Comments on: One More Thing http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/05/29/one-more-thing-3/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=one-more-thing-3 n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charlie http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/05/29/one-more-thing-3/comment-page-1/#comment-32520 Charlie Sun, 31 May 2009 18:01:52 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=9551#comment-32520 "He might try to make time for the Permanent Things on occasion, but mainly he likes attacking lily-livered liberals." The previous sentence is also illuminating: "A 'JacksonCon' doesn’t give a fig about 'democracy promotion' or 'nation-building,' but after 9/11, he wanted to go over to the Middle East and kick ass." It sounds like the defining characteristic of a "JacksonCon" is an unprincipled urge to hurt and humiliate other people and cultures, especially when there's little or no chance that those people or cultures can or will fight back. Hence the urge to side with loud-mouths over more considerate and thoughtful commentators; hence the urge to demolish Iraq and the wider Middle East in response to the actions of al Qaeda. I think Spencer's done an excellent job describing a particularly repugnant strain of American "conservatism". I'd only disagree with him that these people are ever likely to make time for "Permanent Things." How could a person who worships demagoguery and violence possibly claim to "find the permanent things more pleasing than chaos and old night"? I didn't know that militarism and nihilism were conservative principles. “He might try to make time for the Permanent Things on occasion, but mainly he likes attacking lily-livered liberals.”

The previous sentence is also illuminating:

“A ‘JacksonCon’ doesn’t give a fig about ‘democracy promotion’ or ‘nation-building,’ but after 9/11, he wanted to go over to the Middle East and kick ass.”

It sounds like the defining characteristic of a “JacksonCon” is an unprincipled urge to hurt and humiliate other people and cultures, especially when there’s little or no chance that those people or cultures can or will fight back. Hence the urge to side with loud-mouths over more considerate and thoughtful commentators; hence the urge to demolish Iraq and the wider Middle East in response to the actions of al Qaeda.

I think Spencer’s done an excellent job describing a particularly repugnant strain of American “conservatism”. I’d only disagree with him that these people are ever likely to make time for “Permanent Things.” How could a person who worships demagoguery and violence possibly claim to “find the permanent things more pleasing than chaos and old night”? I didn’t know that militarism and nihilism were conservative principles.

]]> By: One Lazy Dog http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/05/29/one-more-thing-3/comment-page-1/#comment-32517 One Lazy Dog Sun, 31 May 2009 02:27:53 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=9551#comment-32517 As Jonathan Swift said, certain people “have just enough religion to hate but enough to love.” I think there's a "not" missing in the quote As Jonathan Swift said, certain people “have just enough religion to hate but enough to love.”

I think there’s a “not” missing in the quote

]]> By: jetan http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2009/05/29/one-more-thing-3/comment-page-1/#comment-32503 jetan Fri, 29 May 2009 21:51:22 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=9551#comment-32503 As someone who , regrettably, is prone to coarseness of expression, I will note that this type of rhetoric promotes lazy thinking and sloppy argument. But as far as Rush and Levin are concerned, isn't this a feature rather than a bug? Isn't their calling to unleash passions rather than to bridle them? Of course, as John Corrnyn is realizing today, passions are easy to stoke but hard to curb, I'm not quite sure what to make of the constant sneering at Dreher and Conor. It seems a little bit class-based, kind of in the same way that folks sneer at Obama's taste in mustard and salad greens. As someone who , regrettably, is prone to coarseness of expression, I will note that this type of rhetoric promotes lazy thinking and sloppy argument.
But as far as Rush and Levin are concerned, isn’t this a feature rather than a bug? Isn’t their calling to unleash passions rather than to bridle them? Of course, as John Corrnyn is realizing today, passions are easy to stoke but hard to curb,
I’m not quite sure what to make of the constant sneering at Dreher and Conor. It seems a little bit class-based, kind of in the same way that folks sneer at Obama’s taste in mustard and salad greens.

]]>