Mark,

You're describing 'moderate' in the old sense which was usually analgous to 'wishy washy' or 'lukewarm'. I always thought it meant, "less passionate about an ideal than the rest of us."

I agree we could take 'moderate' to mean, "less inclined to extremism" or something like that. The problem is that again, if you call yourself a moderate it implies everyone else is extreme. For example, a socially liberal Republican self-identifies as a Moderate. So the implication is that any position to the right of them is extreme. But I would argue that opposition to abortion is a fairly mainstream conservative position. There's nothing extreme about it. (Of course we could say that people who want a full ban with no exceptions are extreme, but to argue that anything other than being pro-choice is extreme is very inaccurate.)

From Bob:

"For me once you embrace the ‘foreign intervention’ postition you ain’t a conservative, your a RINO, neocon, movement, statist Republican.
It’s not Conservatism that’s in the crapper it’s the GOP, because of the RINO, Neocon,movement, statist Republicans."

So I could be a by-the-book conservative on every other issue, but if I was, say, in favor of invading Iraq, then I am no longer a conservative? Are we looking for 100% purity here? Has that what conservatism has come to?

It keeps coming back to the stupidity of labeling people verses positions. We have these very long, very unnecessary battles where we challenge someone's self-labeling because they hold one or two contrary opinions, even though they stand with us 80% of the time. If we allowed people the fluidity of labeling their positions rather than themselves, we would probably have a much more productive dialogue. It would sort of be like a parlimentary system with various coalitions forming to deal with certain issues.

E.D.,

I just posted a big criticism of the moderate label the other day over at Progressive Republicans. My thesis is that it's a problematic label because it's vague and it implies that everyone else is extreme. I think we need to be more specific. i don't like the idea of calling someone who is 75% conservative but liberal on some social issues a 'moderate'. Why not be more specific and call them a socially liberal conservative?

Rod Dreher is a social conservative. Other people might be fiscal conservatives. Or foreign policy conservatives. Or 2 of the 3. or something else. This speaks to a premise that Scott Payne and I discussed awhile back of labeling positions on various issues rather than people. It allows for more variation.

It's not enough to simply agree with the end goal of certain conservatives anymore. Now you also have to agree with the exact methodology. I recently told a fellow conservative that I was opposed to gay marriage but felt that constitutional amendments banning gay marriage were a violation of conservative principles. I was told in response that I might as well endorse gay marriage since I don't support any and all efforts to stop it.

I think what i have come to realize is that there are a lot of conservatives who have conservative goals, but the problem is that they are more concerned with 'winning' than sticking to principles. So principles be damned and anything done in the name of achieving victory is okay. That attitude is bad enough but this eventually leads to the misconception that any actions taken in pursuit of conservative goals are conservative by association. So a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that I believe even Barry Goldwater would have been horrified by, is presented as conservative because of its goals.

I cut my teeth on a Texas Instruments PC. Games that were mostly knock-offs of other systems but the colors were fantastic and it had a voice box so you could actually get speech which was pretty revolutionary in 1981. I miss that old thing sometimes.

As in AL, AK, AZ....?

There are still neo-cons in the world?

I'm curious..If we are an empire in some new sense of the word...please define 'colonies'.

Being a fellow Kentuckian I like Berry. On this point I am sort of in disagreement. I pay a fee every year to have my dog registered, plus I pay for a round of shots so he can go out in the world and not spread rabies, kennel cough, etc. It's the price of pet ownership and I gladly pay it. It should be no different with livestock, no matter how small the 'herd'.

Need I remind anyone that bird flu began in very small, backyard chicken populations in Asia? And I believe swine flu had a similar genesis in small-scale Mexican pig farms.

