>
> On Sep 14, 2009, at 2:30 PM, farmelantj at juno.com wrote:
>
> There was among other things the
>> obvious thing that a full throated defense
>> of free market capitalism is incompatible
>> with the defense of traditionalism, since
>> capitalism itself is the greatest force
>> for undermining and destroying time hallowed
>> traditions as Marx noted long ago.
>>
>
> Of course you could deny that the market destroyed tradition and say
> instead that you need the moral inheritance of religion to act as a check on
> market passions. Or you could argue, as do many of our fundies, that the
> market is a wonderful mechanism of reward and punishment to keep us fallen
> humans in line, with worldly success as a kind of visible measure of virtue.
>
> I've long made the argument Jim makes and cites Judis as making about
Buckley's failed attempt at the synthesis of the economic and cultural
right, but... well, the more I teach this stuff, the more I can't help but
stress the class-bound romanticism of traditional conservatism and the
historical fantasies of populist neoconservatism. I guess the synthesis is
the success of utilitarian and libertarian political economies generate
processes of differentiation and homogenization that produce romanticism and
fantasicism on the cultural right.
Any thoughts?