I understand that my role in this conversation is to help you understand why Stanley Fish is conservative. I know that Stanley is often thought to be a radical, but in fact I do not think he, or his position, is all that radical. Of course, philosophically he is an anti-foundationalist, he does not believe in free speech as an absolute, he is generally for most of the aims of those that call themselves "multi-culturalist," but none of that is sufficient to make him a radical. After all, no one has been more insistent than Stanley Fish that theory has no consequences.
So, my role is to help you see what a radical looks like. Of course, I am not a radical because I share Fish's anti-foundationalist views, I am a radical because I am Christian. I really do not have a theory, but I do find myself claimed by a community of people who have practices that make the practice of law, particularly as we know it, problematic. Christians do not have a theory that leaves everything the way it is, but we are part of the community that changes everything. I think this is particularly the case now that the liberal presuppositions and theories that have so dominated our understanding of law are breaking down.
Stanley Hauerwas, Christian Practice and the Practice of Law in a World Without Foundations, 44 Mercer L. Rev. 743 (1993).