Wizblog

Whittle on Responsibility

Bill Whittle, a man that can make Den Beste look concise, has a new essay out called Responsibility. But since he usually has a lot to say, it's okay that it takes him a while to say it.

Whittle defines himself as one of a supposed "new breed" of conservative, that confounds the left by defying their stereotypes. He's right that his breed is different, but I won't concede that it's new. He goes on to talk about the "vast, sensible middle" of America, so I don't suppose he is implying that any previous incarnations of "conservatism" fit neatly into the left's concept of racist, homophobic, misogynistic neanderthal. He must know that won't wash, as large parts of my (boomer) generation stand as examples to the contrary. He's right on one thing though; old labels don't fit anymore. Actually, he's right on many things. Read it all as soon as you can. Here's an excerpt:

One of the things that makes the current political debate so rancorous is that we do a lot of talking past each other, because the old labels no longer seem to apply. Rachel Lucas is a gun-toting, idiot-intolerant, pro-gay, pro-choice conservative. My Liege Lord and Master, Emperor Misha I, the Hammer of Idiotarians, is a deeply religious, formidably armed firebrand who smashes with righteous fury any homophobic or racist morons who darken his cyberdoor. And Kim Du Toit, the rootin’-est, tootin’-est bad-ass hombre who ever lived, a veritable poster boy for the idea of an assault rifle in every crib, is a former South African who marched in the streets against racism and took huge risks fighting for the equality of all of his fellow citizens before he came home to America.

They, like me, call themselves conservatives, but we are indeed a new breed: pro-choice, pro-gay, vigorous defenders of equality of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. We’re big on freedom and big on responsibility.

The left hates us. We are harder to attack than the racist, homophobic, misogynists that they formerly could comfortably lambaste as right-wingers. (And they deserved to be lambasted, by the way – and I’m not even sure what lambasting is, but it does sound nasty and severe.)

His primary thesis, that how we define "responsibility" will determine our positions on a wide variety of divisive societal issues, is well stated and amply supported. And as always, he's fun to read.