Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: A Paleo Epitaph Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_paleo_epitaph#22990 Post contents: "It is difficult to understand why Protestants are taken aback that they have come under criticism by conservative Catholics." Before any indignant Protestants jump in here, I might point out that currently "conservative Catholic" = Michael Novak, while the alternative Catholic representatives would include folks such as Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. A quick survey of the hostility Mark Shea has received from his readership, for his critiques of the war, indicates that we should not throw stones through our glass walls. And as I suspect Dr. Gottfried & others have noticed, orthodox Catholic bishops who may be solid on many issues tend to follow the Left/Republicans on the matter of immigration -- akin to a judge granting amnesty to a house-burglar simply because the burglar happens to be a co-religionist of the judge, whereas his victim is not. "it seems doubtful that any lasting good can come from alliance with those whose pro-strong central governmental instincts are so defining." Again -- I do not get the impression that that many Catholics know or care about Church teachings on subsidiarity, much less are avid students of Distributism. Consider the Acton Institute, a largely Catholic organization. As to the rank-and-file parishoner, they are (in the words of Thomas Fleming) "more loyal to George Bush than to any Pope." I think if there is to be any "coalition", it must A) Keep keenly aware of the importance of the tremendous divide between Protestants & Catholics, and B) Focus on those things which we affirmatively agree upon -- natural law, emulation of Christ, the primacy of the family, etc. -- rather than upon some common enemy, or shared hatred of secularism. Coalitions founded on shared hatred are a big part of how we got into this mess to begin with. Marxists exploited the fact that everybody was anti-Hitler to come to power, while neocons exploited the fact that everybody was anti-Soviet to come to power. Perhaps if we are going to have any sort of alliance, we should found it on the question of "what can we agree upon that we are *for*?" vice "what can we agree upon that we are against?" I would strongly concur with this assessment: "A new Dark Ages are seeming more and more to be our lot and we know what worked the first time." This is an alternative vision of the future which Dr. Gottfried has not recognized in his otherwise very comprehensive and intriguing article. Many "paleos" (myself included) would argue that the System has today become so fundamentally restructured as to make any reform short of revolution or collapse impossible. My own opinion is that energy expended on national politics is mostly (though not entirely) wasted. We'd be better served by taking cues from the monastics, by concentrating on putting down strong roots in local culture and local political communities, which might weather the coming storm and lead to a reflowering many generations hence. I do think there are different approaches which may be complementary, though, and of course I cannot predict Providence. Which is why I qualified my statement about energy expended on national politics. Should the US break up into an assortment of republics like the Soviet Union, perhaps we might have reason to be glad that figures such as Ron Paul have attained such national prominence. Somebody will have to pick up the pieces when the Party is over, and maybe the national politics game could be a sort of training ground. As for redeeming the current System or reviving the Constitution -- IMO it would take the sociological equivalent of a miracle. Whether Left or Right, the American people don't want a constitution, they don't want limited government, they don't want liberty, and they don't want to live in a culture bounded by Christianity -- Catholic or Protestant. Sent at: 2008 05 15