Rod — I'm no close student of Wendell Berry's. He may be brilliant and he may not be. I only know him by reputation and scattered bits and pieces. That you put so much stock in him inclines me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, perhaps there is a larger context that makes the passage below into something more sensible than it appears to me now. That is as charitable as I will be. Now, look at this passage:
The “conservatives” more or less attack homosexuality, abortion and pornography, and the “liberals” more or less defend them. Neither party will oppose sexual promiscuity. The “liberals” will not oppose promiscuity because they do not wish to appear intolerant of “individual liberty.” The “conservatives” will not oppose promiscuity because sexual discipline would reduce the profits of corporations, which in their advertisements and entertainments encourage sexual self-indulgence as a way of selling merchandise.[Emphasis mine]
Me: If this is a sign Berry's brilliance and if this is what passes for "terrific" analysis, I'm sorry but you need to walk around the block and clear your head. This strikes me as juvenile pseudo-Marxist claptrap and I'm actually quite embarrassed by it. Have you ever met a conservative in your travels who won't attack promiscuity because to do so threatens corporate profits? Have you ever read an article by someone making the positive case for this? Is there poll data or even a serious anecdote that makes this even the slightest bit credible? Or is there some vast conspiracy among conservatives — that no one we know is actually a member of or has any knowledge about — to censor or curtail attacks on promiscuity because it would hurt the corporate bottom line?
Again, maybe in my mainstream conservatism I don't "get it" and maybe there's some larger context that makes this defenisble. But on its face it is sophomoric nonsense, in my book.
