married or ever had a serious relationship with the opposite sex has experienced this phenomenon. She: “Honey, the dishwasher is broken.” He: “Yeah, I need a new set of golf clubs.” Or, “Not tonight, I have a headache,” to which the man usually replies, “Okay, let me just take a quick shower, and I’ll be right back!”
The same phenomenon routinely occurs in political conversation. There may be more, but I’ve divided this process into at least three distinct categories: Insane, Partisan, and Philosophically-driven parallel conversations.
Politically insane parallel conversations take the following form: “The economy is in good shape,” to which the politically insane reply, “Bush is a moron.” Other variations go something like: “It’s Tuesday.” — “Bush stole the 2000 election.” “My car won’t start.” — Bush is Hitler.” And the ever popular “Do you have the time?” — “Impeach Bush!”
Politically insane parallel conversations make for great entertainment (just have a look at my Looney Liberal Chronicles). And, they occasionally produce congressional candidates like Cindy Sheehan who actually believe their own press. There’s not much more to say about the tin foil cap-wearing crowd, other than to quote from Star Trek: In an insane society, only the sane will appear insane.
Partisan parallel conversations take political insanity to the next level. Superficially, there is little to distinguish them from purely insane parallel conversations. “Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center.” — “Fire can’t melt steel.” But when you peal back the tin foil here, you see a Lanny Davis-like calculation to distort the truth, not just another Cindy Sheehan-type foaming at the mouth. Unlike the politically deranged, these people aren’t entirely nuts. They’re just partisan hacks who have their own set of talking points, and no information to the contrary is going to shake them from that agenda-driven message.
In this case Lanny (who was Bill Clinton’s principle defender of lying under oath about having sex with a White House intern) is just Rosie O’Donnell in drag. He can look at the camera and answer every question with a question of his own that has nothing to do with the original inquiry. Ask Rosie if Al Qaeda deliberately targets innocent civilians, and she’ll tell you that American soldiers kill people too, as if there’s some kind of moral equivalence between the two actions. Ask Lanny if it’s wrong for a president to lie under oath, and you’ll get an answer about “privacy,” “out-of-control special prosecutors,” or “it’s just about sex.” Of course lots of other people have lied under oath about sex, particularly in divorce and rape cases. Instead of “distinguished former Presidents,” we call them “broke” and/or “prison inmates,” depending upon which category they fall into.
My favorite of the three categories is the philosophically-driven parallel conversations. We find a lot of these in supposedly intellectual political discourse. Person A will identify a problem, such as illegal immigration. Do we build a fence first, then talk about how many and who we let into the country; create national identity cards to ensure only legal citizens are hired by U.S. employers; target and/or penalize employers who hire illegal aliens, etc.? Person A, of course, is talking about what policy we should pursue to reach a goal and/or correct a problem.
Person B hears all these words, but responds with some variation of the following: “Aristotle was right;” “Lincoln was a tyrant;” “The Old Republic was the correct foundation for the country;” and the ever-popular “kith and kin are more important than shared values.”
This, of course, leaves Person A scratching their head searching for the policy prescription. Aristotle, while a really bright guy, lived and died quite a few years ago. And when he was alive, innovative as he was, he wrote about politics at a time when people lived and died within miles of where they were born, and had no concept that the world was round. He also had some interesting notions about the natural inferiority of people who didn’t look, act and talk exactly like him. So what exactly does Aristotle have to say about penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens?
Additionally, believing that the South had a right to secede from the nation and that Lincoln was a tyrant gives sparse guidance to whether a fence is the best policy option or not. Where exactly would this fence go — on the Rio Grande, or the Mason-Dixon Line? Not to mention, it blurs the definition of exactly who constitutes an illegal alien in Alabama — Juan from Tijuana, or John from Ohio?
Stressing where the Founding Fathers got it “right or wrong,” and believing that the country should be made up of genetically linked people of white European descent, is a good exercise for starting your own country. But unless you’re prepared to argue that the “wrong people” who were born in the U.S. or let in legally should be forcibly deported, you’ve got to start with the world as it actually is, not how you wish it would be.
Political philosophy is an indispensable guide to forming coherent policies, but it is not a substitute in and of itself for policy. Don’t just tell me what you like. Tell me how you’ll do it. Offering slogans in the guise of policy, with no effort to translate those slogans into concrete political actions with recognizable, understandable, and practical consequences, is just a more erudite form of the tin-foil crowd’s “Bush sucks” mantra.
If kith and kin are important ingredients in the establishment of a nation, then admit that this is a race-based view of politics. The color of one’s skin, and origin of one’s ancestors, are more important than the shared values you and they possess. Let the debate be over this, and not whether any derivation of the words “race” or “racism” is tinged by political correctness. The question isn’t whether you think that Juan is not the right person to be in your country because you hate Hispanics; it’s whether you think that Juan is not the right person because his ancestors came from a different part of the world than your ancestors did. I’ll concede that you harbor no ill feelings toward Juan personally, and think that he’s an otherwise stand-up guy. Just have the courage to state what a country founded on “kith and kin” means. Juan comes from the wrong gene pool, and thus you and he should not co-exist in the same political union.
This then allows us to explore the policy options associated with this belief, rather than to remain mired in a debate about such things as “rigorous egalitarianism,” where the goal is to prove that my philosopher is a better guy than your philosopher. It doesn’t matter why you think that kith and kin are important factors. I’ll even concede, for the sake of furthering the discussion, that every one of your philosophical beliefs is absolutely correct. Now tell me what we do in a country of 300 million people who don’t share a common genetic ancestry? You’ve identified the “problem;” now give me the practical, real word “solution” — not just more philosophical laments that the problem exists. If a racially-correct America is an indispensable part of one’s political philosophy, tell me how you intend to bring that about. To stress “kith and kin” and other slogans without giving us a practical roadmap is meaningless to solving a problem, though it does make the person offering the slogans feel pretty good about the fact that their reading list is better than your reading list.
And this is the main problem as I see it. Those of us who look at the U.S. as it is today, and see a problem like illegal immigration that needs to be fixed, need more than slogans. Assuming that the country is out of whack and that the Civil War was an illegal exercise of Federal authority, let’s see the policy prescription to correct this. Lamenting that conservatives should recognize that “rigorous egalitarianism is an enemy of the natural hierarchal social order,” and suggesting that we should limit, not expand the franchise,1 is not policy. Rather than abstractly debating whether this philosophical point of view is coherent or not, let’s see it in practice. Today, in the year 2007, how exactly would one legislate to protect a “natural hierarchal social order?” How exactly would the franchise be limited? And, are any of these policy prescriptions even remotely practical.
