I can't say I followed him all that closely, but when I Google search my blog, I see he got a mention a dozen or so times.
On the good side - he took his anti-communism seriously enough to be actively involved in supporting dissidents, and his overall philosophy of the values of a conservative mindset seemed a useful contribution to political philosophy (and has endeared him forever to the American Right). His writing on aesthetics could be interesting. He was very badly treated by the New Statesman last year for no good reason.
On the not-so-good side: he was lauded early on as being a (rare in global terms) conservative who took climate change as a serious issue and didn't deride it as something to be ignored. But, like some other conservative figures (hello, John Howard), he moved from apparent initial acceptance of science to interpreting it so thoroughly through a culture war lens that you could pretty much say he ended up a friend of deniers. The GWPF quotes him, for example, and he was happy to be out supporting IPA events. If only he took that issue as seriously as his anti-communism.
I had also forgotten how strenuously conservative he was on matters of sexuality early on, but he came to change his mind somewhat. He also was a secret paid shill for tobacco - a really disreputable way for a conservative to make a living, if you ask me.
Finding conservatives who don't have - shall we say - "problematic aspects" to their lives and beliefs is quite the challenge.
3 comments:
Lots of similarities between tobaccy deniers and global warming deniers.
Of course he knew it was bullshit. He's a trained philosopher. Such people know you need evidence in science you fucking idiot. And you don't have any. You never had any. You cannot find any. I cannot find any so you cannot find any.
A secret paid shill for tobacco. So secret that he never actually encouraged anyone to smoke. Those tobacco companies sure are crafty.
Post a Comment