In Praise of Peter Lawler and Dixie

Peter’s delightful post, “Localism,” takes his work to a new level of literary achievement. This is the stuff of anthologies and “Greatest Works” collections. It is singularly brilliant, it reveals him not as your stereotypical “pointy-headed” philosophy professors but rather as a human being, willing and eager to stand for his beliefs in the concrete world . . . hear, hear!

Peter provides seven points for the reader’s consideration and because they are so well presented we’ll just, briefly, comment on them.

1. We already discussed “pointy headed.” And, again, thank you, Peter!

2. “It goes without saying that I’m against “localism” or “traditionalism” or any other “that’s the ticket” ism as a solution to the pathologies specific to modern life.”

Just brilliant and in total agreement with the leading philosopher/political theorist of the 20th Century, Eric Voegelin, who opposed pathological ideologies (Socialism, National Socialism, Communism, Fascism), though I doubt he considered “localism and traditionalism,” at least in the FPR “sense,” to be radical pathologies.

“It also means a stronger local life might balance out us cosmopolitans (like Deneen, who jets all over the place evangelizing localism).”

A beautifully delivered assault of FPR 1st Corps Commander, Maj. Gen. Patrick Deneen.

3. “We do have to remember that a lot of nationalization was in response to racism, and even that it might have been better had the South been more reconstructed than it actually was. It wasn’t Lincoln who destroyed the sense of place in the South, but the South’s refusal to give up what it should have given up.”

Well, here Peter falls back to the “Nationalist” default position which is: “localism” equals racism. Probably not a really good card to play. After all it’s arguable that one of the most notoriously racist communities in America was Skokie, and Skokie ain’t in Alabama. Also, Robert Penn Warren, always thought that “reconstruction” caused a lot more race problems than it ever solved (see his essay in I’ll Take My Stand ).

4. “The distinctively local features of life in Floyd County, GA are God, family, and country. This is a land of evangelical patriots, and they always tearfully stand up when they hear Lee Greenwood . . . ”

Peter’s nailed this one. Them Rebel boys join up whether its big Democrat wars or little Republican ones. Them boys just love a good fight, it’s in the blood. That’s why their great-great-great-great grandpapies were soldiers in the greatest light infantry army in American history..The Army of Northern Virginia.

5. “We do have people living the more totally organic life around here: aging hippies, home schoolers of a certain kind, a few professors, and others too. But they’re “secessionists.” They have their own little communities and often their own little churches. They don’t run the place, and the major charitable and community undertakings aren’t theirs.”

I put the whole point up. It’s a really nice shot across the bow of those pony tailed fifty-sixty year old lit and wymn’s studies profs with a giant bald spot though I really don’t think they’re “Secesh.” Some, however, might be a little “light in the loafers,” not that there’s anything wrong with that.

6. Peter as Localist, hear, hear!

7. “I am really, really for SUBSIDIARITY. That is, government policy ought to promote voluntary care giving based on love. We should take pride that, even now, most Americans still believe the sick, the disabled, and frail elderly are the responsibility of the family. In the European social democracies, most people regard them as the government’s problem. Thinking about that fact alone should have been reason enough both not to have voted for Obama and to have worked instead, with Yuval Levin and others, to get McCain to read, take seriously, and really defend his health care alternative.”

I put the whole point up again because there’s so much going on. First, Peter is right on, in his appreciation for subsidiarity, and makes a great point illustrating the moral differences between we Americans and the confused, socialist Europeans. The high snark laid on those of you who voted for He-Who-Serves-the-Unwashed was just precious. Say, “How is that Obama thing workin’ out for ya?”

Sadly, where our beloved philosopher becomes derailed is in his support of John “Let’s take Democracy to the Middle East” McCain.

Peter, that’s why the GOP lost the base!!!

In closing let me say, thank you, Peter, I really did admire your post! It was refreshing and no doubt re-kindled phase two of the Great PoMoCon/FPR War! And, finally, to you with love and admiration:

“ . . . .look away, look away, look away Dixie Land

Oh, I wish I was in Dixie!”