Comments on: Neither Porcher nor Libertarian

By: John Presnall

John Presnall — Sun, 30 May 2010 04:48:04 +0000

Noble gestures may be all that is left, but noble gestures pointing toward preserving what is best and criticizing all that is perverse. The noble gesture–dressed up in the proper garb of ordinary Americans of the early 21st century–is good because it does not seek complete annihilation as the basis of self sufficiency. This is the problem with porcherism, it gets too caught up in the need to destroy what is rotten that it ends up wanting to destroy what are admittedly thin reeds for a good life.

Such apocalyptic thinking is really beside the point. As Walker Percy asked–what happens when the bomb doesn’t drop and destroy everything? Any ethic that requires the destruction of everything in order for it to flourish is nihilism, and as guilty of willfulness and arbitrariness as the most radical of historical actors gone down in infamy.

So as Peter says, we’re stuck with virtue and may as well recognize this fact instead of expecting such no TV, no internet, no Wal Mart, no modernity ethic that can only emerge short of a miracle or complete annihilation.

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Sat, 29 May 2010 19:39:23 +0000

Thisahere pikchuresk porcher done thinks that Dr. Paul’s attempt to plumb the limits acceptable rhetoric is part and parcel of the Tick and Flea Collar School of Modern American Politics. In other words, he attempted entomology instead of simply hewing to the choice of tick collar brands. We just need to put a fresh flea and tick collar on the dog sos them pesky fleas will go someplace differnt fer awhile. It aint like the fleas will go away surely but we can always keep a good strong Code Orange on em.

Lawler, if we can somehow find a sound craft that will get the Libertarians to sit down with the Porchers and adjust their finer sensibilities to the craft of self-governance, we might have something. The POMOCONS are of course always welcome, as long as their flathead six has a governor installed to limit speed.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 27 May 2010 20:15:23 +0000

A noble gesture indeed and as you rightly point out completely insignificant practically — hence why they will never do it. The culture, so to speak, or the snowball effect that is taking place, is not going to be stopped by the Supreme Court and probably not going to come from congress either. Honestly, only complete catastrophe as Deneen asserts will be the real mode of transition. Of course I argued a similar point on the “Brave New World Hypothesize” and my conclusion was that it might indeed unleash the possibility of “Porcher self-sufficiency” or complete annihilation. Either way, “the revolution” won’t come easy.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Thu, 27 May 2010 18:38:29 +0000

In principle overturning the Obamacare mandate seems like affirming an outer limit. But it wouldn’t be prudent, and the mandate might even be defended constitutionally as an unavoidable piece in a complicated scheme that couldn’t work any other way. Activism here might push Congress in the direction of the public option as the only const. alternative. Anyone with any sense knows that the Court over a few New Deal years lurched from one extreme to the other. Overturning WICKARD in the right way would be a fairly insignificant (practically) but a noble gesture (symbolically) and a defense of at least the possibility of Porcher self-sufficiency in a free country.

By: Carl Scott

Carl Scott — Thu, 27 May 2010 17:28:33 +0000

Dr. Scott is in the process of packing up his office and will be unavailable for further comments until after June 2nd.–Frau Scott

By: Carl Scott

Carl Scott — Thu, 27 May 2010 17:23:42 +0000

The other problem here is this: the best con law regards the commerce-clause issue as something of a muddle. Christopher Wolfe’s books show you that clause itself, even if interpreted in a rigorously originalist manner, cannot require a strict adherence to classic dual federalism. Originalists generally are agreed that the Lopez and Morrisson cases showed there must be some outer limits to the commerce power, but as to how far in that outer limit goes, well, that’s pretty tricky stuff. Hopefully far in enough to eventually overturn the precedent in Wickard and to overturn the mandate in Obamacare, but a number of legal gray areas loom in those debates.

I’d say more, but I’m busy moving.

By: Progressive politics have not led to the breakdown of society - E.D. Kain - American Times - True/Slant

Thu, 27 May 2010 14:02:30 +0000

[...] Lawler, writing at Postmodern Conservative, has a great piece on the recent Rand Paul affair. If you recall, after Paul’s Kentucky primary victory, the son of [...]

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Wed, 26 May 2010 20:00:12 +0000

Peter, I understand, but I’m talking about the unhappy results of federal intrusiveness and heavy handedness in defeating Southern segregation.
Obviously, there’s no problem with the feds correcting state violations of the Constitution or federal law (i.e. following the appropriate court action). What I’m talking about is the feds forcing compliance to those CRA regs that violate the sacrosanct principles of ‘private property,’ contract, the freedom of association, etc.
An intrusive central gummint that seeks to expand its powers, for whatever reason (and it will always be for the “good”), is a threat to the freedom of all Americans.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:07:35 +0000

It is simply, that government endorsement, quickly turns into government accommodation. Affirmative action is the slippery slope of CRA, just as Rehnquist’s dissent in Wallace v Jaffree is the slippery slope away from the “high wall of separation.” Under the 14th amendment their movement is constitutional but in the long run tends to cause increased government interference instead of real benefit.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:16:44 +0000

Bob, But the probelm we got stuck with is governments that altered behavior through compulsory segregration. It’s beyond me, Ben, what Wallace v. Jaffree has to with race, with the primary intention of the 14th A.