Religious conservatives can't win for losing. First, they get blasted for invoking the evangelical beliefs of Harriet Miers in their support of her. Now, they're being blamed for the withdrawal of her nomination. Former Senator John Danforth blamed Christian conservatives for the Miers failure on CNN Thursday night, contemptuously refering to "these people" on at least a half-dozen occassions. James Ridgeway writes in the Village Voice that President Bush quashed Miers's nomination "just as his Republican supporters in Congress were coming to her defense against the Christian right." Tikkun claims that the the withdrawal of Miers demonstrates "how powerful the Religious Right really is."

Not every political drama conforms to neatly written scripts. Is Pat Robertson part of the "religious right"? How about James Dobson? Jerry Falwell? These stock villains in every leftist narrative about the threat to our democracy from evangelical conservatives all supported Harriet Miers. A motley crew of decidedly non-evangelicals played leading roles in opposing Miers: most conspicuously, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, David Frum, George Will, and William Kristol. Maybe in their spare time these conservative talking-heads hand out religious tracts, wear "WWJD?" bracelets, and condemn fornicators to a fiery eternity, but my right-wing blinders just don't allow me to see it.

Dan, remember that debate with the Randroids? Around then, you commented the conservatism is the rejection of ideology. What did you mean by that?

I think it's true that most leftists have an understanding of their worlds in black and white only.

For them to have a comfort level with regards to their thoughts on political philosophy and society as a whole, they seem to need to have things in nice neat little easy to understand compartments.

In this light, all Conservatives/Republicans are forty year old married white guys with two kids, a house in the suburbs where they go to work for a large corporations and who are driven fanatics of the religious right.

That kind of pea brained thinking will keep them and their party down for a long time.

Thanks God. Oops, said the 'G' word. ;-)

Herman: instead of continual sarcasm and implied criticism, why don't you try to be direct? What exactly in Flynn's post "'Religious Right' Wrongly Charged for the Killing of Miers Nomination" shows that he is being ideological? If you can't answer this question, then you are admitting that YOUR comment on this post was groundless, and probably motivated by ideological prejudices.

Herman go read Russell Kirk's "Politics of Prudence" if you genuinely want to understand conservatism as a political philosophy specifically opposed to ideology. If you want to call Flynn an ideologue for his post here then do that directly, your cleverness only serves to make you seem incapable of forming a good argument.

I think this WashPost article gives a good synopsis of the Miers nomination and its downfall: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702398.html?sub=AR

The point at which evangelicals can be seen to have gotten involved prominently against the nomination was only in the last few days. The decisive factor behind her withdrawal was actually protection of supposed WH perogative as regards their refusal to turn over to the Senate internal documents of her work as the President's counsel. The conservative opposition played more of a tangential role.

The coming theocracy. When it appeared that the administration sent a private message to Dobson, the cry was that the rank-and-file Christian right would fall in behind their "leaders". The appointing of Harriet Miers would have been the proof of the coming theocracy. Now, that Miers has withdrawn, that is now proof of the coming theocracy.

Dan pillories Rand enthusiasts for substituting logical thought with their devotion to the Objectivist guru. “It's not so much that the Randians objected to my specific criticisms of Rand. It's that they object to any criticism of Rand.” Allowing their personal prejudices to influence their reasoning mocks the very core of the philosophy they claim to champion.

Is there a brain in that Scully? Just as the objectivists were not objective, this (suspected) fan of Flynn puts his brain on autopilot and lets something else do the thinking. Perhaps ideology, perhaps a mindless desire to defend the object of his affection, perhaps a belief that he possesses the power to read minds. In his attempt to expose my bad intentions, he only displays his limited competence.

1) I never sarcastically praised Dan. In fact, I’m a huge fan. Should I express this by expressing contempt rather than adoration for Dan’s writing? Can Scully not believe that reading certain passages raises questions about their meaning? (Thanks to Brian for the tip.)

2) “What exactly in Flynn’s post… shows that he is being ideological?” That’s a fine question, but I certainly never asked it. Only by putting words in my mouth can he accuse me of this accusation.

3) Scully finishes with this: “If you can't answer this question, then you are admitting that YOUR comment on this post was groundless, and probably motivated by ideological prejudices.” This is bad logic. *IF* I can’t answer an irrelevant question (that I never posed), *THEN* I am an ideologue making a groundless assertion (that I never made). The untrue conclusion follows from the preposterous premise.

Herman: 1. Dana Scully is a girl. 2. Who are you kidding, you always making completely irrelevant comments pretending to wordhip Flynn while implying that he is an idiot or an ideologue or something. I don't mind if you insult Flynn, but I'd like it if you articulated an argument-- i.e., the premise-conclusion structure basic to reasoning. That way I can judge for myself whether I find your criticism strong or weak.

