You might be a pomocon if you watch Baywatch reruns because of the “virtuous” lifeguards. By Caleb Stegall - June 24, 2009 9 FacebookTwitterEmailPrint Hey, JP opened the door. RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Region & Place The Timeless Way of Building: A Review Short Flourishing, Paper, and Fake Meat The Feed Store Rejoice Evermore, Even for Grocery-Store Chicken The Stump Philadelphia: The City of Freedom The Barbershop The Hidden Sorrow of Valentine’s Day The Brass Spittoon Small Isn’t Beautiful? Localism and Its Critics 9 COMMENTS “Back in 2005 I had just moved to Washington, DC.” That should explain at least 75% of the pomocon phenomenon. I assume you’re referring to this bit, Caleb? The right really needs to rearticulate a confident view of sex–one in which beauty, virility, and fertility are admired as the noble things that they are, as against the ignoble, blasé, routinized transgressions that all too often pass for passionate adventurism among college students and midlife professionals alike. It’s not at all a question of puritanism. When it comes to our sexual culture, I’d like to see conservatives cultivate an ethic of contempt for simple pleasures cheaply won. It’s a good point, though I wonder how seriously Poulos has thought about the material conditions which make the “routinization” of “cheaply won” “transgressions” so “blasé”: about the valorization of pornography and so forth. As someone concerned about the “predicament of the individual,” it’s interesting that he, probably rightly, eschews an overreliance on puritanism (which, of course, kills off a lot of good art and creates resentments along the way), yet prefers a perhaps-moderately-heroic (or Stoic?) “ethic of contempt” as the proper guard against the corruptions and temptations of the fallen man, passing over the possibility that whole industries have developed to profit from and expand the reach of those very weaknesses. I like very much his list of influential thinkers and authors; and, as I said at the end of my post, his humble reflections on the differences between a “lifestyle” and a “way of life” are important ones which ought to properly always haunt our choices. But I don’t understand his point when he says: …we should muster the confidence to reject the conquest of local life by corporate hugeness when appropriate. I disagree with my friends at Front Porch Republic that basically it’s always appropriate to do this. I do think a culture of local argument about that appropriateness, on a day to day basis if need be, is part of the work of politics and citizenship… Isn’t the whole point of embracing “places” exactly mean that we want to maintain and enable arenas of sovereignty wherein such “local argument” can take place? One would think that it might be evident how having a Walmart could close off the possibility of “local life” in the form of local businesses. Although I suppose the rejoinder would be that people are free to choose local shops over Walmart, and so a community should not keep Walmart out by government prohibition, but should instead be persuaded to shop at the local businesses. If there is merit in this rejoinder, then it might be worthwhile to reflect on the ways the government at the state and federal levels create policies and regulations that “stack the deck” in favor of large businesses, e.g. accounting regulations that have a disparate impact on small businesses. Indeed, it might surprise proponents of “free markets” how much regulation supports big business, which must be regulated precisely because they are too big to be trusted locally. It’s too bad the same regulations necessary for big business often are imposed on small businesses. “…countin’ flowers on the wall, that don’t bother me at all, smokin’ cigarettes and watchin’ Captain Kangaroooo….” Caleb, Arben, dudes, let’s go easy here. I actually understood a great deal of this interview and found it informative. I did’t realize how much I do have in common with PoMoCons! Also, my life has become so frazzled with these ‘contretemps’ that I am purchasing at the local WALMART the X-Files series because I miss Fox and Scully, love the theme music, and have started a search for Art Bell…hey, don’t laugh, he interviewed the greatest priest of all time Fr. Malachai Martin, what a dude! And, speaking of the clergy, Rev. Wilson has taken Medaille’s side in the apparantly on-going Statist/Anti-Statist controversey over Medaille’s Catholic re-distribution/confiscation scheme. I trust the good Fr. Wilson will include his critque in his next blog so we might discuss the issue in full, the current critique being buried in the archives and me with dial up! Russell, Bob, you give me too much credit, I didn’t read past the Foxworthy bit … just havin’ a bit of a josh. Caleb, josh or not, I’ve got a feeling this may end up a significant thread! Gasoline anyone? In the Beginning, there was K Street. My Dear Mr. Cheeks, I hope the following article will address your concerns about my supposed statism: http://firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1263&theme=home&loc=b My objection had been that you had misread Medaille’s essay in presuming an argument for “redistribution.” Distributism ain’t that. Perhaps I missed something in his essay that indicated otherwise. I’ll try to have an essay worked up that suggests how to Distribute without redistributing, if such is worth the two-cents. My Dear Dr. Wilson, Perhaps, I am guilty of reading to speedily and misinterpreting Mr. Medaille’s position. If so, I will, happily, apologize publically to both you and he. Re: “I’ll try to have an essay worked up that suggests how to Distribute without redistributing, if such is worth the two-cents.” If your argument for Distributism is predicated on volunteerism, I have absolutely no problem with that. As you know, or as I think I’ve stated, my problem with Distributism is if it’s a function of taxation via the central/state gov’t and the redistribution of those funds by the statist welfare bureaucracy then I do have a problem. Perhaps, if you just explained Mr. Medaille’s version of Distributism we can bring the matter to denouement. Comments are closed.