Do you think Dreher means Calvinism when he says traditionalism? It sure sounds like it to me, though that might be because I’m reading The Wordy Shipmates right now and seeing lots of stuff through that lens. Anyway, I’m all for letting him bleat on about this sort of thing because it’s not convincing anyone. Nostalgia only gets you so far, and there’s not much to be nostalgic about with Calvinism, what with the constant reminders that you’re a wretch and that God hates you and has already decided that you’re going to hell.

I feel that Sessions did us all a favor by indicating how close his envy of the medieval inclinations of the Taliban is to the surface of his mind.  (snip)

But there might be something to this strategy of reaching not just a little back in time, but way, way back in time for ideas that are so old and dead they almost seem fresh again.

It is even worse than appropriating historical political garb, however.  This is romanticized pablum Epcot versions of history and historical events that he is dabbling in ... the romantic notion of the Taliban as freedom fighter rather than brutal violent dysfunctional terrorist that they are.  That shit is worse than the real stuff, which is often too repulsive, far less pure, and far more complicated for anybody to handle, much less desire to emulate!

Maybe.  I could see him being all like, okay not medieval, but certainly by the time you get to 18th century, humanity had progressed too far.

Can we say that things have gone downhill since they invented indoor plumbing?  Certainly.

Can we say that things have gone downhill since they invented indoor plumbing?

Indoor plumbing?  Hell, the replacement of “sin” by “germ theory” led to the downfall of humanity!

I’m pretty sure his point was the American Revolution had some good ideas about giving white rich men more say and freedom but that lead to the directly to the French Revolution and the unlanded getting power!  So really the Treaty of Westphalia was pretty much the apex and its been down hill since.

Well, those buttfucking Roman fruits had indoor plumbing, so really, how good could it possibly be?

Do you think Dreher means Calvinism when he says traditionalism?

Probably not (or at least not in any informed way), because Calvinism really goes hand in hand with the exact sorts of ideas they’re against.  The Enlightenment couldn’t have happened without the Reformation.

“As Sessions said, it’s working well for the Taliban.  Then again, they didn’t use it as a campaign strategy so much as an organizing ideology to be imposed by force.  But I’m sure that Republicans will deal with that problem when they get to it. “

So the Taliban sipped ahead of the Reichwing a few chapters.  So what? 

As Americans, when we put our minds and our can-do spirit in action we can do anything, goddammit. 

I bet, with some God-inspired guidance from Our Glorious and Righteous Republican Leaders, we can become the Best Damn Fascist Nation Evah!...

The question, though, is not whether the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad, but whether on balance the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad. I answer in the negative.

Could somebody help me out here, because I’m not grasping the distinction. It’s like he’s saying “The question, though, is not whether fire is very hot, but whether fire will burn you if you stick your hand in it”. What am I missing here?

It’s a rhetorical technique of appalling dishonesty.  It’s an attempt to use sentence structures to make it seem like you’re teasing out fine distinctions, when that’s impossible, because you think the Enlightenment was a bad idea.  I wait anxiously for his next post about how the Catholic Church was perhaps too harsh when it persecuted Galileo, but on the whole, it was the right decision.

Dreher’s not a traditionalist, he’s a creepy authoritarian who wants to force asceticism on others and thinks it makes him virtuous.

I thought Calvinism only meant that other people are wretches and god hates them, but you and your friends are members of the elect?

This, though, is why the wingnuts are so hoping for a nuclear attack on chicago or another great depression: they think that disaster will make everyone cede their freedoms to a big daddy who will make things better.

What they don’t understand is that the big daddy had better damn well make things better, or, y’know, Chronos.

And when wingnuts yearn for a return to a so-called more virtuous time - Dark Ages, Gilded Era, 1950s, etc - you just know they imagine themselves as the Lord of the manor, the robber baron, or Don Draper (yeah I know he’s a 60s character but it was from the early 60s, which was pretty much still the 50s).

DonnaDiva:

It’s just like none of those people who go looking for their identities in past lives find out they were peasants or a kid who died of croup at a year and a half.

“Indoor plumbing?  Hell, the replacement of “sin” by “germ theory” led to the downfall of humanity! “

...which is only a THEORY.

So the Enlightenment was bad?  Refresh my memory here:  The Enlightenment that provided the philosophical basis for the US Constitution is a bad thing?

Why does Rod Dreher hate America and freedom?

paul @ 9:50—

One of the most fascinating thing about the Calvinists is how many of them did believe they were going to hell. Only a small subset of those attending a Calvinist congregation were full members. This is a theology which was popular exactly because it told you how wretched you are.

Dreher is just doing an Edmund Burke thing:  backing the traditionalism of family, church, and monarchy, where people know their proper places and treat each other with mutual understanding, as opposed to those wild-eyed radicals bent on upsetting things with their “reason” and “equality” and “voting.”

