Read on Twitter
Robert George needs to make two concessions:
1) The D party is largely free of these problems - with significant, local exceptions worth calling out. The R party IS these problems plus tax cuts.
2) civil liberties for all means giving up anti-same-sex marriage stuff, legally. 1/ https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1350225407514181636
1) The D party is largely free of these problems - with significant, local exceptions worth calling out. The R party IS these problems plus tax cuts.
2) civil liberties for all means giving up anti-same-sex marriage stuff, legally. 1/ https://twitter.com/McCormickProf/status/1350225407514181636
When the problems are so lopsidedly right-tilted, you can't call for unity without acknowledging it's the right's problem mostly. Also, it really is important for figures like George to 'fess up he was flat wrong to resist SSM legally. (He can not get SSM'ed personally!) 2/
Conservatives roll eyes and say the left won that battle, no one loves a sore winner. But: if conservatives really want to pivot to favor some sort of healthy, shared civic space, for the sake of peace, they need to admit the equal claims of justice. 3/
It can't be that the left is for justice, the right against it, and we, as a society, split it halfsies, fair is fair. This is more or less the Dreher approach and it just isn't reasonable to expect the left to buy in. 4/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/white-riot/
Dreher would say that's absurd; he isn't against justice. He's a realist, taking a wider, longer view on which things are complicated. But that's a mistake. He's taking a narrow, presentist, tribal-apologetic view, and that's why he can't see the wider, longer view and issues. 5/
In politics there's often a right way and a wrong way to pursue a worthy goal, and sometimes it's not clear how to be in the right, e.g. supporting BLM protests that turn into riots, around the edges. That's tough. It's hard to do the right thing without downplaying wrongs. 6/
This became particularly acute after Trump sent in fed troops, evidently intent on farming chaos in Portland. It becomes difficult to know what to support. You've got idiots burning court houses and Trump pretending to try to put out flames, by way of fanning them. 7/
But now the Capitol protest! Hey, no murdering! But aren't there feelings of grievance expressed here by peaceful folks? Yes but no. Even peaceful demonstrations, on behalf of overturning democracy, to install an unelected authoritarian, are to be condemned 8/
Even minor anti-justice civil disobedience is bad. I'll grant feelings of malaise and grievance. You should be able to gather and scream at congresscritters 'we are frustrated!' But you can't overturn a lawful election, let alone lynch Pence, as a way of expressing it. 9/
And if you truly don't know Biden was lawfully elected, the best that can be said for you is that you have been duped by a conman. That's NOT a legit grievance, although mental incompetence may be somewhat extenuating. (YMMV.) 10/
There is no moral equivalence. Folks mad about Floyd and police abuses. Folks mad Biden stole the election and is sex-trafficking mole children. The former: righteous cause, tricky to pursue without doing wrong. The latter: just bad, no good in it. 11/
Back to Dreher. Having said we need to see IS before saying OUGHT (or not), he backpedals. Here is a professor of poli-sci stating an IS. To an extent the riot is fueled by 'white heteropatriarchy'. Make fun of jargon, by all means, but it's an IS. 12/
The OUGHT is: ought we then to let them have their white heteropatriarchy or oughtn't we? But Dreher wants to say seeing this IS is identity politics, thus bad. Contra Dreher, I preach: can't live by lies. It's plain TRUE this crowd pines for the 'good ol' days'. 13/
You can of course say there's more to 'the good ol' days' than heteropatriarchy. Fine. But: 'we are here to overturn the lawful election of Joe Biden because doing so expresses our aggrieved sense that patriarchal dominance is under threat & etc' is not saved by its 'etc'. 14/
Or you think it is! You say: 'yes, these folks have the perfect right to overthrow democracy on behalf of ... etc.' Or: 'nope, they don't.' I say the latter. But that this IS the point in dispute is not 'identity politics'. It's what you see if you open your eyes. 15/
Finally (I tie the knot back to Robert George, calling for classical liberalism), Dreher calls for 'old-fashioned classical liberalism' to 'defuse the bomb'. Now, I would like to agree. I would. I would be happy to get classical liberalism and defuse the bomb. But! 16/
The problem is: 'old-fashioned classical liberalism' has always been one of those 'for ME but not for THEE' things, in lived practice. Old-fashioned classical liberalism was advocated by folks confused about LGBTQ folks, so it came out wrong. 17/
And no one is declaring white grievance null, as Dreher alleges. The issue is whether null grievances like 'we need to be allowed to nullify democratic elections if we feel like it!' need to be given half-credit for being legit, just because: whiteness (& etc.) 18/
Old-fashioned classical liberalism had it's good points, dear old thing, but that ain't justice. New-fangled classical liberalism is the ticket - this time with actual equality! That or democratic socialism. Take your pick. That or right-wing authoritarianism. 19/
