FROM THE ARCHIVES
[ home | archives | e-mail ]
Re: Goalpost Shifting
[Caleb Stegall 02/28 04:38 PM]Geraghty accuses me of goalpost shifting. Here is the original quote, in full context (which Jim does not provide): So if we want to talk about developing real virtue and a life nourished on more than bread alone, we need to stop and critically examine our own desire and the real meaning of economic necessity. I would suggest that moving far away from one’s kin is virtually never a true economic necessity and almost always rooted in selfish desire. Consider the purposes behind the Benedictine “vow of stability,” described this way:
The vow of stability . . . becomes the guarantee of success and permanence. It is only another example of the family idea that pervaded the entire Rule, by means of which the members of the community are bound together by a family tie, and each takes upon himself the obligation of persevering in his monastery until death, unless sent elsewhere by his superiors. It secures to the community as a whole, and to every member of it individually, a share in all the fruits that may arise from the labours of each monk, and it gives to each of them that strength and vitality which necessarily result from being one of a united family, all bound in a similar way and all pursuing the same end. Thus, whatever the monk does, he does it not as an independent individual but as part of a larger organization, and the community itself thus becomes one united whole rather than a mere agglomeration of independent members.
I am not suggesting that everyone must become Benedictine and swear to the Rule. But there is wisdom here for all.Here’s the clarification: What I am trying to articulate is the problem of endless desire; a need for constant movement and the perpetual postponement of satisfaction or end of desire due to a fear of actually living in the human condition (or in Purgatory, as Eliot puts it). Yes, I think if we make an honest analysis, we can say that this is the driving spiritual force behind most acts in our liberalized late modern society. And it simply will not do to ignore its tendency to destroy any kind of sustained social order. And here’s my summary:All it took was the suggestion that people ought to consider their extended families, their hometowns, and the loyalty owed to their formative “little platoons” before they consider themselves and their need for upward mobility in deciding where to live to get me branded as “stunningly obnoxious” by an NR regular and accused of promoting a crunchy Taliban which was roundly dismissed. Readers can decide if any goalposts were moved.
Geraghty goes ahead and characterizes my suggestion that daycare is a bad and decidedly unconservative institution this way: "Hi there. I'm Caleb Stagell [sic], and I know what's best for you and your family." Yuk-yuk. Good one Jim. And what makes this particularly banal piece of mockery effective is the broadly accepted notion, by left-liberals and right-liberals alike, that anyone who wants to "tell me what to do" is a Puritan rogue. Conservatives are used to getting such treatment from liberals, but I wonder if it doesn't go a long way towards confirming Rod's thesis to find it here. This is a form of the soft "censorship" that Rod was talking about. Any intrusion into or critique of real life decisions people make is out of bounds as a matter of course. It used to be that taking conservatism seriously required talking and thinking about these things. But liberal-conservatives want "family" and “loyalty” and “duty” to be pious puffs of smoke. Good for a few votes in flyover country and then quick! hoist up the no-social-judgment zone around their "private lives." Can’t you hear the echoes of the gay rights and abortion lobbies in Geraghty’s remarks.
So I’ll put the question to Jim and any other “conservative” very directly: Are you willing to state that “with a few exceptions, anyone who would place an infant in daycare is a negligent parent and a negligent citizen”? Let’s put some cards on the table.
|
