Chris Bertram posts about the rhetoric of reaction, linking to an interesting Tanner Lecture of that title. Me? I've got eye-strain issues these days. Gonna give the computer a rest in the evening - for a couple days probably - and curl up with my new Gene Wolfe book, while the rest of the world apparently curls up with Quicksilver.
My thought for the night about conservatism. I've been sort of mulling a long post, but it's really a simple idea: there is no way even to begin to conjoin so-called social or cultural conservatism and economic conservatism. Because the latter assumes that (economic) laissez faire is good: change will tend to be for the better. And the former assumes that (cultural) laissez faire is bad: change will tend to be for the worse. It would of course be possible to render these theses consistent by arguing that human beings tend to make good economic decisions but bad cultural or social ones. But it's a little hard to see how this could be made plausible.
In a sense it's all more complicated. In another sense, it's just plain obviously right that these things can't possibly go together. What's the point? This is supposed to be a first step on the way towards reforming political terminology, 'conservative' (like 'liberal') being an almost terminally infirm designation ... But I'll leave it there for now. My eye is bugging me.