tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post9200753676141539579..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: You cannot reason a person out of radicalism, which is not reasoned intoHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-43821824514925874912015-09-27T16:12:23.462-04:002015-09-27T16:12:23.462-04:00This is a more a blog on political philosophy/theo...This is a more a blog on political philosophy/theology than a drag-out on every issue of the day. Neither do I have much hope that the left is very interested in such things, with their unstinting approval of brute political force as practiced by Barack Obama and the Supreme Court in <i>Obergefell</i>.<br /><br />We're more an oasis for those who do care about principles and believe that truth exists objectively. Unfortunately, the ones with guts [say, Kim Davis] have bad arguments, and those with good arguments have no guts. We're here to pump each other up in both departments.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-52688235842472858522015-09-27T12:46:24.470-04:002015-09-27T12:46:24.470-04:00oh, is this a blog dedicated to fighting radicalis...oh, is this a blog dedicated to fighting radicalism? apologies. i had misread it as a blog dedicated to fighting liberals. i anxiously await the many forthcoming essays that discuss the dangers of right-wing radicalism! <br /><br /> ;)<br /><br />more seriously, though, at what point do the things i wish we as a society would do more/less of stop being "protecting the status quo" and become an active effort to overturn the apple cart (or tearing down the fences, as you so ably put it)? i might not like the new deal, mr. van dyke, but i readily admit it has been the 'status quo' since before my or my parents birth. for me to say otherwise seems disingenuous. <br /><br />this is an example of what i mean when i say that we need better arguments to win converts. those who sit in the center will turn a deaf ear to you the moment that you say you "fight for the status quo" when you want to turn back the clock a century or more. they will recognize it for what it is: a push for a tremendous (one might even say radical) change, filled with high risk/high reward. if you want them to listen, you need to convince them that the risk is worth it, not use pretty words to pretend it isn't there.<br />queen beenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-7696417855848043702015-09-26T19:38:26.189-04:002015-09-26T19:38:26.189-04:00Good for you, Ms. Bee. Welcome.
Actually I believ...Good for you, Ms. Bee. Welcome.<br /><br />Actually I believe that radicals [not necessarily "liberals"] are by definition self-declared enemies of the status quo. Conservatism properly understood is merely a rejection of radicalism.<br /><br />Society isn't perfect and will never be. But the radical tears down fences without any knowledge or concern about why those fences were built in the first place. This is where I believe Tim is going with this, hence his "polemic against polemicism."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-35654544601729636522015-09-25T20:58:45.119-04:002015-09-25T20:58:45.119-04:00"I'm coming to the conclusion the right i..."I'm coming to the conclusion the right is losing arguments because it doesn't understand its enemy."<br /><br />if you truly believe your neighbor to be your 'enemy,' then your observation is most surely and perhaps ironically true.<br /><br />"In other words, it might be better for writers as gifted as Tim to give other conservatives better swords and shields to battle with"<br /><br />do you believe these arguments will sway the unconverted? perhaps they might. you are, i believe, older and more experienced than i am, so you likely know better. myself, i have never found that the "those who disagree with us are monsters, yet still we remain without flaws" approach draws the flies to the honey the way people who use such arguments believe they do.<br /><br />ps = also, mr. van dyke, i am jettisoning the 'anonymous' tag, as requested!queen beenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-19113589396923443212015-09-25T17:19:23.353-04:002015-09-25T17:19:23.353-04:00I spend a lot of time on the front lines and have ...I spend a lot of time on the front lines and have the scars to show for it. I'm coming to the conclusion the right is losing arguments because it doesn't understand its enemy. <br /><br /><br />In other words, it might be better for writers as gifted as Tim to give other conservatives better swords and shields to battle with. The problem is that the only ones with guts, like Kim Davis, have idiot arguments, and the ones with good arguments lack the guts.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-14000131949823390712015-09-24T20:10:24.966-04:002015-09-24T20:10:24.966-04:00Ach, well there is that and that's for sure. W...Ach, well there is that and that's for sure. Where you and I might disagree, I suppose, would be whether the world is currently in need of more polemicists or fewer. <br /><br />I made a comment in one of Mark's essays a few weeks ago, saying that if we are going to advance the conservative cause we would do well to focus more on figuring out how to convince the unconverted messages than how to circle the wagons. We already do the latter just fine; it isn't helping the long game so much.<br /><br />As for the esteemed Mr. Kowal, he strikes me as too gifted a writer and intellectual to waste his talents preaching to choirs. The choirs need precious little preaching these days, I find. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-8653756440983070862015-09-23T16:30:31.556-04:002015-09-23T16:30:31.556-04:00Hard to be balanced in a polemic; it's sort of...Hard to be balanced in a polemic; it's sort of self-defeating. But structurally, liberalism-leftism-radicalism is polemical. Wherever there is man, there is imperfection. But it takes no real insight or moral courage to point out imperfection in the current age.<br /><br />Mr. Kowal's is a polemic against polemicism, I suppose.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-65358196529525833432015-09-22T12:34:25.943-04:002015-09-22T12:34:25.943-04:00This was a very good essay, Tim. It might have bee...This was a very good essay, Tim. It might have been more powerful, however, had you been willing to look at it from the opposite point of view as well as our own. Everyone can look over the fence and see the flaws that stand there; it takes a better class of writer to look on his own side and see those same flaws. <br /><br />You are a terrific writer, and as much as I enjoyed this post I would have enjoyed a one that looked in the mirror as well as over the fence considerably more. <br /><br />Food for thought, I hope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com