Monday, May 12, 2003
Okay, I'm obviously not getting to bed early.
John Derbyshire confesses that he's a "metropolitan conservative" by which he means that he would not vote for a sodomy law, would not vote to ban abortion, and would not vote to teach creationism. And he worries that makes him - and the National Review - somewhat inauthentic.
I'm sorry, John, all that makes you is English. Let's try some other hot buttons and see how you measure up:
* Would you vote to ban public-sector unions?
* Would you vote to eliminate the income tax?
* Would you vote to mandate all universities that receive any federal funding have ROTC on campus? And that all public high-schools host junior ROTC?
* Would you vote to withdraw from the U.N. immediately?
* Would you vote for severe penalties for harboring or employing illegal immigrants, tight border controls, and other similar measures?
* Would you vote to require public schools to allow student-led sectarian prayers on school grounds?
* Would you vote to greatly expand the application of the death penalty?
* Would you vote for enhanced domestic spying powers for the Federal Government targeted at specific ethnic, national or religious groups, on national security grounds?
I could go on. Feeling better?
I'm sure there are bible-mad creationists out there with a soft spot for illegal immigrants. For that matter, I happen to know ultra-Orthodox Jews who think the sun revolves around the earth but who are firm believers in the welfare state. And I know there are plenty of abortion abolitionists who have qualms about the death penalty or about the civil liberties consequences of the war on terrorism. Everyone's got their own hot-buttons.
I'm not saying there isn't some real meaning to the distinction you're drawing between metropolitans and provincials. But don't worry: you line up with the "provincials" on plenty of issues.