Tasty Tidbits 9/11/11

1. Anniversary reflections.
2. Affirming the unsupportable.
3. Rooting for the Dark Horse – maybe.

1

I earlier posted some reflections on this solemn anniversary.

2

In “The Perry Death Penalty Cheer,” Rod Dreher thoughtfully continues the discussion of the cheers when Rick Perry was asked about 234 executions in Texas. I continue to think that the cheers were barbaric, even after reading the counterarguments, as does Rod.

After acknowledging that the people of California (where the debate was held) had been virtually held hostage by their State Supreme Court on the death penalty, and that applauding the death penalty was a way to push a class warfare button, he continued:

The problem with this is that conservatives and liberals who allow their thinking to be driven by class resentment and identity politics may end up affirming things that are unsupportable as a thoughtless gesture of defiance. If it pisses off the liberal elites (or conservative yahoos), it must be right — that sort of thing.

(Emphasis in original)

Precisely. I’m not opposed to being provocative, but it needs some thought in it. Simply cheering for 234 deaths is more barbaric than a raised middle figure as a calculated provocation.

I wonder how much nonsense the left supports mostly because it enrages their right people?

(Dreher also trenchantly discusses the common rhetorical trope of “don’t dare think you’re morally superior.”)

An article in The American Conservative magazine itself (as opposed to Dreher’s blog) also calls the death penalty into question via The Hanging, a classic short story by Eric Blair (n/k/a George Orwell) and set in Burma where he had just served a stint as a policeman. The comment boxes on that story are worth reading, too.

It certainly appears that capital punishment is one of the defining issues between the liberal establishment and movement conservatism. But not all conservatives are “movement conservatives,” and support of capital punishment is not a sina qua non of authentic conservatism.

3

To my pleasant surprise, soft-spoken John Huntsman appears to be a candidate I might support. I guess that with 8 months until the primary, 14 to the general election, this isn’t too late a discovery.

One of his deviations from conservative orthodoxy is his support of civil unions. I’d like to hear his rationale for that, and the scope: what pairs would be eligible, in other words?

There is a civil union proposal I’m willing to discuss: civil unions for any two adults, unmarried, who appropriately pledge their mutual support, without any implication of erotic involvement.

I think the discussion of such a proposal, in and of itself, could sharpen our collective apprehension of “what are the public goods served by permanent pairings?”

• Does just any pairing off of adults for mutual support serve a public good?
• If not, does adding eroticism to it add the missing public good?
• If not, does adding procreative eroticism add the missing public good?
• etc.

In the end, I suspect I’d be opposed to civil unions on financial grounds, but I wouldn’t know for certain until there is an intelligent discussion of that important topic – discussion that’s darned hard to find now.

Back to Huntsman, whose diplomatic style distinguishes him from a field mostly consisting of slashers, burners and fire-breathers: Will GOP primary voters actually vote for a conservative if voting for him doesn’t raise a large, tacit middle finger as a gesture of class warfare?

Bon appetit!