Post #29,306
2/21/02 7:31:59 PM
|
Re: Oped: Conservatism defined
Nice bit of idealism, but doesn't much reflect the reality.
As the author himself notes, Conservatism doesn't say anything about what you are trying to conserve. While in theory American conservatives work to conserve freedom, liberty and justice, in practice they are more likely to be conserving posistions of power, privilage and wealth.
And that's avoid the huge problem that many things that conservatives are trying to conserve are things that the Founding Fathers would have or did reject themselves.
Consider just how many conservatives are trying to conserve or reclaim America as a "Christian" nation. Avoiding all out the fact that the nation, when founded, was far less "Christian" then it is today. I put Christian in quotes there because I don't mean Christian in general, but rather Christian in the fundamentaist / hollow sense used by most people today.
Another place where conservatives and history clash is over military. Conservatives today seek to maintain or even expand our military, despite the fact that the founders sought to minimize it.
Even something as simple as the conservative desire to return to the "tradional" nuclear family ignores the fact that such families where rare until the 1900's and families operated in a very different way before then.
In any case, his assertion that Conservatism is not ideological is absurd. Conservatism itself may not contain any ideology, but the moment you begin to make decisions about what is worth preserving and what is not you have ideology.
Jay
|
Post #29,370
2/22/02 11:28:58 AM
|
About the nuclear family.
Though you dodge the point in more ways than I can count, I'll just address the most blatant case.
The whole nuclear family is a stepdown from the extended family that preceded it. It constitutes a compromise between the extended family and no family. And the conservatives who espouse the nuclear family, instead of the extended family, are in fact capitulating. The gratitude of their opponents for this willingness to meet halfway is underwhelming.
I think it was mistake for modern conservatives to make this sort of concession. To an ideologue, any concession is a sign of weakness, not of reasonability.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #29,394
2/22/02 1:24:06 PM
|
Actually it worse then that
The information I have says that very existance of the extended family was something of a myth.
Even in the peak years of the early 1900s, the highest percent of families living in extended families was 25% and even that was only found among recent emigrants.
When I was talking about the tradional nuclear family not being common, I meant that at the time the country was founded there where far higher percentages of both people that never got married and people who had one or more parents die before they reached 20.
In 17th century Virgina, for instance, more then 1/3 of children lost both parents.
Jay
|
Post #29,372
2/22/02 11:38:20 AM
|
Also, about that military thing.
That was a concession to reality, and there's nothing wrong with that. It wasn't any "new" reality, either, so shut up all you "things change and we must keep up-to-date in our thinking" yammerers. It was the ancient reality that those who don't defend themselves adequately are doomed.
Reality doesn't respond to concessions in a mean manner. (At least not to concessions made to it.) Rather, it punishes refusal to concede. And this is why it's good to make concessions to long term reality, but not to ideological opponents. To the ideologue, concession is a sign of weakness, to be exploited. To reality, concession is a friendly overture, to be rewarded.
And we shouldn't concede too much to short term reality, either. It'll change back and catch you unprepared. Clinton did that with his fiscal priorities, and now the U.S.S. Kennedy is scrambling to get itself back into fighting trim.
Truth is that which is the case. Long term Truth is that which remains the case over time. All of you quit your pomo whining and deal with it.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #29,377
2/22/02 12:13:28 PM
|
Whoa there!
Truth is that which is the case. Again, 1 + 1 = 2. Nice revelation. Long term Truth is that which remains the case over time. HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!! Does that mean that the "Truth" on Tuesday is not the "Truth" on Wednesday? "Truth" changes over time? All of you quit your pomo whining and deal with it. For those who do not know, "pomo" is Marlowe's cute abreviation for "postmodern". Although he doesn't know what "postmodern" means (just like he doesn't know what "Truth" means). He likes to sprinkle such words throughout his posts so it will seem that he is more intellectual than he really is. You see, "postmodern" in a political sense would be 1950's values (or there abouts) because "modern" in a political sense would be "political correctness". So when he says "postmodern" he means "conservative". Wellllllllllllllll......... >HE< doesn't mean "conservative". Which is the really funny part of the joke.
|
Post #29,380
2/22/02 12:36:52 PM
|
Re: Oped: Conservatism defined
As the author himself notes, Conservatism doesn't say anything about what you are trying to conserve. While in theory American conservatives work to conserve freedom, liberty and justice, in practice they are more likely to be conserving posistions of power, privilage and wealth. And how does that differ from a typical "liberal"? Both sides of the idiological aisle have lots of moneygrubbing SOB's. Both sides have some people who really are true to their beliefs and aren't moneygrubbing SOB's. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
|
Post #29,389
2/22/02 1:06:25 PM
|
How it differs
And how does that differ from a typical "liberal"
While in theory Libers work to increase freedom, liberty and justice, in practice they are more likely to be working to get their own posistions of power, privilage and wealth.
Not to say I think Liberals and Conservatives are perfect mirrors. I think that, in broad generalities, more liberals are honestly trying to do what is right, while more conservatives are cynically or unthinkingly trying to maintain their priviliges. However, more liberals are blind to what the real consequences of their actions are, and are therefore more likely to mess things up.
Jay
|
Post #29,392
2/22/02 1:14:27 PM
|
Amazing truths
I'm still blinking at your insights.
Liberals (so-called) do tend to act on "good intentions" or at least what sounds like good intentions. "It's for the children!" (gag)
Conservatives at least tend more to try to figure out what the results are.
But as I've said before, "liberal" and "conservative" isn't a good description of the political spectrum. Classical liberalism isn't today's liberalism; classical conservatism isn't today's conservatism.
Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
|
Post #29,395
2/22/02 1:26:43 PM
|
The real diff between modern "liberals" and "conservatives"
"Liberals" want to give us absolute freedom in some areas, and overweening government control or PC coercion in other areas.
With the "conservatives" it's the other way around.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
|
Post #29,407
2/22/02 2:03:18 PM
|
Exactly.
"Conservatives", or at least the beast that passes for conservative in this country want to give us overweening government control or anti-PC coersion in some areas, and absolute freedom in other areas.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
