Earlier this week you read two pieces on this blog that featured differences of opinion in Roman Catholicism and in right-wing blogging.

The Imaginative Conservative picks up on the theme of differences of opinion:

I believe it critical—absolutely critical—to note that a conservatism that embraces conformity or group think is no conservatism at all. It is merely a bizarre and unthinking traditionalism.

Any real conservatism must take into account several things. First, conservatism must accept the principle that each person is a unique reflection of the infinite. That is, each new person in the world arrives in a certain time and place, armed with certain gifts and weighed down by general faults. This person will never be repeated. She is unique, a particular manifestation of the Infinite and loving face of God.

Second, a real conservatism must accept that there are limits not only to the knowledge and wisdom any one person or group of persons understand or possess, but also a limit to what humanity—from Adam to the last man—can understand.

For as far back as I can remember, conservatism, broadly defined, struck me as the only sensible and humane way to view the world. The liberals I knew and saw in the news (Tip O’Neill and others) were among the most conformist, intolerant, and unimaginative lot…imaginable. When I heard others argue that liberalism (classical or modern) is good because it defends free speech, art, etc., I found it highly implausible. Anyone with the power of reason and observation knew these things to be blatantly and utterly false. …

Indeed, one of the things I love most about the “right” of the 1940s and 1950s was its desire to fight authority and proclaim the dignity of the human person. Think of Bernard Iddings Bell’s amazing book, Crowd Culture, Kirk’s struggle against “capitalists, socialists, and communists” in a Prospects for Conservatives, Eliot’s call for a “Republic of Letters,” Bradbury’s chastisement of the censors, and, especially, Thomas Merton’s claiming that the mass man is somehow even below fallen humanity.

As I grow older, I’m no longer as sure that conservatism is the protector of real diversity. I’ve not changed my mind about liberals or liberalism as a whole. Liberalism, or what remained of it, ran its course by the beginning of World War II. But, recently, I’ve seen the same trends in those who call themselves conservative or who embrace what they call “conservatism.” Now, I must wonder if what I saw in the 1980s was merely that the conservatives had yet to succumb to the forces of mass thought, group think, etc.

So many people among modern conservatism are, frankly, buffoons. Think about the governor of a western state who became a candidate for a major office and then the “star” of a reality show. Really? Or, how about the well-endowed plastic people on FOX? Or how about those with grand media access who claim to speak for the rest of us? These so called conservatives denigrate the liberal arts, mock women, and undermine our most sacred traditions. Give me a Kirk, a Bradbury, a Merton any day over these fruit-nuts.

I am not a name or a number, I am a free man. And, so are you.

How about that — a writer channeling his inner Number Six:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mir45UIvPL0

Perhaps I feel this way because I was never in (what appeared to me to be) the accepted social set in middle or high school, or because I’m in a line of work that demands (if you’re doing it right) independence. But there are a disturbing number of people today who anoint themselves the gatekeepers for who is a true Republican, or true Catholic, or true conservative, or true Packer fan, and who is not. (Obviously one of these is not like the other …)

I studiously try (though imperfectly) to avoid doing that. Since, as I’ve stated before, I’m not a Republican, it’s not up to me to decide who’s a Republican and who’s a Republican In Name Only. I assume it’s up to the GOP, of which I am not a member, to do that. I also assume it’s up to the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am not a member anymore, to decide who is a true Catholic and who is not. It’s their church, not yours, or mine, though I do think it’s fair to point out who’s trying to be a Catholic while failing to live up to the church’s tenets, which are pretty self-evident.

I think it’s also fair to point out that one of the central tenets of those who wear the collars in the Catholic Church, obedience to authority, is not really in keeping with the heritage of the United States. (That’s not why I left the church, but I’ve had my decision to leave the church validated numerous times since then. The only way in which the Roman Catholic Church is a democracy is its members’ ability to vote with their feet and their wallets.)

I think I need to rephrase that last non-parenthetical sentence. Obedience to authority is not really in keeping with the heritage of the United States … or at least it wasn’t in pre-Barack Obama America. Back when defying authority was fashionable, Bruce Springsteen began his cover of Edwin Starr’s “War” by announcing that “… Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed.” Neither Springsteen nor the rest of his entertainment industry ilk, with exceptions you can count on one hand (for instance, James Woods, who should expect an IRS audit anytime now) have expressed the same misgivings about their president, despite the fact that things have not been worse for Springsteen’s supposed inspiration, the blue-collar man, since the Great Depression.

It’s hard work to make judgments based on individual issues, but it’s more intellectually honest. It’s also more difficult to not blindly follow the crowd, but (as survivors of high school learn) the crowd is often wrong. It’s lonely sometimes to go your own way (among other things, you get falsely accused of arrogance), but, to quote John F. Kennedy, life is unfair.