"Provid[ing] Cover"

I share Rob's admiration for Kahan's "Cognitively Liberal State" paper and agree with him that "a persistent call to sacrifice in order to alleviate some of the suffering of the poor is not . . . the same as a periodic stick in the eye of those who want to use the government to help the poor" and also that we all "let ourselves off much too easily in terms of what the Gospel calls us to do."  And, as he would probably guess, I tend to agree with more -- but not that much more -- of what I read in First Things than what I read in Commonweal (which I admire and to which I have been honored to contribute).

Rob also writes:  "CST is broad enough that it can provide cover for directions in which we were already headed, and our magazines reflect that."  This seems at least kind of true, and yet troubling.  What do others think?  I hope that there is something more going on, i.e., that the "conservative" themes and implications of CST shape the paths and challenge the plans of those headed in one political direction while the "liberal" themes do the same for those headed in the other direction.  It's not just that First Things and Commonweal -- and their readers -- are exactly where and what they would have been, absent the challenge of CST . . . is it?