The poet Robert Frost once said, “A liberal is someone whose mind is so broad that he cannot take his own side in an argument.” The furor over Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s commencement address at a devoutly Catholic Benedictine university in Kansas was a defining moment for traditional religious and other ostensible “conservatives.” Whatever their particular location on the broader power map of the right, too many looked at the ritualistic denunciation of a football player and decided that if Frost’s two paths diverge in the woods, they will choose the one that is less critical, regardless of whether it is their path or not. In this public battle session, they too will become Frost’s liberals.
It’s not that I couldn’t criticize the speech. No one believes that Bhatkar is a theologian, philosopher or even a poet. He is a traditionalist Catholic and a football player. If you look at this as a study text, you are sure to find a few small factual errors, some bad wording, and things that could easily be misunderstood outside of the conservative Catholic community he was asked to speak on. You will be able to. Maybe you even disagree.
The world is a battle between intelligence and rhetoric. Don’t be such a tolerant liberal that you can’t take your side when the battle is on.
However, let me say this with as much nuance as possible. who cares?
Butker did not provide an inspired text or a sure pronunciation of doctrine. He gave his commencement address, and everyone present at the ceremony (save for a few disgruntled graduates) gave him a standing ovation. Attendees, and most ordinary people, understand that even serious scholars, intellectuals, and writers do not have perfectly rendered or proofread speeches. They understand that when someone talks about the difficulties of living a serious Christian life as a Catholic or about high-profile issues like abortion, IVF, and transgenderism, that person is not perfect. .
What matters is your thoughts and your heart. Booker had enough of them.
But what did the purported conservative sources say? On CNN, conservative Jonah Goldberg called the speech “reactionary” and suggested it would have been difficult to give before social media amplified such views.
The article, which first appeared in Goldberg’s old home, National Review Online, was an attempted takedown. Haley Strzok’s “Harrison Butker Misses the Point” made some valuable observations, but it needed a few misinterpretations and unkind rebukes to get the job done. Strzok’s reference to women’s “devilish lie” that careers, promotions, and titles are the most important things in life was taken by Strzok to mean that women should never value careers or achievements. In fact, he said, to the young women themselves, they are not the most important or most valued. He also told the young men that it is a mistake to prioritize careers or work over their calling as fathers and husbands, and that his wife would help them avoid that.
Strzok also claimed that Butker promoted the idea that women were in a period of “limbo” between marriage and motherhood. Because Butker said his wife would be the first to say that her life truly began when she began fulfilling her calling as a professional. This is because the. As a wife and her mother. ” Incredibly wooden reading.
Strzok ended his article by saying that some of Pope Paul VI’s lines about loving one’s spouse for one’s own sake were “worthy of reflection,” referring to Butker’s wife, Isabel. The rather nasty implication was that Butker did not love his wife for herself.
N.R.O.Thankfully, he was smart enough to follow Rich Lowry’s column “Harrison Butker is right about men and women” and back up some of its kicker points with social science data. Ta.
There was plenty of other “conservative” criticism of Butker’s comments on X (formerly Twitter) and elsewhere. Many “I generally agree” are combined with laments about “tone,” “nuance,” and “cultural conflict.” Such small points showed that many on the right do not understand how the media mob works. Or maybe they did and just gave in.
If someone on the right is being criticized for saying something you generally agree with, the right thing to do is to support them. The left, the enemy of everything you believe in, doesn’t want you to say certain things, with or without nuance, so any “nuanced” criticism will be perceived as surrender. Those on your side will (probably correctly) see you as trying to ingratiate yourself with the ruling class and maintain your social and professional status, and will perceive your criticism as betrayal.
We live in polarized times. That can’t be helped. It is an intellectual and rhetorical war. When the battle is going on, don’t be too liberal to take your side. Wait until the smoke clears before making your critique. You’re less likely to seem as if you’re on the other side, and you’re less likely to mistakenly think people are talking about you.