The reason we see very few specific policy options tied to philosophical arguments is that doing so exposes the less-than-appealing qualities of some of these philosophies. Everyone can agree that family is important, so archaic references to “kith and kin” can be appealing. But when this is translated into a particular policy, it can have some very disturbing implications. Exactly what do we do with people who aren’t part of our “family,” but who were born here or immigrated legally to the US? Deport them anyway? Set up separate nations within the nation of genetically-related people? Or pursue even more odious options? Just once I’d like to see what all this rhetoric really means, instead of endlessly debating the rhetoric itself on a rhetorical level.
When philosophy moves beyond abstract formulas and begins to deal with real world problems in concrete, tangible ways, the parallel conversation gap will be closed. Until then, we’ll end up with an endless series of abstract formulas for the ideal political system without ever testing whether any of these concepts make practical sense or not.
* * *
Personal note: As many of you know, I’m a frequent contributor to the discussions that arise from my essays. In this case, I will break with tradition and not participate, since I don’t want to insert personality issues into the discussion and end up, like my previous post, trying to explain the alleged confusion that two self-professed conservatives had as to why any policies promoted by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should automatically be seen as anti-conservative.
I am genuinely curious to see how these discussions of kith and kin, and “natural hierarchal social order,” lend themselves to actual policy prescriptions for today’s problems. So, I’ll follow the comments, should there be any, with some interest to see if any real policy options are put forward to address concrete problems, or whether the bulk of the conversation remains, again, a long philosophical discourse about why this philosophy is correct — or why I’m just an uneducated Marxist dupe for raising the question in the first place.
Endnote
1. Comment 38, “Who’s Crazier — The Far Left, or the Far Right?”
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Phil,
Just a few quick observations:
1. Forget mending the parallel discussion syndrome v. the left. If we could agree just on the right what constitutes the common good, that alone would be an epochal achievement.
2. The horse is out of the barn. It is no longer possible to revert to a kith/kin United States, nor is it necessary. Diversity, up to a point — perhaps 25% max — is a good thing, provided that it's the right kind of diversity.
3. What we have now is unsustainable because of both the wrong diversifying elements and excessive numbers. We are about 1/3 non-white minority now, much of it primitive, uneducable, hostile and culturally alienated. That is a prescription for disaster.
4. The right kind of diversity implies letting in people from populations with a mean IQ of at least 100, unlike the present practice of letting in millions with a mean IQ from 65 to 85, depending on the origin. The right kind of diversity also implies people who, regardless of their race and native culture, are demonstrably able and willing to embrace an Anglocentric, WASP culture and values.
5. With respect to what to do, I'd say, first, shut down all immigration. Go back to the 1965 Immigration Act and figure where we have gone wrong, before reopening. Accept, I hope, my point 4 above. The necessary implications would include, among others:
a. Close the borders, airtight and permanently. It can be done, if the will be there.
b. End all Muslim immigration, permanently. No enmity and no disrespect on our part — it's just that the cultural distance is too great, the potential for bitter conflict too high, and the probability of 5th column violence too unacceptable.
c. End automatic birthright citizenship.
d. Enact and enforce more disincentives for hiring illegal aliens; employ other methods as well to greatly reduce the illegal population by attrition. Offer incentives to unacculturable, unhappy permanent residents and citizens to return to their original countries.
e. Ridicule and relegate the multiculti insanity to the crapper of history, where it belongs. Proceed with a major educational-cultural push to center this culture on an Anglocentric foundation, with the wonderful contributions of other racial/ethnic American groups to the common culture duly noted and — to use that by-now-soiled word — celebrated.
That means aknowledging the greatness of jazz and basketball, but frowning on kwanza and Ebonics. That means Italian cuisine, but no Sicilian social patterns. That means being grateful for the respective Jewish and Chinese genius, but rejecting the destabilizing social utopianism by the former and super-ethnocentric clannishness by the latter. It also means not celebrating what's not celebration-worthy. Ramadan does not belong in the White House. Pidgin Spanish of semi-illiterate Mestizos does not enrich the cosmopolitan quotient of the nation. Hmong, Somali Bantu, and Albanian immigrants do not bring valuable cultural baggage, however valuable some of them might be as persons.
f. End all affirmative action. Expose and vehemently denounce all racial and gender pandering for the offensive racism and sexism that it is.
Our problem right now is that there are no more than five well-known, respected names on the right who would endorse the above, if that many. And we need millions, before we can even think how to overcome the death wish and sabotage from the left.
Comment by Takuan Seiyo | August 27, 2007
Mr Jackson? You write this about Aristotle: “And when he [Aristotle] was alive, innovative as he was, he wrote about politics at a time when people lived and died within miles of where they were born, and had no concept that the world was round.” [Although your reference is ambiguous as to whether it was Aristotle, or the people, who had no concept that the world was round, what I say below applies either way. Anyway, to my mind, your very next sentence makes it clear you were in fact referring to Aristotle.]
Aristotle actually said this: “All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size.” – (in comparison to the sun and other celestial bodies)
But his understanding was not unique, or heretical, before and after his time. Philo noted the same: the earth, he said, “and its motions and revolutions worthy of notice, being arranged in perfect order, both as to the proportions of its numbers, and the harmony of its periods.”
Philo also said this about the human species, almost two thousand years before Darwin stepped on the earth: “And very beautifully after He had called the whole race “man”, did he distinguish between the sexes, saying, that “they were created male and female;” although all the individuals of the race had not yet assumed their distinctive form; since the extreme species are contained in the genus, and are beheld, as in a mirror, by those who are able to discern acutely.”
By the First Century AD, the understanding that the world was round was so common that Pliny the Elder stated that everyone “agreed” that the earth was spherical. Although there were always “flat earth” hold-outs, it was not until the 19th Century, following Washington Irving’s Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, that the “flat earth” theory made a brief comeback.
Why do I cite all this? First, to correct what you have said about Aristotle (or the people at the time), and second, to show that it is mostly ‘philosophers’ who have shaped this world for the better. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, such philosophers left. Today, philosophy is ideological (thus requiring no original thought), or historical, academic mumbo-jumbo.
