Most of you know I'm not very into politics...but I do have two political weblogs in my RSS which pound it hard, Matt Yglesias on the "Left" and Daniel Larison on the "Right."1 I humbly request that Robert Wright have these two face off on Blogging Heads, just to see if English will allow them to communicate in any intelligible manner (please note, Ross Douthat over at The American Scene reads and is read by both, so there is only one degree of separation).
1 - Quotations are for two reasons...Matt Yglesias has sometimes stated that he wishes he lived in Europe...so he could be a European liberal (as opposed to Social Democrat). So his liberalism is really a function of the current political landscape. Larison is so reactionary that he really transcends being boxed in as "right-wing."
- Log in to post comments
Razib--
just to see if English will allow them to communicate in any intelligible manner
Laughed out loud, literally. :-)
Daniel Larison can best be described as a christian fascist. So is Larry Austad and, to a lesser extent, Paul Cella. I see no reason why I should feel any more indentification with christian fascism than islamo-fascism.
Fascism is fascism, period.
there's a diff. between facists and trads. also, larison is a lot less racialist than auster, and even cella, and about 100 X smarter than both.
Larison definitely reads Yglesias, and Yglesias has taken to citing Larison. So one degree of separation. They also both take the Loyalist side in the American Revolution, so I'm not sure how much they could disagree about.
I'll leave it to Daniel to explain the difference between theocracy and fascism to poor kurt9.
Not that Daniel's in favour of trying to produce a theocracy. That would be immanentizing the eschaton, something I'm reliably informed he's against.