Righty Philosophers

I have begun reading a set of blogs which loosely might be called blogs of philosophers who are right-wing.
Now some are Conservative, and the distinction I make between right-wing and Conservative is, to me, a very real one. I find the right-wing ones - and there is one in particular I have in mind - take a great deal of satisfaction in once having been radical and liberal and, now after they are "older and wiser", they are very anti-Liberal. They find the New York Times to be the great totem of Liberalism, just as their opposites find Fox to be some totem for the Right.

It is refreshing to find philosophers who have abandoned Truth for Persuasion... very refreshing. It is a lesson to find Philosophers who find Politics to be a mirror of Faith.

They take a great deal of pride in it, which is well, otherwise they would contemn themselves, and ain't nobody that does that willingly. I suppose they have a plaque somewhere with that maxim of
Francois Guisot (1787 -1874):

"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is
proof of want of head."

Revived by Georges Clemenceau, French Premier during World War I :
"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."

It is usually ascribed to Churchill nowadays, and goes something like youth is revolutionary and middle age is Tory, or some such thing.
It is a good quote; it is a characteristic of good quotes that they are almost always misquoted and put into the mouth of the wrong historical figures: they are so good, it does not matter. However much enchantment we experience from great sound bites, enchantment does not equal cold, light-of-day Truth. Not a bit. 

I find it interesting that they have left one prison and marched so gaily into another, and they are positively busting their buttons with pride.
If our lives had a span of eight score and ten, what new idol would they find at their later age?

--