Comments on: The late conservative kerfuffle

By: Red Toryism: A Calvinist counterproposal : Theopolitical

Red Toryism: A Calvinist counterproposal : Theopolitical — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:49:09 +0000

[...] Also: the introduction of Red Toryism bears a striking resemblance to the last year’s bare-knuckled debate between the Front Porch Republic and the Postmodern Conservatives (a brief bibliography) [...]

By: Post Right » Conservative Battles and Right-Wing Modular Homes

Post Right » Conservative Battles and Right-Wing Modular Homes — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:03:51 +0000

[...] a good man heading to my alma mater for graduate studies, has a catalogue of postings here. The debate is pretty heady, quite dense at times, but well worth the mental [...]

By: Robert C. Cheeks

Robert C. Cheeks — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:33:41 +0000

“Oh, and Bob, don’t kid yourself: wealth is constantly being “redistributed”. I can’t see how legislative neutrality is possible under any imaginable legal regime on that point. So the real argument is over the tendencies of the legislated biases.”
Mark, yes I quite agree, redistribution for the professional welfare class and/or the corporate recipients, and as an olde Quid I’d stamp it all out: Fed, state, and local…hang ‘em all!
All I wanted to know was how Medaille’s scheme is funded? Still waitin’ on an answer!

By: Bar Jester sums it all : Theopolitical

Bar Jester sums it all : Theopolitical — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:07:38 +0000

[...] Bar Jester effectively ends the debate between Front Porch Republic and Postmodern Conservative: “Walker Percy on the FPR [...]

By: Mark Shiffman

Mark Shiffman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:46:55 +0000

Agreed. Oh, and did I mention that this was a fine and judicious summary of the “controversy”? Well done.

By: Davey Henreckson

Davey Henreckson — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:41:51 +0000

Mark,

No quibbles here. FPR certainly has a more ecumenical set of contributors than PomoCon (although red tories, agrarians, and crunchy cons are often animated by many of the same localist and private concerns).

If my post had been directed at Lawler, et al, I would’ve cautioned against granting the “regime” too much ultimacy. Again, I think both sides are dealing with incipient temptations, not actual vices yet. But if the pomocons head down the wrong path, it will surely be toward granting the establishment too much weight. I don’t want to restrict our definition of a “political act” to stuff that happens in a courthouse or legislative chamber.

Thanks for the comment.

By: Mark Shiffman

Mark Shiffman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:24:57 +0000

Oh, and Bob, don’t kid yourself: wealth is constantly being “redistributed”. I can’t see how legislative neutrality is possible under any imaginable legal regime on that point. So the real argument is over the tendencies of the legislated biases.

By: Mark Shiffman

Mark Shiffman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:20:05 +0000

Theo: Well, if you compare the relative infrequency with which Berry is invoked on FPR (though granted he is a presiding spirit) to the incessancy with which Strauss is mentioned, quoted, and deferred to (to be sure, not always, but nearly as an understood default) on Pomocon, its seems a wee bit one-sided to contrast a “Berry fetish” with a “mildly Straussian” cast in this case.

Sincerely,
Your local agent of Accuracy on the Internet