Comments on: For Those Who Wanted To Know

by: M.Z. Forrest

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:35:00 +0000

Progressive is a wonderful Chestertonian moniker. The seeking of movement in policy while assuming you are going forward is perfect Chesterton. As for conserative, libertarian seems to me to be the most apt label dispite the convulsions libertarians will have over this label. I have great difficulty considering myself a conservative or a progressive, because each notion seems to subscribe to the notion that the greatest obstacle to personal secular fullfillment is the State/society. Each is exceedingly pagan in its desires even if each throws off the accidents of religion on occaison. I think I’m to the point of being decidedly anti-American - in the nationalist sense - and pro-Wisconsinite, no offense to our flat-lander host.

by: kevinjjones

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:28:13 +0000

“The candidate for the democratically challenged.”

by: Daniel Larison

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:39:22 +0000

What, are you trying to make me out to be some sort of anti-democratic reactionary? Oh, wait, I am an anti-democratic reactionary!

by: Grumpy Old Man

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:08:48 +0000

We could try this.

by: Daniel Larison

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:06:09 +0000

Thanks to you all for your comments. If there were a label that would be even more of a clunker in American politics than liberal, it would have to be “social democrat.” Endless Weimar and Eurosclerosis jokes would drive any politician who used it right out of politics.

As for bloggingheads, I would probably be a disaster in any sort of televised exchange. I tend to speak very quickly once I get going, but then become ponderously slow as I make some connection or transition. It would be like watching Patricia Madrid try to answer a question–okay, maybe not that bad, but not good. With practice, my speaking for lectures and talks has gotten a lot better, but I am really not eager to be in front of cameras. I don’t even like having my picture taken, and not just because it steals your soul. This will undoubtedly disappoint the growing Draft Larison movement (I am not eligible to run until the 2016 election anyway), but what can I say?

by: James Kabala

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 01:45:03 +0000

I think it would be cool if you were on blogging heads. Ross should lobby for you.

by: Grumpy Old Man

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:13:15 +0000

You’re probably right. I avoided “social democrat” because that’s what Lenin called his party in the runup to revolution.

by: Pithlord

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:58:17 +0000

“Social democrat” would probably be most accurate.

by: Grumpy Old Man

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:07:02 +0000

The word “progressive” in contemporary politics is a pet peeve of mine, as expatiated upon here The Communist Party consciously adopted it as an Americanized avatar of the Popular Front. “Progress” is a dangerous illusion when applied to culture and political institutions.

“Liberal,” which once meant something akin to “libertarian,” and still does in Europe, has morphed into a euphemism for “democratic socialist.”

Meanwhile, “conservative” has morphed so often that unmodified it means very little other than “not liberal.”

For all, dented and scuffed, the Dustbin of History still stands on Desolation Row. As in a mother’s heart or a paddy wagon, there’s always room for one more.