But I agree with you that we need an answer – and it is incumbent on ‘philosophers’ to seek to provide one. Politicians are motivated by a “will-to-vanity” – they don’t have the inclination, or the intellect, so they won’t ever come up with anything other than their own electoral advantage.
What we need are Principles which can attract UNIVERSAL CONSENT of all the People – even if some only provide that consent while kicking and screaming about their ‘consciences’. Government should thus be limited to those Principles, and the People only ‘obliged’ to submit to government authority when it is in conformity with those Principles. Those Principles also have to identify a discernable purpose of life which everyone can agree must be pursued whatever else we may wish to achieve in life – that is, a purpose independent of the purpose each person may ascribe to his or her own life, while they have life.
Are there any such Principles? Yes! I set them out in my book Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights – The Ten Principles of Freedom. And I also provide an outline of how those Principles should apply to government, which would make government truly government of the people, by the people, for the people; not government of the mob, by the mob, for the mob.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 28, 2007
Mr Jackson,
In my haste to address your comment about Aristotle, or the people at the time, as having “no concept that the world was round”, I see that I failed to give a reference. The reference is “On The Heavens” Book II, Chapter 14.
Perhaps you could provide a reference for your assertion in respect of Aristotle’s “concept” of the world; or perhaps a historical reference or two about the “concepts” that the people of the time harbored? If you would prefer to read the reference in the original Greek, I’d be happy to provide a reference for that – just in case you think there is some vast ‘conspiracy’ to ‘cover up’ the truth. I wouldn’t want anyone thinking George W Bush, the Neo-Cons, or the Jews, had a hand in ‘distorting’ what Aristotle said!
My Philo reference is from A Treatise on the Account of the Creation of the World, paragraphs XXV and XXIV respectively. Let me know if you need the original!
I do understand that making a Comment on all this may involve a certain degree of ‘humility’ because of your stated intention not to comment on your own article, but I, for one, will forgive any reversal of that position. I would like to know! If you feel the humility would be too great a burden to bear, I’d be happy for you to let me have your references privately (my email is on my website), and if you show me to be wrong, I’ll happily post a ‘groveling’ retraction, and apology.
The same applies to the Principles I refer to in my book.
Joseph BH McMillan
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 28, 2007
Joseph:
Perhaps saying things this way will help remove the stumbling you see:
… he [Aristotle] wrote about politics at a time when people lived and died within miles of where they were born, and [these same people who lived and died within miles of where they were born] had no concept that the world was round.
It was a general comment about the relative sophistication of people a few thousand years ago vs. today. That relative sophistication dictates how ideas are communicated, even if someone intuits that things may be a bit more complicated than conventional wisdom allows. I may tell my five year old daughter “don’t talk to strangers” because I’m trying to convey an idea that certain people can do her harm in such a way that a person with limited sophistication can understand. As she gets older, and more sophisticated, I’ll say “don’t accept a ride with a stranger”, or “be careful of people who do/say XYZ.” I’d hate to think that my daughter, when she is an adult, will simply focus on the words I said to that five year old child, and never, ever, speak to a stranger — as if focusing on those precise words were all that mattered in understanding the message I tried to convey. It makes answering phones, getting a job, or having a real social life somewhat difficult.
By saying what I said in the way I said it, I wasn’t attempting to discuss Aristotle’s theory of the universe, any more than I was attempting to chart the precise distance he traveled during his lifetime by saying that “he [Aristotle] wrote about politics at a time when people lived and died within miles of where they were born.”
I’m clarifying this point for you, because it again points to the central thesis of my essay. I raised the issue about philosophically-driven parallel conversations, and challenged those who believe in a natural hierarchal social order, and the central importance of kith and kin to building a nation, to give me actual policy prescriptions that deal with the US in 2007. Instead, your focus is on whether Aristotle suspected that the earth was actually round, with an offer to validate this point in the original Greek.
Like I said, I’m deliberately withholding any comments at the present time about the policy-related issues that flow from a belief in a natural hierarchal social order and the importance of kith and kin, for the reasons I originally stated. Since neither of us disagree that Aristotle was more sophisticated than the average person of his time, and therefore had more sophisticated beliefs than the average guy, what I’d really like to hear from you and others is what specific 21st century legislative actions, executive orders, or specific, detailed policy prescriptions are demanded by a kith and kin-based natural hierarchal social order to deal with the current legal and illegal immigration problem in the US, or the fact that many natural born or naturalized US citizens are not of white European ancestry.
Of course, if you think that the vast majority of people since Aristotle’s time have believed that the world was round, and that this invalidates the point I was making about philosophically-driven parallel conversations, or somehow impacts the specific 21st century policy prescriptions I referred to, then by all means have at it.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 28, 2007
Dear Mr Jackson,
I am most grateful for your eloquent, and convenient, response. I was happy to give you the benefit of the doubt about what exactly you meant, although, I suspect, others may not have been that generous.
My generosity reached its limit, however, when you decided to use my Comment as an ‘example’ of your ‘thesis’. Has it not occurred to you that your ‘misquote’ of Aristotle may be a symptom of the problem you identify? I would have thought that any such ‘example’ of philosophical inadequacy would have warranted a great deal more attention to grammatical ‘niceties’ – it was central to your ‘theme’, after all.
The reason so many people talk ‘past each other,’ as you say, is that too many people make assertions that have absolutely no basis in fact.
You now claim that these poor Athenians were some kind of illiterates who never ventured beyond their city boundaries. If that is the case (which it is not – although I will not trouble you with those references – which I note you have failed to provide), who on earth bought Aristotle’s books? And how did this ‘radical’ round-earth idea take hold?
If today’s ‘illiterates’ had half the ‘education’ of the Athenians, perhaps we would not be in the position you describe.
I note that you conclude with a resumption of your ‘watch from the sidelines’ approach, while you wait to see if anyone can rise to your ‘expectations’. Perhaps you should take the daring step of clicking on Amazon and getting a copy of my book. We could then have an informed debate about something we have both read. Neither would you have to monitor the Comments any longer – or rewrite your article to incorporate the inadequacies I have identified! And you would get the answer you are waiting for – rather than sitting in front of your screen awaiting ‘enlightenment’. But, I fear, you prefer not to know. After all, most people feel much safer with what they think they know.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 28, 2007
Joseph:
I’m happy to accept any characterization you’d like to ascribe to me, my intellect, or my motives, if I could get you to actually address the point of my essay and tell me how an Aristotelian political philosophy (since that is the focus of your comments) will guide real world, 21st century, practical policy choices like “build a fence”, “penalize employers”, etc.