Now, I can't follow what you said in paras 1-2. Could you just explain your original comment and its relation to the post you are commenting on?

1) My apologies for incorrectly assuming Scully is a male ape. I did not know the female ones could type.

2) Who are you kidding, you supercilious twit? My praise, according to you, is actually criticism. PROVE IT! I do not have any criticism for Flynn and even if I desired to insult him, your pathetic posts do more to demean this site more than my insolence ever could. Why would I waste my time performing an act you’ve already mastered?

Herman: I have good reason for my claim that rely on obscure sarcasism rather than reasoned criticism to attack Flynn. You have two types of comments that I've noticed, (1) irrelevant comments, like the one above, and (2) comments bordering on saying Flynn is the second coming.

Can you explain your original Rand comment and its relevance to the original post? If not, I'll take that as further evidence for my claim. Now I'd actually like you to just articulate your position with reasons, because I'm curious.

(PS Would you still call me a "twit" if I were a boy?)

1) Honestly, Scully, your attacks become more and more puerile as this continues. You continue to suggest that I have criticism for Dan. I do not. I only have questions. In the past, he’s cleared up my confusion (his views on the United States “empire,” for instance). Besides, your inference is ridiculous. Since when does an off-topic comment connote sarcasm? The notion that my comments are praise masquerading as criticism is laughable.

2) If someone changes the subject, it does not mean he is employing sarcasm. That said, Flynn (jokingly) refers to his “right-wing” blinders. This reminded me that he once said conservatism is the rejection of ideology. This puzzled me a bit, because I always considered conservatism an ideology. In other words, don't conservatives have set beliefs and values?

3) I’ll twit any twit, regardless of gender.

Herman: I don't think Flynn denied in the post that there could be such a thing as right-wing blinders or that some people have them. What was Flynn denying here? Pretty clearly, he's saying that it's ridiculous to claim that the attack on Miers was from the "religious right." And if you think that he can't see it only because of "right-wing blinders," you're ignoring the facts: the big name evangelicals supported Miers, while the people most against her are not evangelical and don't talk about religion often. Therefore, your criticism of this post is ill-founded. And that becomes obvious once you actually state your criticism minus the sarcastic code.

Now, ideology as he is using it means more than "a set of beliefs and values." I know this because I have actually read his (second) book, and because I've read Burke and Kirk. Is conservatism an ideology? Does some famous or self-styled conservatives being ideologues show that conservatism is an ideology? Now those are legit questions, though unrelated to this post. How about it Flynn?

Personally, I would say that this is a fight within conservatism, and (as Brian pointed out above) Flynn is taking Russell Kirk's side. Perhaps you want to read Kirk's attacks on libertarians and neocons to see how he defines ideology and how he draws the battle-lines on the right. You could at least do it as an attempt at cross-cultural understanding or something, or so that you can criticize your enemies with knowledge of their position instead of stawmen ("don't conservatives have set beliefs and values?").

“Herman: I don't think Flynn denied in the post that there could be such a thing as right-wing blinders or that some people have them."

Flynn did not deny in the post that there could be such a thing as right-wing blinders, nor did I suggest that I he did.

"What was Flynn denying here? Pretty clearly, he's saying that it's ridiculous to claim that the attack on Miers was from the "religious right."

It was a good post. Spare me the recap.

"And if you think that he can't see it only because of 'right-wing blinders,' you're ignoring the facts: the big name evangelicals supported Miers, while the people most against her are not evangelical and don't talk about religion often."

I do not think “that he can’t see it.” In fact, I think Dan sees things quite clearly here.

"Therefore, your criticism of this post is ill-founded. And that becomes obvious once you actually state your criticism minus the sarcastic code.”

I never criticized the post in the manner you suggest. Rather, Flynn’s choice of words merely reminded me of a question I have wanted to ask him. I did not raise the question to point out a contradiction. I raised the question because I wanted an answer to it. In the past, I’ve had Dan’s insightful answers minus your obnoxious input. Your "sarcasm" dead horse is still dead. It was never a good point.

"Now, ideology as he is using it means more than 'a set of beliefs and values.' I know this because I have actually read his (second) book, and because I've read Burke and Kirk. Is conservatism an ideology? Does some famous or self-styled conservatives being ideologues show that conservatism is an ideology? Now those are legit questions, though unrelated to this post. How about it Flynn?"

I have read Flynn, but not Burke and Kirk. Therefore, I asked Flynn about his take on ideology. I did not ask Burke and Kirk about their takes on ideology.

