What is conservatism and what is wrong with it?

[Five-hole]

A somewhat academic look at the history and intellectual fundamentals of conservatism. And also, why it is bad.

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

Yes, it's long. Very long. But I found it worthwhile and I'm eager to debate some of its points or perhaps just engage in some yes-man partying if we all agree with it.

It actually touches on a lot of points that have been heavily discussed here, such as media bias and the misappropriation of "truth".

[calf]

I skimmed the first third (I know, I know)...but the one thing glaring at me was how it turned everything into right vs left, conservative vs liberal, etc. Very bi-polar, when in fact, there are varying degrees of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' out there. So I stopped reading. I'm going to liken it to Jon Stewart when he appeared on cross-fire...all that paper is is the writer following talking points of one side instead of taking a critical look at both sides, finding pros and cons of both.

[Five-hole]

Yeah, well, you didn't really read it, did you?


Interestingly, the author recommends as a response to the insidious thought-programming of modern conservatism a re-appropriation of language for use by liberals, something I've been hearing on liberal channels a bit lately.

Rebut conservative arguments

This is my most important prescription. Liberals win political victories through rational debate. But after a victory is won, liberals tend to drop the issue and move along. As a result, whole generations have grown up without ever hearing the arguments in favor of, for example, Social Security. Instead they have heard massive numbers of conservative arguments against liberalism, and these arguments have generally gone unrebutted. In order to save civilization, liberals need a new language, one in which it is easy to express rebuttals to the particular crop of conservative arguments of the last few decades. And the way to invent that language is just to start rebutting the arguments, all of them. This means literally dozens of new arguments each day.

Do not assume that rebutting conservative arguments is easy, or that a few phrases will suffice. Do not even assume that you know what is wrong with the conservative arguments that you hear, or even indeed what those arguments are, since they are often complicated and confusing in their internal structure. Do not just repeat a stock response that worked for some previous generation of liberals, because your audience has already heard that response and already knows what the counterargument is. Conservative rhetors have invested tremendous effort in working around liberals' existing language. In the old days, racists were racists and polluters were polluters. But those old labels do not win arguments any more. Liberals must now provide new answers in plain language to the questions that ordinary citizens, having heard the arguments of conservatism, now have. Do environmental regulations work? Why do we protect the civil liberties of terrorists? Are liberals anti-American? What do we need government for anyway?

For example, one person was recommending associating non-liberal ideals with the word "unAmerican" and liberal ideals with the word "American". This is no different than what modern conservative think tanks do -- see the article's reference to Newt Gingrich's "word list".

Could it work?

And, well, to anyone else, don't bother responding unless you've actually read at least SOME of the article. Calf, your point of him reducing it to liberalism vs. conservatism is entirely irrelevant. He's speaking on theoretical terms here. Set of arguments X belong to conservatism, set of arguments Y belong to liberalism. Argument set X has these predominant themes and features.

The article is called "What is conservatism and WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT." Were you expecting a critique of liberal ideology? It's not what it purports to offer, and it's not what it offers. It's assumption is "conservatism is wrong". It then does, in my mind, a very good job of explaining that assumption and why it was made.

Oddly enough, you're doing precisely a certain kind of conservative argument outlined in that article: projection. You are dismissing the article on the grounds it is dismissive. Personally, I don't believe that's true. Additionally, since you didn't even read it, you're talking out your ass.

If you want to try an actual rebuttal of it, perhaps try reading it.

[CaptainCrunch]

What you have to ask yourself is why are conservatives classed as fairly blue collar while Liberals are usually associated with college professors and higher income earners.

A good example of that is John Kerry who is extremely wealthy and a Liberal, isn't that contrary to what this writer is trying to state. Isn't Kerry in fact a aristocrate?


At one point he points to Conservatism as being destructive to democracy, but in a larger sense the process in the last election worked as a larger majority then the last election voted for Conservatives or Republicans, even though the average american family didn't see many benefits from the Bush Government.

In fact you could read into his whole section on the Destruction of Reason the same argument as every liberal that is upset about the lost election. The whole argument that people that voted for Bush are stupid or ill informed is framed in that one paragraph, and yet it is Liberals arguing it.

I'm not a really big fan of this paper, it seems to be a half cocked paper spouting that everything conservative is evil and everything Liberal is sunny in bright, obviously I must be evil stupid and irrational and uniformed.

He talks about the wealthy and the aristrocracy running the conservative movement, but I counter that it is the elite, and wealthy and aristrocratic thats running the Liberals, but whats destroyed the Liberal movement is the fact that thier leaders have lost touch with what should have gotten them there. The dis-enchanted, and the forgotten.

His paper is hideously slanted, and really no different then the muted yelps of Liberals who came out of the wood work during and after the election, it would be interesting to read a paper that exposes why Liberalism is evil and wrong, but that would be written off as red journalism.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Personally I find it very sad when conservatism is considered to be the only alternative against cryptocommunism (funnily called liberalism in Nort America).

[Displaced Flames fan]

Wrong how? Morally wrong? Flawed?

[Cowperson]

Liberal ideology is in disarray. After all, conservative ideology has dominated human thought for thousands of years, and it takes concentrated effort to liberate oneself from it.

Good night Irene.

Cowperson

[Bingo]

The problem with articles like this (and I don't mean anti-conservatism, I mean a person that clearly has a penchant for one side hammering the other) is that they always hammer on the non-ideals on each side, or gloss over the strengths.

Bottom line ... most liberals or conservatives in voting fashion don't have to be 100% buried in either side in order to still feel strongly enough to cast a vote.

I looked up political definitions for conservatism and found the following ...

The first three are good fits with my personal conservative leanings ...

1. a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes

2. A political ideology generally characterized by a belief in individualism and minimal government intervention in the economy and society; also a belief in the virtue of the status quo and general acceptance of traditional morality.
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html

3. That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.

The next two are not consistent with my conservative belief system ...

4. conservatism: 1: ~ a standing still in the world;

5. political philosophy that tends to support the status-quo and advocate change only in moderation. Upholds the value of tradition and seeks to preserve all that is good about the past.

Chances are, I likely sit somewhere near the middle when it comes to left and right wing politics, but will vote to the right every time because of the things I bolded above.

You don't have to be change adverse, or standing still to be a very conservative person.

[There is no G in MacInnis]

Gotta like this line:

In order to save civilization, liberals need a new language, one in which it is easy to express rebuttals to the particular crop of conservative arguments of the last few decades.

[Cube Inmate]

Okay, T5, I read the stupid thing. Do I have the right to comment?

Right or not, here I go. First of all, if the author truly believes that conservatism = aristocracy and liberalism = democracy, then he shouldn't try to connect small-c conservatism to the Republicans and liberalism to the Democrats. By his logic, both parties are aristocratic and therefore conservative (does he honestly think they're much different?). Meanwhile, the only true small-d democrats are the hippies. But wait...they did stupid things in the 60s like taking drugs...oh no! In any case, the fact that he tries to use a very simplistic link like aristocracy = conservatism, and then connect that directly to the modern day American landscape just indicates that this isn't an academic paper, it's a p*ssed-off Democratic voter.

Bah...I don't have time to say enough now, but I'll just add that I only read the thing because I couldn't look away...it was like a car accident. I'm glad I read long enough to get to the point where he states "Snoop Dogg's music really is garbage." That's a credible author eh?

[jonesy]

Originally posted by There is no G in MacInnis 3@Nov 18 2004, 06:01 PM
Gotta like this line:

In order to save civilization, liberals need a new language, one in which it is easy to express rebuttals to the particular crop of conservative arguments of the last few decades.

Yes indeed, this comment alone makes it difficult to imagine the writer is using rational logical (ie: liberal??) thought. A tad dramatic don't you think?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 18 2004, 05:50 PM
I looked up political definitions for conservatism and found the following ...

1. a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes

5. political philosophy that tends to support the status-quo and advocate change only in moderation. Upholds the value of tradition and seeks to preserve all that is good about the past.

Those are some definitions. Conservatism supports what is good. Who decides what is good? Of course conservatives do. How? Thanks to their ideology based on conservative morals and ethics. How do they know conservative morals and ethics are good? Because conservative morals and ethics oblige criteria given by conservative moral standards. Nice.

[Pileon]

But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are.

Pretty much right. This creates the star society where entertainers, athletes and CEO's justify outrageous salaries because "nobody else can do what they do". I notice that "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" is alive and well once again in America.

Overall, it was another class warfare article.

[CaramonLS]

2. A political ideology generally characterized by a belief in individualism and minimal government intervention in the economy and society; also a belief in the virtue of the status quo and general acceptance of traditional morality.
www.nelson.com/nelson/polisci/glossary.html

Love this quote, because the US government is interfering more and more in the daily lives of Americans (see patriot act), see Iraq invasion, See leaning toward more censorship and backpeddling on the current status quo.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Nov 19 2004, 01:05 AM
Okay, T5, I read the stupid thing. Do I have the right to comment?

