I took these words from a response to a fine post by Carl Scott, and decided to make them into a not so fine post of mine here–

A long time ago Peter Lawler 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 were ever to happen, I promise that I would restrain my hyped up rhetorical self–insofar as that is possible!

Manifesto is probably the wrong term here. Whatever it were to be called, it would still have to take into account as a central question Peter Lawler’s deep understanding of who we are as relational beings (including the theotropic triune relation) and his fascinating forays into popular culture like his analyses of Girls. It would also take into consideration Carl Scott’s 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. No doubt, it would require a serious examination of the politically strategic knowledge that Pete Spiliakos offers, especially when he couples such strategies of persuasion with a mastery of the facts of the fiscal crisis (and other important issues) that the debate regarding public policy means for the general welfare. In such a light, Kate Pitrone would be able to offer her typically intelligent thoughts on local and national issues, and Jason (or is it Jonathan?) could offer his insights regarding TV and movies (like his piece on the TV series American Horror Story). I guess that would leave the few angry polemics–those which may be necessary–to me (with a few movie reviews on occasion–I’ll see Soderbergh’s Side Effects tomorrow, and may have some words to say afterwards).

Of course, the rigorous “Ralphism” of Ralph Hancock regarding philosophy’s relationship to the requirements of political choice (insofar as choice is possible) must have its voice. And the “Ceaserism” of James Ceaser, 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 and successful career of insightful analysis, of which he and we can be so proud.

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. Kant and Hegel 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)!