I’m also happy to accept the fact, for purposes of discussions, that Athenians and other cultures intuitively knew that the world was round, and that only the Europeans had any doubts about this until Columbus found out by accident that he didn’t fall off the edge of the world when he sailed across the ocean.
And I’m further happy to concede that every bit of this admission is necessary to allow you to now tell me what (if anything) a kith and kin-based natural hierarchal social order would produce as concrete, tangible, practical policy options to deal with the current legal and illegal immigration situation in the US, or the fact that many natural born or naturalized US citizens are not of white European ancestry.
I am conceding all your points that Aristotle thought the world was round, since it wasn’t an issue for me in the first place. And I’ll agree that by venturing beyond their city boundaries Athenians intuitively knew that the world must be round, if this is also an issue for you. Now was Aristotle in favor of a fence or not, or did he prefer national identity cards with a biometric verification system? [It’s the only way I can think of getting you to comment about 21st century issues; but I’m tempering my hope with reality].
Since you’ve now written 3 comments about Aristotle believing that the world is round in response to this question, and have yet to talk about 21st century American politics, I can’t imagine why anyone would think that this is a perfect example of what I meant by having a parallel philosophical conversation.
By the way, did you write a book? And does Amazon carry it?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 28, 2007
Mr Jackson,
In the NOTE to your article, you say this: “I am genuinely curious to see how these discussions of kith and kin, and “natural hierarchal social order,” lend themselves to actual policy prescriptions for today’s problems.”
Yet, when I go to your article, I don’t find that ‘theme’. References to “kith and kin” and a “natural hierarchical social order” are given as examples, in the same way Aristotle was an example, of what I understand to be your central ‘theme’ – parallel conversations from which it is impossible to identify practical solutions to present day problems. You end your article with this: “When philosophy moves beyond abstract formulas and begins to deal with real world problems in concrete, tangible ways, the parallel conversation gap will be closed.”
In my first Comment, I addressed precisely that problem by reference to my book Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights – and a brief outline of the theme. Although that book is only some 250 pages long, to offer more than a reference to it in a Comment would be impossible [yes, by the way, I wrote it, and Amazon carries it]. Although I do review those philosophers who, in my view, most informed our current political and social ‘philosophy’, I do not base my Ten Principles on anything they said. So to address those two single issues to which you seek ‘practical’ solutions, I’d have to rewrite my book for you.
I have prepared seven articles setting out, in summary, the arguments in support of the Ten Principles by way of an imaginary presentation to the Founding Fathers, but those articles are limited to the basis of the Ten Principles, not the specific ‘solutions’ you are looking for. That would take several more articles. I have offered the seven articles to IC. Because of their length, however, I could understand if they declined to publish them.
So, although I can appreciate that you are anxious to see the spectacle of a ‘debate’ about the issues you identify in your NOTE, so far as I am concerned, any such ‘debate’ would be sterile unless the Principles which support the ‘solutions’ are clearly identified and understood by those ‘debating’. To do it any other way stands logic on its head – the solutions would define the premise.
I’m sorry I haven’t taken the bait; I just can’t find anything to bite on!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 29, 2007
Phil, you need to read this article on political wonks vs. geeks.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker82.html
Very insightful article that explains what you are getting at very well. Part of the reason we don't see eye-to-eye, besides obvious policy differences, is because you are a wonk, and I am a geek. Here are some excerpts to illustrate.
"Political wonks are fascinated by process… Ideals bore them. History is mere data. Intellectuals seem irrelevant. What matters to the wonk are the hard realities of the ongoing political struggle."
"In contrast to this are the policy geeks. They are no less fascinated by detail but are drawn to ideals. Observation alone bores them. They are drawn to the prospect of change. They don't want to be players as such; they question the very rules of the game and want to change them. They are happy to make a difference in the ideological infrastructure, whether big or small."
"In politics, this means that the geeks are drawn to ideas, even radical ideas. They can easily imagine what doesn't exist, which makes them dreamers and entrepreneurs. And so they are attracted to and study history and philosophy and economics. It doesn't matter if a lesson can be learned from the ancients or moderns; indeed, unearthing an old idea and bringing it back to life has a special appeal. They thrive on making information public, on smashing old structures, breaking cartels, and busting monopolies of power." (If this doesn't describe me I don't know what does.)
"The geeks and wonks can work together but their will always be a natural tensions between the two. The wonks think the geeks are hopeless, powerless, reckless outsiders whose heads are full of useless and unrealistic fantasies. The geeks think that the wonks are part of the system and, therefore, more than likely corrupted by it, and increasingly so." (If this paragraph doesn't sum up our little spat, I don't know what does.)
"Broadening the view, the struggle to control history is a battle between the wonks and the geeks. The wonks are the ones who consolidate, stabilize, and entrench the status quo; the geeks are the ones who prepare revolutionary change. The wonks freeze it into place and make it work more efficiently; the geeks imagine and work toward a future that no one thought was possible. They wonks rule out drastic and extreme measures as imprudent and reckless; the geeks think these paths are the only ones worth pursing, and have confidence that the unknown future will somehow work itself out. The wonks try to bring the king around to their point of view; the geeks kill the king"
Happy wonkery Phil.
Comment by Dan Phillips | August 29, 2007
Joseph,
I am happy to see some people challenging the idea of rights. There is way too much "rights talk" on the right these days. (Because much of the modern right is historically left.) See my article in the archives on the paleoconservative perspective on abortion, and tell me what you think. Conservatives have defended the idea of legal rights. In fact, they would argue that all rights are legal rights. They have historically been skeptical of the idea of "natural rights" as natural rights are used to bludgeon traditional societies.
But what I have observed is that most of the rightists today challenging natural rights dogma are not paleo/traditional conservatives but nationalists/semi-authoritarians who are primarily concerned that concerns about rights are hampering our ability to protect ourselves against Islam. Would it be fair to put you in that category? From what I have read of your responses I don't detect the traditionalist/paleo motivation.
