Article here. For those of you not old enough to remember him, his debates with Shana Alexander on TV were the inspiration of the SNL skits between Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain back in the day.
Yay! I get to be first to say “No shit, he didn’t die 20 years ago?”!
It’s a good thing that he later recanted some of his beliefs (like his strong defense of segregation), but this one is especially embarassing:
Also, I wonder if conservatives really agree with this statement of his?
“Conservatives believe that a civilized society demands orders and classes, that men are not inherently equal, that change and reform are not identical, that in a free society men are children of God and not wards of the state.”
Actually, Kilpatrick was a fairly reasonable conservative; in his debates against Shana, he nearly always made the better points. Conversely, when he went up against Nicholas Von Hoffman – the first pairing for Point/Counterpoint – Von Hoffman usually got the better of him. You could disagree with Kilpatrick, but he usually did a good job of supporting his position.
Here we go into GD land!
“A civilized society demands orders and classes”- not rigid ones, but they do tend to such.
“Men are not inherently equal”- All people have equal rights as human beings. All Americans have certain Constitutional rights which should be applied with equality. All people are not equal as to their abilities or the results of their labors. It is governments attempts to equalize the latter to which conservatives object as infringements upon both liberty and the natural order.
The rest I totally agree with.
Except for the part about men not being inherently equal I mostly agree.
I don’t think civilized societies ‘demand’ orders and classes, but I do believe they are a necessary result if the society is truly to be free and civilized. (Two different terms which Buchanan seems to be conflating into one but which aren’t the same at all. North Korean society, for example, is civilized but hardly free). Some people are smarter and some people are more ambitious and some people are going to earn more money. This all results in groupings that eventually become classes. The only way to avoid them is by governmental repression, and even then you still have a ruling class.
Civilization by its very definition demands order.
Change and reform are unquestionably not identical.
I agree that free men should not be - and cannot be - wards of the state. To the degree they are, they are not free but subject to the will and caprice of the state.
And while I believe people should be free to be “children of God” if they so choose, I can’t honestly say whether belief in God is a necessary element in the creation and longivity of a civilized society or not. Has there ever been a society that was simultaneously free, civilized and Godless? I’m unaware of it if so. The inclination to believe in God in some form is a very powerful human impulse, and every civilized society I can think of has worshiped God (or multiple gods) in some form or another. The only societies I’m aware of that have been officially Godless have had that Godlessness imposed upon them by virtue of a government that has been dictatorial, oppressive, and often, murderous, toward its own citizenry, as has been the case in the Soviet Union, China and North Korea.
The absense of a belief in God very much appears to cheapen life and make it easier and less troubling to make people chattel of government or to murder them outright. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that most of the murders and other serious crimes committed in this country are committed by people with either no or very little religious convictions, and who therefore have no qualms as to the consequences of their crimes other than those that society might impose upon them if they’re caught.
So in my opinion the answer to the question of whether a society can be free and civilized and at the same time populated by athiests is, “we don’t know, but it hasn’t happened yet”.
He is not officially dead until announced in the death pool. So Baker can’t have his points until that happens.
Shana, he bought into this life. He knew what he was doing. I say, let him die!
While I rarely agreed with his political columns, his Writer’s Art columns were always a joy to read.
Shana, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!
Joe
I kinda think he deserves a better thread title than something he never said and never would have said.
How about “Old pasty-faced race baiter finally takes a dirt nap”?
I know this isn’t Great Debates, but I did read your posts, Starving Artist and Friar Ted, and appreciate seeing other “conservatives” (if indeed you call yourselves as such) give their perspective on his comments.
Thanks, Arnold. I’d wondered whether you’d made it back to the thread or not, and I appreciate the acknowledgement.
Joan Rivers trying a botox smile?