It's ironic that so much is written by well-educated folks, many of whom are feminists that support and nearly exalt the idea of divorce...yet so many of them choose marriage themselves. While the divorce rate soared in the 60's, 70's and 80's it leveled off among educated women in the 90's and has remained relatively low ever since. It seems that after the great purging of troubled and abusive marriages, most educated women just start making better choices of mates. People like Ross Douthat and Kay Hymowitz have written about this phenomenon. Educated women seem to realize that the best environment for raising productive children (the ultimate goal of parenthood is to pass on one's success to their children) is to have a good husband to help raise them.

For me personally, I recognize my mariage as not just a source of companionship and romance, but also as a partnership with a very intelligent and hard-working woman. We doubled our purchasing power when we were married, we balance each other's skills, we divide the workload of raising kids and maintaing a home, etc. THAT is the strength of marriage. A good marriage truly is a rock, in ever sense of the word, on which you build a family.

I am torn in the debate between Dan and Conor. On one hand, I agree with Dan that we should differentiate between conservative and Republican in the sense that you can't have a bunch of liberal opinions and then try to couch them as conservative just because you self-identify as conservative. You can do that to a degree as a Republican, since there are at least some ideas that would be good for the GOP but aren't really conservative (helping rather than trying to kill the Education Department, for example). I also agree with Conor that you can't discount people who hold some conservative views, like a Rod Dreher, just because they aren't ideologically pure.

I guess the question is what % of your views have to be conservative in order to get he stamp of approval. 60% ? 75% ? I believe Reagan said 80%.

The opinion that is starting to form in my mind is that liberalism and conservatism need each other and in an ideal world, they work together as a team. I make the analogy of a car approaching a sharp turn. The liberal approach is to trust their ability to reason out the best time to cut the wheel and they hit the gas. The conservative approach is freak out about the approaching curve and try to pull the car over to the side of the road. When both sides work together, the liberal has the courage to take the turn and the conservative has the good sense to tap the brakes so they don't drive off the cliff.

The point of my clumsy analogy is that liberals are always wanting to move forward and excited about 'progress'. Conservatives are usually looking backwards wistfully and thinking about tradition and custom. As Disraeli said, the ideal arrangement is to move forward slowly and cautiously with respect for tradition.

I'm also inclined to say that this arrangement would nearly rely on conservatives always being the minority party. They function best as a sort of trouble-shooting mechanism to restrain liberal exuberance.

When I was doing archaeology we often said that the only difference between ourselves and landscapers was a $40,000 diploma. The physical part of the work was eerily similar. My back is happy I left the profession, by the constant battle with my waistline as I sit 10 hours per day is not always a welcome trade-off.

Uggggh...county...not country.

E.D., Without a library our house would enter a fit of depression. We are extremely fortunate to have a quality library system here in Louisville. Not too long ago we talked about moving to an adjacent country. Good schools? Check. Decent tax rate? Check. Good housing prices? Check. Good library system? Ummm.... we decided to stay where we were.

It seems like the same laws that govern a library being able to purchase a book and then share it for free should apply to Kindle. Or better yet, one person buys the book through Kindle and then can 'donate' it to their local library.

I concur ED. My own personal hesitation with the Kindle is A) I'm a library guy. I hardly ever buy novels. I borrow them and return them. B) I don't want to pay for newspapers I can read for free online. C) I get what you're saying about memories. I read a thriller series on vacation a couple of years ago. Everytime I think of those books I also think of lying on a bunk in a cabin in New Hampshire, the smell of the lake and my kid's sunscreen and the sound of my wife softly snoring on the bunk next to me. I can't imagine ever getting that experience from a Kindle.

With all of that said, I like the concept for media consumption, but the pricing model has got to change before I take a serious look.

When i was in college some of my history professors really liked us to read primary material from the period. I would recommend two works;

Historia Ecclesiastica

The Rule of St. Benedict

The first one is a bit hard to get through, but it's an important work. The second one isn't too bad. Both are very insightful into the history of the early church.

And of course there are St.Paul's Letters which are the most instructive parts of the Bible (IMO) regarding the organization of the early Church.

Lastly, I'm a big fan of Thomas Merton. He's the Thoreau of the theological world.