If you send me a copy of your book, I'll review it. :-)
Comment by Dan Phillips | August 29, 2007
Joseph:
We get it! You wrote a book. I’ve written 4. Your book is on Amazon.com. Mine are too, and in Catholic bookstores as well. You find out about my books by reading my bio. We find out about your books because you tell us about them in every single comment you write here and in other posts! If you want to advertise, I’m sure IUC would be happy to work out a deal with you. Otherwise, enough is enough, for pity’s sake!
I will reaffirm again that to further the discussion I’m willing to concede every point you’ve offered about me personally, my motives for writing my essay, and I will also believe that Columbus was the only guy who thought the world was flat because Aristotle had educated the rest of humanity.
Now if you can offer any policy prescriptions based on Aristotle or any other kith and kin natural hierarchal social order philosopher that pertain to 21st century America, please elaborate. Otherwise, your work in advertising your book is done here, and there are other comment sections waiting to hear from you.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 29, 2007
Dan:
Joseph is having trouble finding a "theme" in relation to the notion of a “natural hierarchal social order.” I guess I'm not surprised. I took this language directly from you.
Once again, it's nice to know that when the challenge is raised to actually make policy based on your ideas, you feel that the challenge is inappropriate, and must revert to a discussion of wonks vs. geeks because there's nothing of substance for you to say.
The empty suit just got emptier.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 29, 2007
Very wonkish reply Phil.
Comment by Dan Phillips | August 29, 2007
Dan, at risk of offending Mr Jackson, I’d be happy to send you a complimentary copy of the book. He really does get upset when he’s caught out, doesn’t he?
Please drop me a line with a delivery address – email on my website.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 29, 2007
Mr Jackson, I was hoping you would not push me to do a thorough review of your article, and the debate that you demand, which really has nothing do with what you say in your article, but you really leave me with no choice
But that will have to wait for tomorrow. It’s late here in Spain, and time for dinner and drinks. But I think it will be worth the wait! And I promise, I won’t mention the b**k.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 29, 2007
Joseph:
Rather than debate something "which really has nothing do with what you say in your article" — which just reinforces the central thesis of my essay — why don't you just plug your book one more time in case anyone missed the fact that you wrote a book? There's got to be at least one person visiting this website who hasn't been informed of that fact yet.
No need to thank me. Just consider it a public service.
Have a nice dinner.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 29, 2007
Oh boy! THIS thread is a keeper! Morning in Spain can't come fast enough. Bring the debate on…lol.
Greg in NY
Comment by GreginNY | August 29, 2007
Add Greg to the column of people who have nothing substantively to add. The empty suit just got bigger.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 29, 2007
For those of you keeping score, in response to the question “how do discussions of kith and kin, and “natural hierarchal social order,” lend themselves to actual policy prescriptions for today’s problems?”
1. Takuan Seiyo was able to understand the question, and provide several concrete policy options.
2. Joseph want to make sure everyone knows that Aristotle knows that the world is round, that I’m intellectually deficient, and is preparing a detailed response to something “which really has nothing do with what you [Jackson] say in your article.” Oh, and did I mention that he wrote a book that everyone needs to buy?
3. Dan Phillips, who was generous enough to contribute the phrase “natural hierarchal social order,” and has written extensively about kith and kin, offers the following detailed policy options in response to the question I posed: There are wonks and geeks, and “The wonks try to bring the king around to their point of view; the geeks kill the king.” [I’m busily searching the words as we speak to see if there is a hidden code that spells out “fence” or “national ID card”, or some other practical policy alternative].
4. Greg in New York has a slight case of the giggles.
My thanks so far to Mr. Seiyo for offering concrete policy options. As for the others, my thanks for reinforcing a central theme of my essay. “When philosophy moves beyond abstract formulas and begins to deal with real world problems in concrete, tangible ways, the parallel conversation gap will be closed. Until then, we’ll end up with an endless series of abstract formulas for the ideal political system without ever testing whether any of these concepts make practical sense or not.” Either that, or we’ll be treated to another advertisement for a book that the world cannot do without (yes, I looked at the website. How could I miss it?).
I’ll keep a running update of any new contributions.
Regards, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 29, 2007
Dear Mr Jackson,
Here I am, as promised. Let me say at the outset, I’ll be as gentle as possible, so please don’t take anything I say as gratuitously ‘rude’.
As a lawyer, my first read of any brief would be cursory so I could get to the ‘punch-line’ (the conclusion), then go back to see if the build-up lends support to the conclusion. (By the way, I’m not ‘ambulance chasing’ by mentioning I was a lawyer – I’m retired now – so no briefs please!)
That is what I did with your article. Your ‘punch-line’ seems to be this: “When philosophy moves beyond abstract formulas and begins to deal with real world problems in concrete, tangible ways, the parallel conversation gap will be closed.”
So I was looking for some argument which shows that philosophy is based on “abstract formulas”, followed by further argument to show how those philosophical “abstract formulas” you identify can’t do what you claim.
So I went back to the beginning where you start by asserting that “psychology” knows of a phenomenon called “parallel conversation”. I have no idea whether it does, but I’m sure some psychologist or sociologists somewhere has probably produced a ‘study’ (probably at public expense) to support such a contention.
Your next step is to give an example of this by reference to married couples etc. Now, perhaps there is some deficiency in my marriage, and the marriages of those I know, but I don’t recognize this “phenomenon” from personal experience. But, as you say in your Comment 6 (Comments, by the way, you were not going to make), this too was probably not an “issue for [you] in the first place”. So we could delete this part of your article without undermining the “issue” you do have.
In your next 5 paragraphs you explain “political” and “partisan parallel conversation”. [As an aside, when I would receive a brief with the highly charged word “insane” I always reached for my list of psychiatric experts, not psychology experts]
So far as the first part is concerned, I don’t see what this has to do with philosophical “abstract formulas” – But I expect it wouldn’t be an issue for you, so lets delete that part – paras 3 to 5.
You then come to “partisan parallel conversation”. The examples you give are better characterized as dissembling – you can see this in any court of law any day of the year. It goes like this: Witness makes a statement – lawyer produces document to show he is wrong; witness claims he actually meant something else; lawyer asks where he can find support for that – witness lashes out – “the Plaintiff is a crook, and out to benefit himself”. Sound a little familiar? But anyway, no philosophical formulas here either – so out it goes! Isn’t this fun?