Right or not, here I go. First of all, if the author truly believes that conservatism = aristocracy and liberalism = democracy, then he shouldn't try to connect small-c conservatism to the Republicans and liberalism to the Democrats. By his logic, both parties are aristocratic and therefore conservative (does he honestly think they're much different?). Meanwhile, the only true small-d democrats are the hippies. But wait...they did stupid things in the 60s like taking drugs...oh no! In any case, the fact that he tries to use a very simplistic link like aristocracy = conservatism, and then connect that directly to the modern day American landscape just indicates that this isn't an academic paper, it's a p*ssed-off Democratic voter.

Bah...I don't have time to say enough now, but I'll just add that I only read the thing because I couldn't look away...it was like a car accident. I'm glad I read long enough to get to the point where he states "Snoop Dogg's music really is garbage." That's a credible author eh?

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

The links you perceived between some-c conservatism and Republicans were, from what I can remember, only examples. I don't remember the author stating anywhere that what he was talking about was exactly the Republican party. I think that was bias on your part.

Nor did he say that democratism is represented by the Democrats. In fact, I remember him taking a couple of shots at the Democratic party because of their abandonment of liberal ideals, inability to push their ideology, and what essentially amounts to their weak-willed "me-too" philosophy in regards to getting the vote (i.e., we're like Republicans, really, we are! Vote for us!)

I'm not sure why there was the tangent on Snoop Dogg or whatever, but I don't think that really has much to do with the credibility of the author's argument. He has a flair for the dramatic which may disagree with some people, but so what?

[peter12]

Originally posted by Pileon@Nov 19 2004, 02:19 PM

Pretty much right. This creates the star society where entertainers, athletes and CEO's justify outrageous salaries because "nobody else can do what they do". I notice that "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" is alive and well once again in America.

Overall, it was another class warfare article.

Not so... Conservative gives credence to natural authority. Things like the family, religion, schools.

Funny enough the father of Conservatism, Edmund Burke was a Whig in the English Parliament, or a Liberal in todays Canadian Parliament.

He didn't think the aristocracy was special or that they deserved what they had, he merely though the authority they wield was essential for a stable society.

That is the basis of all conservatism, stablity and tradition.

[Five-hole]

...stability and tradition as brought about by a privileged class.

If you reject the idea that there should be a privileged class (as I do), regardless of the source of their privilege, then you perceive something wrong with the ideology of conservatism. As I do.

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Nov 19 2004, 03:05 AM
Okay, T5, I read the stupid thing. Do I have the right to comment?

what do i have to do with this???? i never even made a comment in this thread!

[peter12]

I don't reject the need for authority. Authority doesn't HAVE to be privileged than other people to work and Burke certainly didn't think it should.

Understand conservatism is a reactionary idealogy to RADICAL liberalism, most specifically the Revolution in France. The very root of Conservatism lies in small, incremental change. Traditional conservatives were strong supporters of the American Revolution because the Americans changed what they needed to and then stopped.

The French, who were like the radical liberals of the 1790s started radical change overnight and look at the mess it created. Quick change doens't work because human beings are flawed idiots. I would put my trust in the collectivist pool of thought that is society instead.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Table 5+Nov 19 2004, 05:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Table 5 @ Nov 19 2004, 05:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cube Inmate@Nov 19 2004, 03:05 AM
Okay, T5, I read the stupid thing. Do I have the right to comment?

what do i have to do with this???? i never even made a comment in this thread! [/b][/quote]
Sorry... got my "Fives" confused. :wacko:

Responding now to five-hole (right?) ... I did notice that the author avoided turning it into a Republican vs Democrat paper, at least overtly, but he made numerous references to people generally associated with the Republicans, including house members and media types like Rush Limbaugh, and prominent Repubs like Bush and Gingrich. If he truly believes that it's the "aristocracy" behind conservatism that's the problem, why not call out the aristocrats within the other party as well? Apparently, in his eyes, the Dems are innocent of being power-hungry rich bas**rds, because he sure didn't mention them. Why not make some mention of the Hollywood set, as someone else mentioned? They're the new aristocracy, but I guess they're ok because they support the Dems for the most part.

Snoop Dogg was just funny, but I'd call it more than a "dramatic flair" when the author provides a how-to guide for shooting down conservatism. His last piece of advice is "build the Democratic party." If that doesn't reveal his intentions as "down with Republicans," then perhaps some "critical thinking" courses are in order.