Lott fiasco exposes conservative split
Of course, Emery was quoting Krauthammer, who today said:
Having thus staked their ground for decades on colorblindness and a reverence for the civil rights movement as originally defined, neoconservatives were particularly appalled by Lott's endorsement of its antithesis, Thurmond segregationism. Not to denounce it--on grounds not of politics but of principle--would be to lose all moral standing on matters of race.The whole column - as usual for Krauthammer - is brilliant, especially when he sums up in answer to Lott's threat to resign his seat if he's ousted.
So be it. There is a principle at stake here. Better to lose the Senate than to lose your soul. New elections come around every two years. Souls are scarcer.I couldn't have said it better myself.
But this led me to study a little conservology - I'd never bothered to figure out the details of paleo vs. traditional vs. neo, and wondered where I fit in. SelectSmart.com has one answer (more traditional than neo) but in the process I tripped over Richard Poe:
I approach the question of race much as I approach ecology. We don�t really know whether clear-cutting every major forest on the planet will fatally deplete the earth�s oxygen supply. Maybe it won�t. But why run such a dangerous experiment?I would argue that, for me, it depends who the other lab rat is.Likewise, it is possible that the neocons are right. Maybe America will survive the extinction of its Anglo-Saxon creators. But who, in his right mind, wants to put this theory to the test?