We are now on paragraph 8, and finally a mention of philosophy; and even a mention of a philosopher, so I was getting hopeful. But alas, the only mention of philosophy, or philosophers in the next 10 paragraphs is Aristotle – but even then you refer to his astronomy, not his philosophy, and you get it wrong!
These ten paragraphs remind me of another ‘phenomenon’ experienced by lawyers. New client arrives in the office, and in the first 5 minutes he has told me Tom said this, Fred said that, Bill did the next thing, Aunt Millie fell over etc. I then have to say “STOP, STOP. Let’s start from the beginning. What’s your complaint?” Then I have to methodically go through the ‘ranting’ to identify who all these people are the client mentions, and determine what relevance they have to the ‘claim’. Schoolteachers and parents will often experience the same phenomenon when confronted with some altercation.
I have now examined these ten paragraphs over and over, and I just cannot recognize one single philosophical “formula” – “abstract” or otherwise. Instead you say things like this: “If kith and kin are important ingredients in the establishment of a nation, then admit that this is a race-based view of politics.” When I read that I was left “scratching my head” like your Person A. Which philosopher formulated such a philosophy? Were you obliquely referring to Nietzsche perhaps, or even Nozick? For reasons I will not trouble you with, I discounted those philosophers. So who???
Likewise, in paragraph 16 you spring on us a “natural hierarchical social order”. By now, I was not just “scratching my head”, I was banging it on the desk! Which philosopher asserted this “abstract formula”? In Comment 11 you hint that it may have been “Dan”. Now, I do admit that I have not read any of Dan’s works, and that is a reflection on me, not Dan, but it would be helpful if you could be a little more specific.
But right in the middle of your ten paragraphs (Para 15) you make this remarkable statement: “I’ll even concede, for the sake of furthering the discussion, that every one of your philosophical beliefs is absolutely correct.” Couple that with your statement at comment 6 that your reference to philosophers like Aristotle “wasn’t an issue for [you] in the first place”, and we can redact these ten paragraphs in their entirety. They contribute nothing to your conclusion.
So what are we left with? Your first paragraph, and your final paragraph. But when we go back to the first paragraph, we see it doesn’t contribute to your conclusion either, so that must go!
So what really do we have? A long list of examples and opinions that lead up to a conclusion that bears no relation to what preceded it. And the conclusion itself? Well, it reminds me more of one of those examination questions from college: “When philosophy moves beyond abstract formulas and begins to deal with real world problems in concrete, tangible ways, the parallel conversation gap will be closed. DISCUSS”
But even then, you confuse the issue with your NOTE. You don’t invite discussion on the conclusion to your article, but on “kith and kin, and a ‘natural hierarchical social order’” and how they “lend themselves to actual policy prescriptions for today’s problems”.
So my first dilemma is this: which assertion do I address? - the one you ‘articulate’ in your article, or the one in your note. Since the article provides not one single argument, the only comment I thought appropriate was to correct your mischaracterization of Aristotle and the people at the time. Referring you to that other ‘dreaded’ thing was a bonus.
Now, when I came to look at your note, I could only sigh! First, in order for anyone to get involved in the ‘discussion’ as you have framed it, they would have to accept your “kith and kin” and “social order” premises. Since you don’t even tell us where they come from (other than your later reference to Dan), never mind what they are, or even the premises on which they are based, there is simply nothing to ‘discuss’.
Now, I may well have a huge ‘knowledge gap’ of ‘philosophy’, but I simply cannot identify your ‘premises’ with any philosopher, or recognizable philosophical theory, or as you like to call it, “abstract formulas”.
So what exactly were you expecting a discussion’ on? How some non-existent philosophical “abstract formulas” will help build a fence?
So, as I said – thanks, but no thanks! If you want a discussion I need some meat to chew on; preferable raw, red meat! Aristotle tasted good, but that was nothing more than what we call over here in Spain, ‘tapas’.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 30, 2007
Dear Mr Jackson, and Contributors,
As promised, I have done a reply. It is nearly 3 pages long, so I have posted it on my web site http://www.freedomvrights.com as well – in case it exceeds the length permitted for Comments.
Joseph BH McMillan
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 30, 2007
Joseph:
I’ve excerpted the following passage from the reply on your website:
“[I]n paragraph 16 you spring on us a ‘natural hierarchical social order’. By now, I was not just ‘scratching my head’, I was banging it on the desk! Which philosopher asserted this ‘abstract formula’? In Comment 11 you hint that it may have been ‘Dan’. Now, I do admit that I have not read any of Dan’s works, and that is a reflection on me, not Dan, but it would be helpful if you could be a little more specific. “
Here is Dan Phillips original quote from the comments to “Who’s Crazier, The Far Left, or the Far Right?” “[W]hen I speak of restoring the Old Republic, I don’t think we should re-institute slavery, but in broad terms conservatives should recognize that rigorous egalitarianism is an enemy of the natural hierarchal social order. We should recognize that we should limit not expand the franchise. The direct election of Senators and the breakdown of the true intent of the Electoral College is a bad thing. Etc.”
I admit to sharing your confusion. For the better part of a year I’ve been trying to get people who make statements like this to tell us all what the heck this actually means? When I ask for a concrete example of what a “natural hierarchical social order” implies, I get things like Dan’s “I’m a geek, you’re a wonk” reply, or a statement that Aristotle said kith and kin is important. Okay, so what does THAT mean in practical policy terms? Should we build a fence, institute national identity cards, penalize employers for hiring illegal aliens, etc.
You further observed in your reply — “I simply cannot identify your ‘premises’ with any philosopher, or recognizable philosophical theory, or as you like to call it, ‘abstract formulas’. So what exactly were you expecting a discussion’ on? How some non-existent philosophical ‘abstract formulas’ will help build a fence?”
It’s a valid two part statement/question. Regarding the unrecognizable philosophical base of “natural hierarchical social order”, I’m not the one making this claim. I’m the one asking what the heck does it mean? Defining “happy” as “not sad” is meaningless. Explaining a “natural hierarchical social order” as a”geek-thing” instead of a “wonk thing” is equally unenlightening.
But this is the best response I ever get to these types of questions. The kith and kin philosophers who frequent this website are great at giving us all abstract principles — “family is important”, “avoid rigorous egalitarianism”, “limit the franchise”, etc. Okay, assuming these are all absolutely correct notions, what exactly do we now DO to bring them about? What policies should be instituted?
I grounded my question by referring to a specific issue (legal and illegal immigration in the United States) in the hope that by telling us all what to do about these issues, we’ll understand what kith and kin, and a “natural hierarchical social order” mean. But the author and advocates of this phraseology absolutely refuse to move beyond rhetoric and apply what they say to the real world.
You’ve made a number of claims about your book that suggests that you blend a discussion of basic principles with real-world policy prescriptions. I haven’t read your work, but I’m keeping and open mind and will accept that you do what you say. If so, it distinguishes you from the blowhards who want to tell us about their ideal political system, but absolutely refuse to translate their abstract notions into concrete policy. I’ve suggested that this is because they can’t, or won’t — since doing so would expose some really unsavory qualities of their political philosophy.
So this is what I meant by humorously referring to a philosophically-driven parallel conversation. The more I ask a political philosopher to tell me what a natural hierarchical social order is, the more I get answers like “I’m a geek and you’re a wonk.”
I make no claim to be a political philosopher. You’ve written extensively about philosophical issues. The fact that neither of us can understand what a natural hierarchical social order is suggests that I’m traveling down the right track by asking the questions I have.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 30, 2007
Dear Mr Jackson, and other Commentators,
Thank you all for your generous responses. My only regret is having posted a Comment in the first place. It seems, from what you say Mr Jackson, that your article is actually targeted against specific individuals who have commented on your previous articles.
If I had known that, I would have held my tongue – except, perhaps, about Aristotle – I couldn’t let that go unchallenged.
I do think it unfortunate, however, that discourse can so quickly descend into ‘chaos’.
I know it is a worn out ol’ poem, but I still try to follow its advice: “IF you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too .. then you will be a man, my son.” I also teach that to my sons.
Again, my apologies for apparently interjecting in what appears to be some sort of personal feud going on here!
Joseph BH McMillan. http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 30, 2007
Joseph:
Comments are always welcome, even when the genesis of the dispute touches on the “personal” as you reflected. It isn’t only me who is/are raising these issues, however. I just happen to be the designated lightening rod because I have the biggest mouth and keep pressing the issue in the hope that one day I’ll get an answer. Your objective comments did help further crystallize the matter, and for that I am grateful.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 30, 2007
Mr Jackson, as they say, if we can leave things in a better state than we found them, we have at least made some sort of contribution.
Joseph BH McMillan
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | August 30, 2007
Joseph,
The reason that Phil's essay seems so incoherent is that to understand his "main theme" you have to have followed the whole paleocon vs. PC-con debate that has raged here at IC for the past many months. Primarily as represented by me (paleo) and Phil (PC-con), but with the valued contribution of many others.
You see, Phil thinks I am a complete idiot and don't realize that all this essay is is an attempt to bait me into saying something he deems un-PC so then he can later parade it around as proof that I (and all paleocons by implication) are not PC. Viewed in that light, I think it will make more sense.
Phil may pretend to concede that our ideals are high minded, but he doesn't believe that. He thinks they are base, as evidenced by this statement: "But when this is translated into a particular policy, it can have some very disturbing implications."
Phil,
First, traditional/classical/paleoconservatives have generally eschewed excessive reliance on philosophy. It is the PC-cons who are elevating philosophy above the real world and are attempting to make things work how they "ought" to work instead of how they are. Traditionalists blame a lot of our modern problems on the result of the Enlightenment's excessive reliance on philosophy and "pure reason." All these smarty pants philosophizers coming along telling them how unjust and unfair traditional societies are and how if we will just listen to them all will be fine and dandy and "fair.” (Modern day examples: How dare we prohibit gay marriage? How dare we prohibit women in combat?) Conservatives have traditionally scoffed at this and look to tradition, history, culture, Revelation, etc. as a guide. That does not mean that truly unjust things can't and shouldn't be improved on. But they have to be improved with an eye toward all those other factors. Not changed in one fell swoop because some philosophizer tells us "reason" demands it.
For the record, look back on our debates and I don't think you will see me often using the phrase "kith and kin." Other like minded folks have. If I used it it was generally in response to something or because the concept had already been introduced. Mind you, I don't have a problem with the concept; I just think it is a kind of "in house" language. It is meaningful to those who use it and know what it means (paleos, Confederates, etc.) but it doesn't mean much to the average Joe.
Also, I don't think the idea of a "natural hierarchy" is all that mysterious. Societies always spontaneously arrange themselves hierarchally. I think I asked you to name me one that didn't. But I got the phraseology from the League of the South statement of core beliefs so I will reproduce that section below.
"• Upholds the ontological or spiritual equality of all men before God and the bar of justice, while recognizing and rejoicing in the fact that is has neither been the will of God Almighty nor within the power of human legislation to make any two men mechanically equal.
• Is structured upon the Biblical notion of hierarchy. In short, a recognition of the natural societal order of superiors and subordinates where Christian charity (as found in the second Table of the Law) toward our neighbors produces harmony and stability. Christ is the head of His Church; husbands are the heads of their families; parents are placed over their children; employers rank above their employees; the teacher is superior to his students, etc."
Wow. Real scary stuff there. Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling me what part of that you object to.
The problem with liberal egalitarianism is that once you accept it as the baseline assumption, you are defenseless to fend against the further claims of liberalism because you have accepted their core beliefs. If equality is a just and necessary outcome, then you can not rationally defend traditional forms of "discrimination." Any defense of a traditional form of discrimination becomes what Lawrence Auster (with whom I have many differences) calls the "unprincipled exception" to liberalism. My two examples are instructive. On what grounds do you defend the traditional prohibition on gay marriage and the prohibition on women in combat except as a form of rational or justified discrimination? If you accept the baseline liberal embrace of equality as an end unto itself, then arguing against gay marriage or women in combat is an "unprincipled exception." If you do not accept the baseline liberal assumptions, as traditional/paleo/classical conservative don't, then you are not faced with that dilemma. Those prohibitions reflect the "natural order."
