I'm not sure. There's something at stake, and whatever it is has a value that exceeds that of the truth. There's some kind of loss in repudiating a legacy even after it's beyond any hope of rehabilitation. But what's lost? That's what I don't get.
One possibility is that the value of the truth for some people is extraordinarily low, with little or no inherent benefit in acknowledging it without it being tied to some other form of advantage.
The other possibility is that "the legacy" (of the right) is so deeply coded to the old/white/male/Christian patriarchal order, that anything it ever staked its reputation on must be defended, or at the very least its failures must be forgotten, in the hope of maintaining the integrity of the whole -- or at the very least, the idea of the "good fight". And I think there are whole groups of camp followers (middle-class women, most notably) who've hitched themselves to that task and who resent anything that reminds them that it's sliding into demographic oblivion.
no subject
One possibility is that the value of the truth for some people is extraordinarily low, with little or no inherent benefit in acknowledging it without it being tied to some other form of advantage.
The other possibility is that "the legacy" (of the right) is so deeply coded to the old/white/male/Christian patriarchal order, that anything it ever staked its reputation on must be defended, or at the very least its failures must be forgotten, in the hope of maintaining the integrity of the whole -- or at the very least, the idea of the "good fight". And I think there are whole groups of camp followers (middle-class women, most notably) who've hitched themselves to that task and who resent anything that reminds them that it's sliding into demographic oblivion.