tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1499918587947814214.post5327666914639861155..comments2023-10-30T06:11:35.260-06:00Comments on Left-Federalist: Distributists, Greens, Bolsheviks,Fundies, Spengler & Midgets..Redoubt10http://www.blogger.com/profile/12282362749212355599noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1499918587947814214.post-27843815483158538412007-08-07T03:38:00.000-06:002007-08-07T03:38:00.000-06:00Gen, Do not have much knowledge of Chesterson and ...Gen,<BR/> Do not have much knowledge of Chesterson and Belloc. However, I am aware of the Distributist/progressive sythesis especially when it comes to Mondragon - market& libertarian-socialists, many of them atheists, can't sing odes to Mondragon enough it seems.<BR/><BR/> True enough that I do not have much in common with most of those who dub themselves *liberals* in the 21st Century(they let their pet social issues wag the dog). I'm kind of 'conservative-liberal',meaning that I want to resurrect the old National Liberalism of both the Roosevelts. Todays liberals sadly do not think in terms of 'nation' as they used to. But a 'classical liberal' in the post-Adam Smith sense I definitely am not given that I am a unabashed defender of the federal government playing an essential role in the economy, something that I take that Distributists aren't keen on(?).<BR/><BR/> Without Distributists boarding the 'train', or thinking 'national', how can their economic views(which deserve more publicity) be heard more and just possibly have some of their policies become a reality? Even in the Roman Catholic ranks their numbers are quite small.Redoubt10https://www.blogger.com/profile/12282362749212355599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1499918587947814214.post-26315125770094738482007-08-06T09:52:00.000-06:002007-08-06T09:52:00.000-06:00There is something Chesterton said in reference to...There is something Chesterton said in reference to Distributists being of all persuasions. Some will be Protestants, others Catholic, and of course even Moslem. <BR/><BR/>Chesterton said anyone can be a Distributist because Distributism only attempts to follow the natural law (which he would claim leads to common sense). <BR/><BR/>What Chesterton disagreed with is any system that requires any of us to place our beliefs in the closet. We cannot have freedom of religion and yet agree never to discuss it.<BR/><BR/>It may seem odd to find both liberals and traditionalists in agreement but I believe it is because maybe you are not as liberal as you think or perhaps we are both classical liberals who wish to liberate those who have been "liberated" from nature in order to 'save a buck'.<BR/><BR/>The truth is perhaps we might consider two labels outside of the 'traditionalist'. Those two labels are the 'progressive' and the 'conservative'. Chesterton would argue that the progressive was the conductor of the steam train while the conservative worked the coal. One steams ahead and the other decides how fast.<BR/><BR/>What the Distributist, Agrarian and the Georgist ask is whether we want to be on this train or not.<BR/><BR/>Pax Tecum,<BR/>GenRichard Alemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272016770106926094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1499918587947814214.post-46146467276400745682007-08-04T22:24:00.000-06:002007-08-04T22:24:00.000-06:00As usual, I have read the whole post carefully wit...As usual, I have read the whole post carefully with interest. Let me comment here on the Green point.<BR/><BR/>It is too soon to be sure, but the historic Goldwater-Reagan Republican coalition may today be fracturing. If so, one of the shards of the coalition, comprising (if I may pull an unsubstantiated number out of my hat) perhaps three percent of the total U.S. electorate, is what Paul Weyrich calls by the corny but somehow fitting name of <EM>granola conservatives</EM> or, cornier yet, <EM>crunchy cons.</EM> The substance of crunchy conservatism is practically impossible to articulate, but not really so hard for Americans outside the big cities to understand. Typical of the type is the home-schooling mom with the big vegetable garden, flat shoes and no TV, who takes her several kids over to the church-house each Thursday morning to clean the washrooms, to mop the foyer and (less quietly) to practice on the chuch-organ, who back at home hangs a framed print of George Washington in prayer in the snow at Valley Forge on her living-room wall next to a print of the Sermon on the Mount. Her husband wears jeans to church and sings in the back row of the choir. Of course not all of them fit this exact portrait, but the crunchy cons are people of that general kind. The elements of crunchy conservatism have been around forever, but its self-conscious practice as a distinct American counterculture has seemed to emerge only following the end of the Cold War.<BR/><BR/>The mainstream media (concentrated in the big cities) still seem almost totally unaware that those people exist, but though distinctly right-wing the cruncy cons seem far less sceptical of modern environmentalism than other conservatives have been. They're not especially keen on economic laissez-faire, either (it's not a big deal to them, one way or the other); and they are ardently anti-consumerist. You can put the crunchy cons and the Greens together, I think---not on every point but issue by issue. So, if so, then there's three percent.<BR/><BR/>It's not much, but, add three percent here, three percent there, and sooner or later you'll have a real majority.<BR/><BR/><EM>Howard</EM>Howard J. Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04418214890927411936noreply@blogger.com