"Personally, I would say that this is a fight within conservatism, and (as Brian pointed out above) Flynn is taking Russell Kirk's side. Perhaps you want to read Kirk's attacks on libertarians and neocons to see how he defines ideology and how he draws the battle-lines on the right. You could at least do it as an attempt at cross-cultural understanding or something, or so that you can criticize your enemies with knowledge of their position instead of stawmen ('don't conservatives have set beliefs and values?')."

An ideology is a "set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system." Don't conservatives have a "set of (conservative) doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system?" If conservatism is itself an ideology, how can it simultaneously reject ideology (unless, of course, it is merely rejecting other ideologies)?

NOTE: (especially to that one particular person always willing to attribute meanings to me that I do not mean):

This is not criticism, at least not in the sense of finding fault. Rather, it is criticism in the sense of thinking, evaluating, interpreting, clarifying and ultimately seeking truth. Is this not exactly what Dan implores the reader to do in the final sentance of IMs?

Scully,

You display poor reading comprehension and even worse logic. You mischaracterize my statements, make up statements in order to attribute them to me and sometimes you do not even successfully deconstruct your own straw men. Your claim that my criticism is "ill-founded" only makes you appear as a pseudo-intellectual punk because you obviously do not understand my criticism.

You say you read IM. Good! Take Flynn's advice. A mind is a terrible thing to waste... even yours. Have some respect. Not just for yourself, but save some for the opinions of others so that you may at least appear to have the intellectual honesty required to engage in rational discussion.

Herman, sorry I misunderstood you. I am sincerely trying! But you aren't cooperating. Now state your position clearly so that all can see I'm wrong.

P.S. Regarding your use of "ideology," obviously there is some equivocation here. The way the word is used in the social sciences presumes that everybody has an ideology, a way of seeing the world, because it's just a "set beliefs and values" (as you defined it earlier). Kirk, and Flynn following him, is using the word differently. So when you restate your position to correct my misunderstanding of you, be careful not to use the word equivocally.

Scully, scroll up and re-read my posts... 48 times. After the fourth dozen read of my comments here, perhaps what you say I think will harmonize with I say I think.

Dan says conservatism is the rejection of ideology. As a conservative, I do not reject the ideology of conservatism. Does Dan reject conservatism? Does conservatism reject ALL ideologies, even itself? Perhaps conservatism is not an ideology? What does Dan mean by “conservatism” and “ideology?”

That is my “position,” Scully. Dan’s interesting statement raises some interesting questions. No “sarcasm.” No “attacks.” No “criticism.” Just questions.

PS. IMs is one of my favorite books. Dan is one of my favorite authors. For Christmas, I’m even doing something for Dan: I’m buying a copy of IMs and giving it to one of my best friends.

Herman, looking at many of the writers and leaders who style themselves as "conservatives," I can't fault you for viewing conservatism as an ideology. Many people who call themselves "conservative" are in fact ideologues. Conservatism, for me, is the anti-ism. It's not a "science of ideas," but instead a reliance on experience, tradition, the past. Embrace what works, reject what doesn't, and view skeptically what hasn't been tried. Experience is something more than an idea, and because it is on the former rather than the latter that true conservatives give preference, this makes true conservatives enemies of ideology.

Perhaps this discussion is worth a full blog post. Look for it in the coming weeks.

Dan, you are the man. (By this, Scully surely contends, I mean Dan is not the man and is, in fact, not even a man at all.) You have cleared up my confusion and I await the full blog post on this topic with unbridled intrigue and anticipation. (Scully, by this mean "seeing what else Dan has to say about this will be really cool.")

Dan, in addition, perhaps you might address another concern I have with your work:

Why is there a colorful hat on the cover of your latest book?

Thanks again, Dan. As a fan of your ideas, it is a bit of an honor having you address my ideas, especially since you tend to stay out of the comments zone.

Random House has some clever people they work with who design dust jackets. I had nothing to do with the beanie idea, but I liked it so much that I adopted it as the logo for this site. It's used on the dust jacket because it's a visual representation of an intellectual moron. One can imagine a brilliant, but emotionally challenged, grad student rapidly spouting off his world-saving theories while wearing such a cap.

Hey Herman,

I skimmed Scully and yours argument above and now I take it that I made the same mistake as her. My comment to you was reading yours as sarcastic, but I guess it was just an off-topic question rather than a comment.

Dan and Scully covered some of the ground on the question of whether conservatism is an ideology and Kirk's Politics of Prudence is a good original source for this view. I want to check out Dan's post on the topic as I am myself not sure whether I am convinced by either Kirk or Edmund Burke's insistence that conservatism isn't an ideology.