Writing about the recent Limbaugh kerfuffle, Catholic turned Orthodox and self described “Crunchy Con” Rod Dreher writes the following passage notable for its insensitivity and abject cluelessness.

Victor Davis Hanson begins a post on NRO thus:

All these highbrow conservative attacks on Limbaugh keep missing the point.

Boy, this is getting awfully tiresome, and I’m sorry to see someone of Prof. Hanson’s caliber descend into this kind of rhetoric. What is it supposed to mean to describe conservatives who have a beef with Limbaugh’s views or rhetoric as “highbrow”? Are the opinions illegitimate or mistaken because they supposedly come from a vantage point of cultural sophistication? Even if that were true, which I doubt, since when do conservatives look down on sophistication itself? Since Joe the Plumber became the Whittaker Chambers of the Mongoloid* Right?

Really Rod? Mongoloid? Obviously not so clueless as to be unaware of the minefield into which he has wandered, Dreher offers this update to the post by way of explanation for the use of this obvious term of derision.

I use “Mongoloid” in the Ignatian sense — that is, as a reference to dopes. No reference to Down syndrome sufferers is intended; I just like thinking about Mongo-Cons, and see virtue in referencing the Fifth Gospel — known to Muggles as “A Confederacy of Dunces” — at every opportunity.

Ignatian sense? Yeah, ummm?. No. I do not suspect Mr. Dreher of any malice but rather of a deplorable cluelessness especially for a Christian supportive of the culture of life. The use of this term in any context helps no one, least of all Dreher.

To be fair, the post does accomplish its objective. Mr. Dreher used this unfortunate term in his own defense from Victor Davis Hanson ‘s jab at certain “highbrows.” After reading this lamentable post it is quite clear that the term highbrow does not fairly apply to him. Well done, Mr. Dreher.