A similar case could be made regarding the issue of Muslim immigration. Paleos and many neos would argue that we should "discriminate" against Muslims in the immigration process. For paleos this does not present a dilemma. For neos it does, because they are all about the embrace of core liberal assumptions. So they have to rely on defining nationhood as the willingness to embrace certain ideas (freedom, tolerance, etc.) that Muslims are incapable of. But for the neocon (liberal) it remains an unprincipled exception.
Re. immigration, until 1965 our immigration policy actively discriminated on the basis of country of origin. The quotas were designed to reflect the ethnic balance that was already present. X % Italian, X % Irish, etc. This was, and was viewed as, entirely sound policy. It was changed in 1965 because all the liberals, including very prominently Teddy Kennedy, were whining that the policy was "racist." Why, prey tell, do you want to be on the side of Ted Kennedy? Using your logic from a previous post, if ol' Ted is for it, you ought to be agin' it. Right? Do you think the pre-1965 policy was wrong? Was it “racist?”
That is all I have time for now. More specific policy proposals later.
Comment by Dan Phillips | August 31, 2007
Dan: If you re-read Joseph’s comments, the reason he found my essay incoherent was because he couldn’t understand what a “natural hierarchal social order” was — a phrase I took directly from you.
I don't believe that I ever characterized how I felt about the full extent of your idiocy. But I will accept "complete" as a good working definition.
Have a good weekend.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 31, 2007
Oh Dan — I forgot to acknowledge the new addition to the labels you’re your friends have assigned to me for asking you guys to explain why “race matters”, as I was told over a year ago when I said that we should judge individuals by their actions and the values they hold, and not by the color of their skin or where their ancestors were born. I thought I was making fun of liberals like Jesse Jackson who play the race card all the time, but who know this was really an assault on “True Conservatism”/paleoconservatism?
For those of you keeping score at home, I am a “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist-sympathizer, PC-con, regular Neocon, Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer, Official PC enforcer, lunatic exposing himself to a nubile woman.”
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 31, 2007
Phil,
You whined for a couple of days that I wouldn't answer your question. Now I have made an attempt, and all you can do is play games.
BTW, you can add one more to your long list of names, grievance collector.
Comment by Dan Phillips | September 1, 2007
Dan:
I said I wouldn’t comment on any specific policy proposals that are offered in this comment section so you, and anyone else contributing, wouldn’t feel like they are being led into a trap. Therefore, I haven’t commented publicly on Takuan Seiyo’s observations.
But I do reserve the right to comment on the lack of any policy options, or other outright instances of abject stupidity.
You said “More specific policy proposals later.” I’m still waiting for the first one! Other than now understanding that a natural hierarchical social order is based on a “Biblical notion of hierarchy” where “Christ is the head of His Church” (I wonder how the Jews and non-Christians feel about that?), I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in a practical sense.
Here’s an actual policy from comment #1: “End all Muslim immigration, permanently. No enmity and no disrespect on our part — it’s just that the cultural distance is too great, the potential for bitter conflict too high, and the probability of 5th column violence too unacceptable.”
We can debate whether that makes sense, is impractical, goes too far, doesn’t go far enough, etc., but at least we have a concrete proposal! You, on the other hand, say this: “If you do not accept the baseline liberal assumptions, as traditional/paleo/classical conservative don’t, then you are not faced with that dilemma. Those prohibitions reflect the ‘natural order.’ A similar case could be made regarding the issue of Muslim immigration. Paleos and many neos would argue that we should ‘discriminate’ against Muslims in the immigration process. For paleos this does not present a dilemma. For neos it does, because they are all about the embrace of core liberal assumptions. So they have to rely on defining nationhood as the willingness to embrace certain ideas (freedom, tolerance, etc.) that Muslims are incapable of. But for the neocon (liberal) it remains an unprincipled exception.”
Okay … so WHAT DOES THIS MEAN ? Do you want to end all Muslim immigration? If so, just say so instead of dancing around the issue again. And what do you want to do about the Muslims already in the US (by birth, or as naturalized citizens) who don’t reflect the correct “natural order”. Deport them anyway. Set them up in separate nations within nations? Do nothing about them?
The best we ever get from you is a dissertation about neocon “unprincipled exceptions”. You talked about the 1965 change in immigration laws. Do you want a return to this law? A more strengthened law that excludes Muslims? Etc? All you do is whine about Ted Kennedy, and assume that I’m automatically for or against something.
Your rhetoric never descends to a level where anyone can figure out what you actually want to DO, vs. what you BELIEVE! You have no guts to state your case forthrightly. You hide behind lofty ideals and refuse to give them any concrete political meaning, other than in the most general terms. This is why I say you are either incapable of telling us what your rhetoric actually stands for, or are hiding something from us. Everyone can agree that family is important (“kith and kin”). Now tell me what a kith and kin-based policy would be to “protect” the natural hierarchical social order families from the people who are lower on this scale, but want to have more political power.
I will not comment in this section on anything you say. I’m giving you an opportunity to lay out a practical case for making your philosophy work in the real world without having to respond to me here. As long as you continue to duck the issue by telling us again what paleoconservatism believes, rather than what it will DO, I’m going to keep pointing that out.
And if you want to lead your comments by talking about your idiocy, or assigning another label to me to avoid answering the question, I’m going to continue to make fun of you just as I have for these past 10 months.
Phillip Ellis Jackson, the “Liberal, Libertarian, Marxist-sympathizer, PC-con, regular Neocon, Neocon spokesman for the Chicago School of Political Thought, Leftist, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer, Official PC enforcer, lunatic exposing himself to a nubile woman grievance collector.”
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 1, 2007
"You have no guts to state your case forthrightly."
That is really rich. I violate the prohibitions of politically correct right think all the time. That takes guts. It takes no guts to regurgitate PC right think.
Anyway, I am going to write an article on what I think we ought to do about immigration. It is a very long and complicated issue and deserves an in depth treatment.
Comment by Dan Phillips | September 3, 2007
Dan, when you write your article, and demonstrate your guts to give us all a non-PC prescription for action, could you find your way to actually offering a real world policy instead of regurgitating your belief that paleoconservatism is the True Conservatism, that everyone else is acting unconstitutionally, that neocons are unprincipled, that you reject liberal baseline assumptions, and that the natural order demands only one course of action which we should all infer from the above, because you still haven’t gotten around to telling us what we should actually do?
Or are we just going to be treated to another long preamble about what you believe philosophically, rather than what the nation ought to do in concrete practical terms?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 4, 2007