As much as I am pained to admit it, my gut tells me that you are right and this movement will not accomplish what we all hope it will. I think there may be a little progress, but I also think that ultimately they will just say Ahmadinejad won by smaller margin than previously reported.

Just wondering. I tend to think of progressivism as something that can comfortably exist on both sides of the aisle. More of a modifier to traditional liberalism or conservatism than an ideology in itself.

Good point Mark! That leads to my question for E.D. (and let me preface this question by apologizing if I've asked it here before.)

E.D. , When you say, "I have described progressive and conservative politics as existing in a sort of necessary “civilizational tango.” are you using 'progressive' as a substitute for 'liberal' or do you mean something else?

As an ancillary to the issue of schools and community, this has been one of the great problems with forced integration i.e. 'busing' as we call it here in Louisville. Kids that are taken out of their neighborhoods and shipped across town, are placed into a situation where it is harder for their parents to be involved. And it's the low-income/minority students who are hurt the most. A low-income parent who works a long day in a demanding job is often not in a position to travel across town after work for a PTA meeting or a parent-teacher conference. The only problem of course is if we do keep the kids in the communities they live in and even create more schools, then we may be compounding the problems we know exist when there is no economic diversity among student populations.

As far as middle schools and high schools being less numerou, I guess it depends on the community. Here we have 88 elementary schools, 25 middle schools and 22 high schools (not counting Catholic schools which are a big part of our local educational offerings). I think the smaller number of locations at the higher levels is probably the 'college prep' part of their work. I helps prepare kids for larger schools and more diversity in the classroom. I know even with my high school of 1000 or so I was very overwhelmed my first couple of weeks on a college campus of 10,000 or more.

From Will: Here’s a question - did the rationale for Craig’s anti-gay legislation hinge on his sexuality? I mean, I can’t really see why personal hypocrisy somehow invalidates other, more substantive arguments against gay marriage (or whatever it was Craig legislated against).

I'm with you on that point Will. I would venture that most conservatives don't suggest we make gay acts illegal. We just have reservations/oppositions to marriage. If Craig or any closeted gay politician is opposed to gay marriage that doesn't necessarily make them a hypocrite at all.

Interesting topic. I also omit my last name, primarily because I came to blogging from the chatboards and I saw some horrible instances of internet stalking. The (relative) civility of the blogging community has made me consider using my last name...but since I often use a work computer to blog on my lunch hours (totally okay with company policy, but the gray area scares me) I've opted to avoid it.

I was challenged not to long ago by a KY journalist who visits my blog from time to time. This guy pretty much said if you don't use your full name when blogging politics you're a p*ssy. I disagree but that's his opinion.

I think if you're going to make specific references you should give at least a little background. I like to talk history and i will often preface my remarks by mentioning i was a history major or that i used to be an archaeologist. It (hopefully) lends a little weight to what i'm saying, although I certainly don't think that experience makes my opinion more important than a layman who reads a stack of history books every month while I'm working my corporate job and haven't put a shovel in the ground in a couple of years.

For me, I'm most protective of my family. I will freely mention I have a wife and two daughters but I don't ever use their names or give any specifics. Someone who wants anonymity for themselves should fiercely protect the anonymity of others.

As one other general rule, 'outing' anonymous bloggers is a horrible tactic in my book and i hate to ever see it happen.

Bob,

I did okay on those papers! It's interesting how prior to WWII you had all kinds of ethnic enclaves around the country and people thought of themselves very much as part of their ethnic community. WWII shattered that image and really solidified thinking of themselves as simply 'Americans'.

For Israel I think if they can get recognition and then be willing to include non-Jews in their compulsory military service it would be a very interesting devlopment. Non-Jews thinking of themselves as Israelis would be a significant shift in Israel's history.

I use the email feature with heavily trafficked blogs where it's harder to get back and check the post for follow-ups. It can be annoying when you lose interest in the thread but your still getting emails a week later. I'm sure there's a way to turn that off...I'm just too lazy to investigate.