Suppose a self-appointed Conservative "leader" consistently labeled homosexual activity, and the whole subculture as wrong, but always with a "wink, wink; nudge, nudge; say no more" attitude that reassures his readers that he is not one of those nasty people who actually believe it is really wrong, but that he is obliged by his position to sorta kinda condemn it a little. Suppose that this same "leader" has been unsparing in his criticism of Trump, but would have us believe that Biden is a well-meaning old man who could not be blamed for the actions his administration and party would likely take were he to be elected, to say nothing of his record in office over the past several decades. Likewise, this "Conservative leader" wants us to know what a fine, praiseworthy woman Ruth Bader Ginsburg was, consequences for the unborn be damned.
You might then reasonably conclude that the word "Conservative" did not mean much to this person, except perhaps a meal ticket.
Now step back and consider: although I have one particular person in mind, you could really put the names of all the prominent "Conservatives" over the past three decades into a hat, draw one name at random, and there is a good chance the description above applies to the owner of that name, too.
Seven years ago I said that I could not call myself a Conservative because that label carries too many connotations. That remains true. It is interesting, though, that the same label also carries too little meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment