Lawler-ism and Ralph-ism are philosophic standpoints that could be made into (long-ish) manifestos. One could do well to think about how they compare with other Strauss-influenced standpoints.

But I think the shared pomocon-ism represented by this blog now, i.e., by its regular commenters and contributors, and thus encompassing folks as different as Peter and Pete, Robert Cheeks and Jim Ceaser, Kate and James Mr. Postmodern Conservative Poulos, etc., is as much an intellectual temperment and a general sympathy with major aspects of Lawler’s standpoint than it is anything else. The blog used to be more explicitly philosophic, and if I recall correctly at one point folks did talk of a manifesto trying to bring together the thinking of Peter L., Ralph H., James P., and Ivan the K., but the only manifesto provided was more Ralph-ism than common pomocon-ism. Which was fine. Now we sort of have three aspects: 1) the philosophic/religious, 2) the pop-cultural, and 3) the political. And more of our content is in the second and third.

I’m not so sure how much it matters to explain these things regarding pop culture. But then, too, it seems that whatever I have to say has so many sediments of pop culture allusion layered one upon the other that it must be examined archaeologically.

Regardless of such bringing to light of hidden layers of music, one can enjoy the music you post in the terms that you post it.

I see what you mean about conservatism, but I wouldn’t want to narrow the field to something like that for its own sake. I guess that is what’s meant by postmodern conservatism, i.e., a deep appreciation of what Jack Teagarden and Frankie Traumbauer played well.

A long time ago Peter L mentioned doing the most unconservative thing, i.e., writing some kind of postmodern conservative manifesto. It would at least help to explain what this blog is not about. Whatever happened to that idea? If it ever happened, I promise to restrain my hyped up rhetorical self!

Manifesto is probably the wrong term here. Whatever it were called, it would still take Peter’s deep understanding of who we are as relational beings (including the theotropic relation) and his fascinating forays into popular culture like his analyses of Girls. It would take your cultural (primarily musical) knowledge and how the decades since the ’60s (and the popular attitudes regarding the political and sexual revolution) have played themselves out in terms of love, pride, and the consequent viability of institutions that make such passions find proper formation. It would require the politically strategic knowledge that Pete S offers, especially when he couples such strategies of persuasion with a mastery of the facts of the fiscal crisis (and others) that the debate regarding public policy means for the general welfare. Kate could offer her fine thoughts on local and national issues, and Jason could offer his insights regarding TV and movies. I guess that would leave the few angry polemics–those which may be necessary–to me (with a few movie reviews).

Of course, the rigorous “Ralphism” regarding philosophy’s relationship to the requirements of political choice (insofar as choice is possible) must have its voice. And the “Ceaserism” in fine explanation and defense of such choices regarding what is best in the American political tradition in terms of “political development” needs to be evident too (as well as Ceaser’s entertaining stories about crabs on the beach and the use of kitchen cooking devices acquired during bouts of insomnia).

Mr. Postmodern Conservative himself–James Poulos–needs to throw in his ideas in terms of his interesting career of insightful analysis.

Regular commenters like Paul Seaton, Pseudoplotinus, Bob Cheeks, C.J. Wolfe, and other important persons ought to be there too.

Mr. Lewis may say that this has something to do with intellectual property–copyrite or copyright–but being only a lawyer’s son, I must admit that I never understood what the hell Mr. Lewis was talking about anyway. Hegel and Kant make more sense to me. That said, he apparently has something to say about postmodern conservatism too. So welcome aboard!

This postmodern conservative explanation needs to be done. “Making Manifest the Postmodern Conservative Persuasion”–I agree it’s too wordy. It is simply a proposal. Or “The Pomocon Persuasion.”

That said, given the diversity of concerns evident on this blog the title may be easier than the explanation, and I would not want to destroy that diversity (rightly understood)!