Mandos, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out if that Traditionialism In Action site is a parody or not.  Usually, my Parody Detector is pretty good but I have to admit that one’s got me flummoxed.  Surely, they can’t really believe that shit!  Egads.

It’s a rhetorical technique of appalling dishonesty.  It’s an attempt to use sentence structures to make it seem like you’re teasing out fine distinctions, when that’s impossible, because you think the Enlightenment was a bad idea.  I wait anxiously for his next post about how the Catholic Church was perhaps too harsh when it persecuted Galileo, but on the whole, it was the right decision.

No really, because while Galileo was correct and all, he wasn’t virtuous.

I agree with him to the extent that I don’t think “happiness” is necessarily the apex of all human endeavour.  If it were, we’d just pump MDMA into the wanter system, and sit back to enjoy the party.  I tend to think of the aim of life (well, my life anyway) being fulfilment, challenge, achievement (whatever you take that to be). 

But I disagree with every other thing he says.  What a sad, boring life he must lead.  Good for him if he wants that, but what kind of narcissist wants to impose their own self-imposed misery on everyone else?

One of the most fascinating thing about the Calvinists is how many of them did believe they were going to hell.

If ever there were a reason to go out and do all the sinning you possibly could, that would be it. “Well, I’m already headed there, so FUCK IT!”

Mandos, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out if that Traditionialism In Action site is a parody or not.  Usually, my Parody Detector is pretty good but I have to admit that one’s got me flummoxed.  Surely, they can’t really believe that shit!  Egads.
DonnaDiva on 03/02 at 10:36 PM

As someone who lives in a nest of reactionary Catholics—

I’m afraid it isn’t parody.

Compared to these people my parents are reasonable and moderate, to be sure. As far as the skimming I’ve done so far suggests, TIA is, or at any rate has lots of, people who think that Pope Benedict is a dangerous left-wing radical. Whereas the reactionaries I have personally met love him just the way he is.

But I’ve certainly been exposed to some pre-Vatican II stuff that is in total agreement with TIA.

Actually it’s hard to believe that people this radical and in such a fusty, insane direction can possibly be of much relevance—except insofar as they provide cover for more “moderate” types just by existing, providing as it were leverage on the far right side of the Overton Window. But just as with left-wing radicals of the “emulate Peru’s Shining Path and eliminate money now!” type (an example I personally met back in the late 1980s) it is debatable whether the net effect is good or bad for people on their side sort of, but closer to the center—they make them look moderate but also associated with obvious dangerous nutcases.

But aside from personal judgments on the character and intentions of the recent Popes, a lot of Catholics agree with many of their points. Far from a majority of Catholics, but these people think of themselves as RealCatholics(tm) just as they think of themselves as RealAmericans(tm), and they assert themselves in every Church action, just as they dominate the US MSM on secular issues.

No really, because while Galileo was correct and all, he wasn’t virtuous.
DonnaDiva on 03/02 at 10:49 PM

I believe this was exactly the Church’s position—I’m just not sure if that was before or after John Paul II’s “apology.” The point was, and I think this was clear unofficially if not explicitly stated in his original indictment, that Galileo had a bad attitude in claiming that his personal observations and appeal to independent confirmation could bypass Church approval. IIRC, the Pope at the time rather liked Galileo and was interested in his findings, but was also worried about the theological repercussions and how that might affect the Church’s current political struggles against the Protestants, and so told Galileo to cool it with the letters and stuff; Galileo responded by writing a pamphlet—which might have been “The Starry Messenger” itself.

I don’t actually know then whether JPII merely apologized for the Church’s error (if he even admitted that much) in science and the injustice in saying he was wrong when he was right (and the Church authorities at the time could see that he was right), or whether he said there was anything wrong with the Church’s assertion of authority in ordering Galileo to shut up for other reasons. I don’t know if he still stands condemned as far the Church hierarchy holds for the crime of defying them.

They seem to be stuck on the 1950s TV lie that how you sound is more important than how you are. The whole idea that it doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong as long as there are proper respect for traditions and hierarchies.

Fundamentally, I think we’re seeing the simmering coming to a head on a long debate between authoritarians and libertines. That is people who believe institutions should come before people and those who think people should come before institutions or rules. In short, our enemies are fundamentally unable to understand that we don’t follow an authority and don’t mold our beliefs to match that authority’s.

I think it goes well with a lot of sexism and racism, because that’s the necessary to believe in in order to ignore the evidence out there. You need to believe that the “Order” of white above black, man above woman has some inherent force or goodness beyond the happiness of the participants and that the rituals must be given precedence in order to ignore how enforcing those arbitrary rules and limits limits everyone from growing together.

I suspect it’s so virulent in America is that crappy Alger capitalism crap wherein there is one exceptional person who succeeds and many fail and that is right and proper and you better watch out for others getting a leg up because they’ll use it to kick you down. It makes the rules and hierarchies a life and death struggle and opting out seem more dangerous for those still inside.