Dan Peterson's Stock goes down again

[_Kishkumen]

I also respect people who tell the truth and don't play head games, in which case, you've just closed the door on that score.

Name a few conservatives you respect, Kish. Just humor me a bit.

Why don't we head off the inevitable logical fallacy that you are sure to engage in by saying that you and I will never agree on who is a respectable conservative.

As for the fact that you respect in others what you have failed at so miserably, that's just human.

[_angsty]

My reaction has been similar. It has been a real let down. I respect rational, well-informed conservatives. Dr. Peterson's political rants on his blog aren't the kind of think a rational, well-informed conservative would write.

Exactly. But, it makes sense in a way, that there's a consistent standard of reason (poor though it may be). I mean, he can't just stop being himself whenever he thinks about politics. His intellectual habits and standards are still what they are.

I wish truly principled conservative intellectuals would rise up against the stupidity that's passes for conservatism today. It would be a service to humanity. I may be liberal through and through, but I'm also reasonable, and deliberative democracy can't happen without a well-informed, worthy opposition.

[_Droopy]

Why don't we head off the inevitable logical fallacy that you are sure to engage in by saying that you and I will never agree on who is a respectable conservative.

And the names?

[_Kishkumen]

Why don't we head off the inevitable logical fallacy that you are sure to engage in by saying that you and I will never agree on who is a respectable conservative.

And the names?

Nope, not going to engage in another fruitless conversation with you, Droopy. Undoubtedly there will be a long argument over what constitutes a "real" conservative, and I am simply not interested.

Besides, the question is a dodge. Based on the crap literature that Peterson has cited, and the lunatic fantasy positions he has advocated, I think it is fair to say that his political capital is securely at moonbat level. So the question is not whether I can name rational conservatives, but whether his posts are at all representative of good conservative discourse.

I say no, and you have yet to give me any reason to think otherwise.

[_Kishkumen]

Just for the helluvit, I will provide a little contrast on one point between William F. Buckley, Jr. and Daniel Peterson. It is not that I am particularly fond of Buckley, because I am not, but he is a towering figure in conservative thought, and not a person to be trifled with.

Here is Buckley on the Iraq War:

More important, Buckley declared the war in Iraq is “anything but conservative. The reality of the situation is that missions abroad to effect regime change in countries without a bill of rights or democratic tradition are terribly arduous.” He was careful to add: “This isn’t to say that the [Iraq] war is wrong, or that history will judge it to be wrong. But it is absolutely to say that conservatism implies a certain submission to reality; and this war has an unrealistic frank and is being conscripted by events.”

Compare this with Daniel Peterson:

As a matter of fact, harmony, I strongly support the US effort in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

That's right. [I am a] soft-on-Islam Neville Chamberlain who supported the invasion of Iraq, the surge in Iraq, and the invasion of Afghanistan, and who defended Israel in a public debate with Professor Amr al-Azm, a Syrian, at BYU a couple of weeks ago. Uh huh.

In comparison with Peterson's support for George W. Bush, one notes that Buckley was not a huge fan, nor did he view Bush to be a conservative.

There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable.

If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign....

Jeffrey Hart summed it up thus:

According to Jeffrey Hart, writing in The American Conservative, Buckley had a "tragic" view of the Iraq war: he "saw it as a disaster and thought that the conservative movement he had created had in effect committed intellectual suicide by failing to maintain critical distance from the Bush administration... At the end of his life, Buckley believed the movement he made had destroyed itself by supporting the war in Iraq."

The above quote was borrowed from Buckley's Wikipedia entry because the link to the original is dead.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The above quote was borrowed from Buckley's Wikipedia entry because the link to the original is dead.

Buckley was right. Bush was no conservative. You can't supervise the largest expansion of government healthcare spending to that point and be a conservative. You can't have an interventionist foreign policy based on "nation building" and be a conservative. There's a reason George W. Bush won't be at the GOP convention this year.

[_Kishkumen]

Buckley was right. Bush was no conservative. You can't supervise the largest expansion of government healthcare spending to that point and be a conservative. You can't have an interventionist foreign policy based on "nation building" and be a conservative. There's a reason George W. Bush won't be at the GOP convention this year.

What I appreciate about men like Buckley, whether I like and agree with them or not, is that they are consistent in their views. There is an intellectual independence in their political philosophy that goes beyond supporting the Republican fashion du jour. I see none of the the pandering or hysteria that I read on Daniel's blog.

Mind you, I don't really personally like or agree with much of what Buckley said, but I can respect him as an intellectual who was a force to be reckoned with.

[_Kevin Graham]

Buckley was right. Bush was no conservative. You can't supervise the largest expansion of government healthcare spending to that point and be a conservative. You can't have an interventionist foreign policy based on "nation building" and be a conservative. There's a reason George W. Bush won't be at the GOP convention this year.

What I appreciate about men like Buckley, whether I like and agree with them or not, is that they are consistent in their views. There is an intellectual independence in their political philosophy that goes beyond supporting the Republican fashion du jour. I see none of the the pandering or hysteria that I read on Daniel's blog.

Mind you, I don't really personally like or agree with much of what Buckley said, but I can respect him as an intellectual who was a force to be reckoned with.

Your post probably put Droopy into a coma.

[_Kevin Graham]

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/07/3 ... onc/189045

[_Kishkumen]

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/07/31/foxs-beckel-on-distortion-of-obama-comments-onc/189045

Yep, the propaganda arm of the GOP strikes again.