I ran across this comment in a piece by Douglas Wilson, “Don’t Believe So,†and thought that, while certainly right as rain just as stated, it also seem appropriate (with a few minor word changes) if applied to politicians who claim to be conservatives, but who always play by the liberalists’ rules.
“The desire of evangelicals to be relevant, engaged with culture, kind and gracious, approachable, and so on, is a desire (in the abstract) that can be applauded by all right-minded Christians. But this desire, even in the early stages, was six inches too far to the west. And this is why the evangelical establishment, particularly the evangelical establishment as now represented by its flagship colleges and publications, is completely adrift. Because they care about engaging with a culture that doesn’t care about engaging with them back, the pressure is on to compromise over and over, again and again. Maybe this next sellout will get the world’s attention.â€
This fits rather neatly with the profound truth expressed by R.L Dabney in the 19th Century when he said,
“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”
I really do wish we had a genuine two-party political system, instead of one party of “progressives†doing everything in their power to wreck the American experiment and another party of me-too-ers who simply (and ineffectually) say they want it otherwise.
I’ll still vote for whomever both says the right things and has a record of attempting to do the right things (however poorly and ineffectually), but oh! for a choice at the polls of neither haters of civilization nor “Men Without Chests.â€
See:
