What is conservatism and what is wrong with it?

[FlamesAddiction]

An interesting study about what conservatism is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...017546,00.html

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Nov 19 2004, 05:52 PM
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.

Are you not allowed to be both rich and a liberal?

A whole other paper could be written about the aristocracy of the celebrities and their effect on "the masses". It's a different subject, though, because the author was primarily talking about the "new aristocracy" of corporatism: powerful members of large corporations have more political effect on North America and the world than Mel Gibson could ever hope to. Cultural effect? I don't know, maybe not. But it's not Mel Gibson pulling the strings behind the scenes, it's Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, the Waltons, and so on.

Okay, so "building the Democratic party" as a recommendation on how to foster liberal ideology is logically equivalent to "down with Republicans"? You'll have to explain that one. The Democrat party SHOULD be the most powerful liberal institution in the world, as it SHOULD be the home of liberalism in the most powerful country in the world. It is not. That has nothing to do with the Republican party, it has to do with the failure of liberalism to respond to the political strategies of modern conservatism. The Republicans don't come in here.

I need critical thinking courses? I think it's been demonstrated that you read far too much into things. Because I don't come up with the same conclusions as you, which seem largely driven by your predispositions when reading an article like this, doesn't mean I need "critical thinking courses". Try to stick to the article and leave me out of it, eh?

[Cube Inmate]

I read and understood his points about the origins of conservatism being the preservation of the institutions that maintain the aristocracy's position. If that were the only content of the article, it would be fine...his conclusion that conservatism is bad would be well taken. The article lost its strength by extending examples to today's politics, though. The connections are not strong, and by trying to make them he shows that the true basis of his writing is the support of Dems and dislike of Republicans....the Dems may be slightly more liberal than the Republicans, but they are not a "liberal institution," as far as this author's definitions would go. That opinion is based on things like this:

He says that aristocratic institutions such as the Greek senate were a poor excuse for "democracy," or liberalism (which he seems to equate), because they still froze out most of the people. Today's US government is no different -- you don't get elected unless you're rich and/or have corporate backing. The Democrats don't do anything to change any of that when they're in power. If they were a true liberal institution, they would work themselves out of existence; I don't see that as their goal.

He says that conservatives try to keep the unwashed masses down, which is why they're against welfare and the like. I don't see the Democrats behaving fundamentally differently. They may support more social funding, but not as a means to equalize things. They do it, rather, as a means to continue getting the support of the masses and get themselves into power. The Democrats realize that it's corporations that keep the American economy going, and they don't want to damage them. They only want to be seen as anti-corporate in order to retain the support of the "little guy."

My point is that the Dems are not a haven of "democracy" as the author tried to define it, so they really shouldn't deserve his support if he believes what he's writing. I believe, on the other hand, that he's just writing about the evils of conservatism to back up his support of the Democrats, and using a historical perspective (aristocracy) to make a more persuasive argument.

[FlamesAddiction]

I can't think of one positive thing conservativism has given to the world. Without liberal ideology, there would be no democracy, capitalism, Magna Carta, scientific discovery, and there would still be serfs and slavery. From the 1500s to the 1800s, when liberal thinkers were starting to fight against aristocratic societies, the conservatives of the day were to monarchists and loyalists who fought to maintain the status quo. They were the religious zealots who tried to block science and maintain an elitist society. If conservatives would have won, we would have none of the things we hold dear today.

Granted, most of today’s ordinary (ie. Not the “neo” variety) conservatives would be considered liberals back in the renaissance, but conservatism by its very nature is to resist change and hold onto power, so the effect today is the same. It’s all relative to the society of the day.