[...] Despite defects and some redundancy, the comment (at this precise moment still in “moderation”) may help to clarify the larger problem with American Conservative conservatism that our friend B Psycho has noted seems to “grind my gears”: [...]

I guess a hunk of this comes down to what to do/what happens when expediency and articulated political philosophy and moralisms collide.

It does tend to get a bit messy.

DeTocqueville, understood more then most the creeping despotism we face now, it's more Huxleyan then
Orwellian, where people ignore their real circumstances, California is if not a redoubt of that notion,

Little confused who is suggesting what you say is being suggested. Don't know anything about Signorile, but as a matter of history, the "social gospel" was very much a wellspring of Progressivism, not, in the minds of the Progressives anyway, as a substitute for faith, but as a calling of faith. The notion of "progress" typifies the modern and preceded the Progressives, but the modern or progressive insight would be an articulation of a pre-existing universal.

Well taking the notion, serious for a moment, he is suggesting the social gospel is the wellspring of progressivism, which effectively becomes a substitute for faith, the reaction to the '.4 percent GDP is indicative of this, or put another way, those wonderful extra grams of chocolate ration,

Not up to me, b-psycho, or to Mr. Signorile.

Is there any institution you are willing to leave intact:

“A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” — Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

No, he was part of the Journolist

...and? Can you not report on a movement without being a member?
And what's so terrible about being a labor lawyer?

Being "on Journolist" was bad enough, but, from the perspective of covering cons for the WaPo, he had, IIRC, said a few things taken as prejudicially hostile or dismissive by activists already prejudicially hostile or dismissive of media members for their presumed prejudicially hostile or dismissive attitides, as typified by the latter's presumption that conservative activists were prejudicially hostile or dismissive of them... etc.

No, he was part of the Journolist, we think that Rubin is a little naive on the implications of domestic policy, maybe because she was a labor lawyer, in an earlier life,

I never liked the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing. I will admit though that when it comes to conservatives the AmCon crew strikes me as more reasonable, if only because they seem willing to question the larger contradictions in political conservatism for the sake of the philosophical/cultural form.

Jennifer Rubin? Sorry dude, I'd call her an extremist nutjob and hack. I still think it instructive that on WaPo's right-wing beat they effectively picked her to replace Dave Weigel (who appears to have been excommunicated from a movement he never actually was part of -- he wrote for Reason, ffs!).

Will respond in detail later if I get the chance. For now, the image that I've attached to the post, that your comment reminded me of, will have to stand as my answer on the main part.

As for the BTW: The mode of AmCon rejection of exceptionalism goes to the heart of my differences with the AmCons, or what I think is dysfunctional in their approach. It grinds my gears because, by enemy of my enemy thinking, that would make the Jennifer Rubin-style neoconicals my "friends" instead. Since I like having my gears ground in this way, however, it's a good kind of problem as far as blogging goes, a challenge to delineate differences that are more interesting philosophically than "whose side are you on?"

Evolution of an individualist concept initially found by way of a certain religious belief to a point where it doesn't require that belief makes sense, really. Otherwise it'd have just remained the religious equivalent of talk of "the rights of Englishmen" from back then -- including an implication that non-Christians are void, or somehow less deserving of liberty.

Their view of Christianity was their path. It's not the only one.

Conservatism, as far as it even appears to be a coherent philosophy (generally there's correlation between extent to which it's associated with everyday politics and extent to which the term is more a grunt than an actual description), appears to me to turn this on its head. Their claim is that order -- in their conception, a very specifically defined order that happens to match their own preferences, more like enforced conformity -- is required for the liberty that classical liberalism seeks (or sought, you could say). It's an inherent contradiction though, as if you can't be other than what most are or challenge tradition then where exactly does the freedom part come in? It's like saying someone has a right to wear a hat, only to respond to them taking that hat off in public with contempt, if not outright violence. That's not a "right", that's a command.

BTW: would I be wrong to interpret something about the AmCon types largely rejecting exceptionalism kind of grinding your gears a bit?