Thursday, August 08, 2002

Heh, I wonder if Instapundit actually meant yours truly when he talked about "all those pseudonymous bloggers [that attack] those deviating from the party line"? I know he reads this page occasionally, and I'm one of the most consistent pseudonymous critics. It'd also explain why he didn't link to anybody...he'd probably rather post an approving link to the DNC. ;)

In any case, his defense of his political non-partisanship hinges on saying that he doesn't agree with religious bloggers. While an interesting point, he's conflating religiosity and conservatism, and that's misleading... while they're connected, one doesn't have to be part of the religious right to be a conservative. Indeed, your typical neocon or quasi-libertarian online would never, ever admit to any sort of overwhelming religious fervour, and in most cases for good reason- it doesn't exist.

(Hell, how does one explain hardcore conservative atheists any other way?)

This does point out that the "liberal vs. conservative" axis is inaccurate, but we already knew that, and I've already talked about the more accurate dual-axial model (Organic vs. Individualist and Egalitarian vs. Hierarchical) that political scientists use. Leaving religion out of it, he's pretty obviously conservative as such things are currently defined. He's certainly neoconservative as Brad DeLong defined it, which is fear and loathing of anything that smells of leftism. Or that doesn't have an enormous horn.

No comments:

Post a Comment