John raises a perfectly legitimate point. Someone really needs to clarify how this works. On the one hand, Rod is being praised for reviving an older, truer, conservative tradition stemming from Kirk et al. On the other hand, he invokes Marxist and other leftist writers and thinkers to back up his case. Aren't these two things at odds? Did Kirk quote a lot of Marxists? Does a conservative who lays his hands upon a Marxist make the Marxist a conservative? Or, has he slipped out of the stable and wandered into another pasture? How are we supposed to know whether it's the former or the latter?
