If there is one thing I’ll agree with Leonard Pitts, jr about and that is having to shake one’s head at “conservatives” who would remake God’s word in their own image.  Right, republished in the Spokesman-Review of 19 October 2009, a description of a highly politicized “Conservopedia” and those of a very radical ideology who’d turn God’s word into a book of free market principles.  Uh, excuse me but I do believe that God was supposed to be opposed to people creatively interpreting the bible however they see fit.  And “Christians” who saw themselves as fundamentalists held a strict constructionist view of the bible.  God’s word was literally true as written.  So, you now have to wonder why guys who are supposed to be ideologically pro the institution would now challenge the institution, even the tenets of their own bibles?  That’s a pretty remarkable departure from where “conservatism” once stood.  That is, if it can in fact have the illusion of “conservative” any longer.

The one area that I can disagree with Pitts, if you are going to describe radical departures from an initial founding ideology in just the past two decades, why do you still describe this radicalism as conservative?  Conservative as a principle isn’t a buffet where people can select from a table of goodies and decide which will be more appetizing.  That would be like walking up to a buffet where you have your dishes of veggies and meats, breads and soups, salads and deserts; and then making your meal only of desserts and declaring that you just ate a healthy meal.  If the idea that the above described ought to raise eyebrows, then the radicalism that has replaced what used to be called “conservatism” in accordance with dictionary definitions one of which Pitts put into his column, that ought to raise eyebrows too, and be treated with as much disbelief.  If you believe in the bible and regard its historical lessons as having utter validity, there would be no cause to change the language and have God preaching the “invisible hand” or becoming a fan of Ayn Rand.  On the other hand, treating the moral lessons of the bible as a “liberalism” that can be simply dispensed with.  The God who’s prophets and other noteworthies such as King Solomon himself, writing in the name of God, didn’t exactly espouse “greed is good,” individual to the extreme, gvt is good when I want it and bad when it falls into the hands of the opposition, collectivism is a good thing when it is defined on my terms and “communism” when others may benefit.  God that can be rewritten to permit me to hold my fellow man in contempt.  To be noisy in my faith on street corners or in any other place of my choosing, regardless of what Christ that I claim association with actually thought about that.  Which actually, according to the bible I have, Christ was utterly opposed to that kind of thinking.  Shouldn’t conservative be to keep and value what you have?

Well then, if “conservatives” can’t even value a bible if it doesn’t carry the sort of language they would prefer, then it brings to mind what I am fully aware of that had their antecedents properly frothing over.  Multiculturalism, for example:  where American history must suddenly go through a process of revisionism because of the fact that standard history books tended to overlook the contributions of minorities to this nation.  That as a consequence of such revisionism, something “anti-American” existed at the base of such multiculturalism.  That the majority ought to take no further pride in being who and what they are or for that matter, who and what the founding fathers happened to be.  Or secular humanism:  Where faith no longer guided morality.  Evolution:  that was deemed to have taking God’s place and promoted by “atheist” scientists.  Marxism or Communism that put the faith of man into man and gvt.  But not into God himself.  Anything that could cause the youth of this nation to stray from the straight and narrow was deemed suspect.  Books, movies and videogames; could influence them negatively.  Songs, politicians and the next door neighbor; could make your child a total and uncontrollable stranger.  What passed for “conservative” even twenty years ago was actually a fear of the real world and also of one’s fellow Americans.  None the less, there was still a basis to believe that some of what was said did have elements of true conservatism in it.  Literally, why break what works well right now?  Why turn from the tried and the true?  Why revise what is literally acceptable right now into something that is unrecognizable and therefore unacceptable?  Why distort?  Why recreate something that departs from its original format?  Propaganda does not replace well, the truth.  A faith in God ought not be replaced by faith in the things of man or man himself.  That there should be throughout, a core of principles of values that should not be departed from.  But as Pitts has described it, over the past 20 or better years, radicals have been slip-sliding away from such sound principles.  In that, they have become much more like the “left” that they once derided than they ever were like their predecessors.  And that is quite a shame.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: