Conservatism think piece

[cantdog]

Very long:

Here's Phil Agre in UCLA

It's got headings. Skim through and check out some high points if you don't want to tackle the whole thesis right away.

 

[OldnotDead]

Very interesting article.

Personally, I think this guy is trying to make a thesis that has no real supporting arguments. He makes up definitions and uses 18th century and older references as if they apply today. I'll give one quick example before I move to the main point of my reply.

He equates conservatism with those who wish to maintain an aristocracy. During our revolution and the French, that was probably an entirely appropriate label, although here we used the word Tory because THAT was the party in England that tended to support the retention of Crown authority.

Yet here the WHIG party, the more liberal one in England, of those times, became traditionally associated with conservatives. And this leads to the real point of my reply.

His primary thesis, as stated in the opening, is to provide arguments to bolster the liberal position and show why conservatism is anathema to democracy. As far as I can see, he does not take current conservative thought as the departure point, but uses personal interpretations of history as the foundations of conservatism.

If you don't take the current thought to start with, such an argument is doomed because it isn't really based on anything that is going on today. His article would be far more meaningful is he took some of the precepts that most people associate with conservative thinking and then show how they conflict.

I would probably find some his statements as interesting fodder in a Modern European History class to discuss how different countries and groups evolved from the feudal system of government to eventually arrive at a more representative one. But to try and argue that those who think of themselves as conservative to be oriented around preserving an over 200 year old, dismissed form of government is plain silly.

As an example of why liberalism is suffering a decline in popularity and support, it may actually be useful. My own belief is that during the Reagan years, the liberals misunderstood their opponents and have never quite gotten in right. They've focused too much on Presidential elections and haven't really looked at the local races to see what is really important to voters and what will probably help in the future.

 

[Pure]

Nice reference, cant,

I read a lot of it. It's a bit vague in the positive area, i.e., a theory of democracy and what that entails.

His critique of 'conservatism' is strangely Marxist (though he disavows Marx, like a good liberal).

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Marx said that all known history to date is of 'class struggle', the haves and have nots. Agre wants all that left behind in a move toward democracy. Marx called it a move toward socialism.

Here is where Marx differs: M postulated the necessity and usefulness of 'class based' social organizations. Agre has a kind of atemporal stand. The aristocratic set up is always wrong; it's *wrong for just a few to mainly benefit.

I do like A's analysis of 'conservative' methods, and the wrenching of language. I notice he doesn't distinguish the 'neos'.

Marx said that *communism was the self conscious movement of the vast majority. Agre substitutes the term 'democracy.'

He seems very weak as to how it's to be furthered except by clever analysis of conservative points, and pointed arguments about how they want to benefit the few.

Here's one crucial fact he leaves out (Marx missed it too). The modern 'peasants', esp. in the US, do not mind the 'aristocrats.'
*They identify.* The American dream is to move up the social ladder. So in fact aristocrats don't need to cover up as much as A suggests. They simply say: We have a lot; we worked for it; the doors to improvement are open to all. As in the era of internet fortunes, any dweeb can become a millionaire, *so do not tax millionaires heavily; do not slay the goose that lays the golden eggs.*

Marx did not have sufficient sense of how people act against their interests, whether it be for nationalism or preservation of the 'haves' or for religious purposes. Marx thought people would see their interests and act accordingly, in the long run. Ironically, Agre takes exactly the same position. Somehow everyone (98%) is going to see how 'democracy' is in their interests--through the work of new pundits-- and go for it. BZZZT. Wrong.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, but I like Agre on the language and argument style of conservatives. He arms a person and even provides some armor. Recognizing the style and fallacies helps tremendously.

But your point about people failing to recognize their interests is dead on. Workingmen voting Republican. I see it all the time and just shake my head. When they wind up in the line at the soup kitchen they still don't seem to understand who did it to them.

cantdog

 

[cantdog]

I think we need a few wildass populists! Pundits appealing to reason and sticking scrupulously to truth don't seem to light a fire under people.

Sorry, random thought, there.

 

[Pure]

i agree. agre is awfully intellectual (and he uses 13,000 words). i think michael moore in his film *shows* some of corruption and cronyism. that's worth a thousand arguments about 'tax cuts' 'entitlements' etc.

as far as the arms Agre provides, i've found so few conservatives who can put an argument together that additional 'arms' are not required.

the current Bush slogan, of 'a mighty and resolute leader and warrior against terror worldwide' hardly needs complex analysis.

i saw GWB on Larry King last night and on moral issues it's "we want a culture of *life-- that affirms and respects life." Hence, says GWB, he opposes any further lines of stem cells, and wishes scientists to make do with what theyve got. the leap in the argument is so severe that intellectual 'weapons' would almost be unfair to use!

 

[cantdog]

I hear that.

GWB for a spokesman. What were they thinking? His presence in what used to be an august office has really pissed a lot of folks off. Like Nixon and his crew, it's pumped some life into the somnolent decent folk out there. They're complaining and even making the demos. I don't think Gore would have revitalized the Peace and Justice people like Dubya has.

 

[SummerMorning]

I actually saw a bit of that interview... a part that caught my eye:

Larry: so how does it feel to send American soldiers to war?

Ms. GWB: Oh, it's certainly the most difficult decision the president can face. The most difficult decision any president can face.

(he can't speak for himself on this issue, it's obviously that difficult)

Larry: do you think of them a lot?

(OK - so the questions are just so much moonshine as well)

GWB: Yeah, every time I hear an American serviceman has been killed I feel the pain... bla bla bla

(Of course if Iraqis are killed, that's just a good thing - implicitly)

 

[Pure]

Clearly the message of the so called 'interview' is

"I'm no zealot; just plain folks."

Masterfully done, in a way. (Bows to Karl Rove and other 'handlers.')

Utterly simple (in concept), as with the Rep'n 'message' on the Iraq war:

"Saddam was an evil dictator. The world, and esp. the Iraqi people are better off without him."

It remains to be seen if the four or five Rep'n 'messages' are going to win the election. There's a good chance of it. IMO.

 

[shereads]

Great article, cantdog. I can't imagine that you'll get any conservatives to agree upon the author's definition of conservatism; the ones who aspire to the American aristocracy are unlikely to admit it. It would be counterproductive.

I'm reminded of something I read recently about GWB's elimination of the estate tax. Opponents called the tax unfair for two reasons, of which the most heart-tugging was that it caused the sale of family farms whose heirs couldn't pay the tax without selling the property. Yet the NY Times could not locate a single example of a family-owned private farm that was lost due to the estate tax; those farms lack sufficient property value to qualify.

The 2nd argument, that the estate tax a "double tax" on previously taxed income ignored the fact that every time one of us pays a sales tax or a local property tax, we are being taxed on previously taxed income. (And those taxes are rising to compensate for cuts at the federal level.)

The estate tax was the one remaining means by which the United States kept sufficent wealth in re-distributoin to protect against the rise of an American aristocracy. With the tax laws restructured to place more of the burden on the lower and middle economic classes, there is no longer anything to prevent the eventual domination of society by a tiny elite of heirs and heiresses who haven't had to earn the political influence their money will buy.

Edited to add: Just in case things move quickly - can the rest of us agree in advance that public executions are a bad idea? The guillotine puts the French Revolution in such an ugly light.

 

[shereads]

Larry: so how does it feel to send American soldiers to war?

Ms. GWB: Oh, it's certainly the most difficult decision the president can face. The most difficult decision any president can face.

(he can't speak for himself on this issue, it's obviously that difficult)

Larry: do you think of them a lot?

That Larry King is one tough interviewer. He should be ashamed of putting the president on the spot with provocative questions, without Cheney present. At least GWB refused to take the bait.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If anyone with a conservative outlook read past the rediculous definitions I salute them.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

Very long:

Here's Phil Agre in UCLA

It's got headings. Skim through and check out some high points if you don't want to tackle the whole thesis right away.

Cant, you are just a typical sensationalist tax and spend liberal hell bent on corrupting the legacy of freedom that the founders fought and died to build upon this great nation and with the moral visionaries of the great conservative movement are mobalized in there duty to protect and preserve for our children. Its just common sense.


http://www.fair.org/extra/9502/language-control.html

"Language: A Key Mechanism of Control"
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=270428

 

[sweetnpetite]

Edited to add: Just in case things move quickly - can the rest of us agree in advance that public executions are a bad idea? The guillotine puts the French Revolution in such an ugly light.

Err, don't you think we should televise them. It could work as a derterant, provide entertainment... I mean a sence of justice, AND best of all make a profit. Everything that makes a profit is good, everything that doesn't is socialist (read: bad/unAmerican).

Who wants to sponser an execution? Step right up!!!

 

[shereads]

"In particular conservatism must destroy conscience, democracy, reason, and language."

So GWB is incoherent for two reasons! I thought it was just a distraction to keep us giggling when we should be terrified. But in fact, his incoherence is the shot-across-the-bow that proves the public will accept #4 above.

I don't like it, but I can at least respect it. If incoherence is a tactic, GWB is a genius.

 

[sweetnpetite]

another exerpt:

Another common theme of conservative strategy is that liberals are themselves an aristocracy. (For those who are really keeping score, the sophisticated version of this is called the "new class strategy", the message being that liberals are the American version of the Soviet nomenklatura.) Thus, for example, the constant pelting of liberals as "elites", sticking this word and a mass of others semantically related to it onto liberals on every possible occasion. A pipeline of "facts" has been established to underwrite this message as well. Thus, for example, constant false conservative claims that the rich vote Democratic. When Al Franken recently referred to his new radio network as "the media elite and proud of it", he demonstrated his oblivion to the workings of the conservative discourse that he claims to contest.

Further examples of this are endless. When a Republican senator referred to "the few liberals", hardly any liberals gave any sign of getting what he meant: as all conservatives got just fine, he was appropriating the phrase "the few", referring to the aristocracy as opposed to "the many", and sticking this phrase in a false and mechanical way onto liberals. Rush Limbaugh asserts that "they [liberals] think they are better than you", this of course being a phrase that had historically been applied (and applied correctly) to the aristocracy. Conservative rhetors constantly make false or exaggerated claims that liberals are engaged in stereotyping -- the criticism of stereotyping having been one of history's most important rhetorical devices of democrats. And so on. The goal here is to make it impossible to criticize aristocracy.

For an especially sorry example of this pattern, consider the word "hierarchy". Conservatism is a hierarchical social system: a system of ranked orders and classes. Yet in recent years conservatives have managed to stick this word onto liberals, the notion being that "government" (which liberals supposedly endorse and conservatives supposedly oppose) is hierarchical (whereas corporations, the military, and the church are somehow vaguely not). Liberals are losing because it does not even occur to them to refute this kind of mechanical antireason.

It is often claimed in the media that snooty elitists on the coasts refer to states in the middle of the country as "flyover country". Yet I, who have lived in liberal areas of the coasts for most of my life, have never once heard this usage. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Nexis database does not contain a single example of anyone using the phrase "flyover country" to disparage the non-coastal areas of the United States. Instead, it contains hundreds of examples of people disparaging residents of the coasts by claiming that they use the phrase to describe the interior. The phrase is a special favorite of newspapers in Minneapolis and Denver. This is projection. Likewise, I have never heard the phrase "political correctness" used except to disparage the people who supposedly use it.

 

[sweetnpetite]

"In particular conservatism must destroy conscience, democracy, reason, and language."

So GWB is incoherent for two reasons! I thought it was just a distraction to keep us giggling when we should be terrified. But in fact, his incoherence is the shot-across-the-bow that proves the public will accept #4 above.

I don't like it, but I can at least respect it. If incoherence is a tactic, GWB is a genius.

And you are a genius for figuring it out

Brovo!

 

[shereads]

Err, don't you think we should televise them. It could work as a derterant, provide entertainment... I mean a sence of justice, AND best of all make a profit. Everything that makes a profit is good, everything that doesn't is socialist (read: bad/unAmerican).

Do you knit while you're watching TV? Just curious.



Snp, if we're dropping the blade, we are the socialists. Sorry.


Question for the historians in the group: What was/is the longest-lasting rule by aristocracy? Not counting the toned-down ones like the British royal family and the House of Lords, aristocracies seem to conclude with a frenzied bloodletting. Despite the repeated lessons that us underclasses will only take so much b.s. before we snap, wouldn't we all secretly prefer to inherit the throne than empty the queen's chamber pot?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Do you knit while you're watching TV? Just curious.



Snp, if we're dropping the blade, we are the socialists. Sorry.

YOu *do* know I was being sarcastic right?

Hmm, kniting while watching the enemies of freedom fry. Sounds like an old fashioned saturday night! (Before those freakin' liberals in NY came out with that LIVE comedy show that just seems to pervert the minds and morals of our youth!)

 

[sweetnpetite]

bump

"The Founding Fathers thought of themselves as innovators and modernizers, and the myth-making tradition has thoughtlessly agreed with them. But in reality the US Constitution, as much as the British system it supposedly replaced, is little more than the Aristotelian tripartite model of king, aristocracy, and gentry (supposedly representing the commons), reformed to some degree as President, Senate, and House. "

What happened to this thread. I was enjoying the topic.

I don't wanna be a thread killer!!!! Someone post after me

 

[shereads]

Re: bump

"The Founding Fathers thought of themselves as innovators and modernizers, and the myth-making tradition has thoughtlessly agreed with them. But in reality the US Constitution, as much as the British system it supposedly replaced, is little more than the Aristotelian tripartite model of king, aristocracy, and gentry (supposedly representing the commons), reformed to some degree as President, Senate, and House. "

What happened to this thread. I was enjoying the topic.

I don't wanna be a thread killer!!!! Someone post after me

Should I try the duck joke?

 

[rgraham666]

In my opinion, the battle is not between the conservatives and the liberals, but to use Thomas Jefferson's terms, between aristocracy and democracy.

The aristocrats 'distrust the people and so attempt to gather all power to themselves'.

The democrats believe 'that the people are the most honest, if not always the wisest holders of power'.

Tom was a bit of a dreamer, but close to the truth on this.

And as far as I'm concerned, aristocracy is more natural for humans than democracy.

In nature, all our close relatives organize themselves in hierarchies. There are always alphas and the rest follow the alphas. And conspire to become alphas themselves. I've heard of a case where chimps murdered an alpha in his sleep.

We human beings are apes and our natural tendency is to follow our alphas and conspire to become them ourselves. Which is why the guillotines go up.

Democracy is distinctly unnatural. But it does require us to use our ability to think. Which is why we're currently in so much trouble. We've had it too soft for too long to do much thinking.

Ah well. Societies are born, they grow old and they die. I just wish ours had waited a century or so. It's not going to be fun over the next little while.

 

[Pure]

Colleen said,

If anyone with a conservative outlook read past the ridiculous definitions I salute them.

In a way, I agree with what you (Colly) are suggesting. The definitions would not be acceptable to many 'conservatives'. In that sense, Agre is writing for liberals, for the 'converted.'

Had he truly wished to argue with conservatives, he would have to start with mutually agreeable definitions, or conservative self-definitions.

In a sense, his message is "Republicans favor the rich." or "Conservatism is a philosophy favoring the rich."

He then claims "We're all equal."

From which it follows "Republicanism/conservatism is wrong" and as a corollary, "Most people, in proper circumstances, properly informed, etc. will see this.
---

So I will have a bash at this: If I had to say 'what is conservatism', i'd say it's respect for existing institutions and values, and for a kind of 'organic' evolution that led to them, and should lead to their further development. This implies a grave suspicion of progressive and revolutionary schemes, particularly those said to be 'rational', historically necessary or scientifically based. The 'default' is to leave things alone--"if it aint broke, don't fix it."

It's a conception of an 'organic' society, with parts delicately and functionally adjusted to one another (society as a kind of organism) in a kind of homeostasis. Any given social stratification likely makes a kind of 'organic' sense.

This implies that you cant, for instance, simply take one problem or problem group (like say, kids living on the streets) and fix it, as one fixes the flat tire on a car (send them to fancy prep schools).

This implies that you can't tinker much with the existing strata; e.g., take a so-called 'subordinate (oppressed) group' and simply elevate it to equality (move slum dwellers into rich folks' homes). You can't just assume that the alleged 'subordination' is an evil that demands correction, esp. through a government program.

---
These proposals agree with Agre's formulations, to some extent, in that there's a bias towards existing elites. However, the conservative would argue that these elites (upper strata) serve--reasonably well-- various social and economic functions, and therefore are deserving of rewards.

Turning the argument the other way, regardless of the failings of the upper stratum, at least it's organically connected to the society and springs from its history. This makes it superior to any other self selected 'elite', e.g., the Jacobins, or the Bolsheviks.

Interestingly, a marxist can largely agree with the gist of the italicked statement, though it burns Agre's ass: Marx was quite aware of the dynamism and accomplishments of the 'capitalist' class. Their function, accumulation of capital, is well carried out--witness the Rockefellers, for example-- and hence concomitant rewards are expectable.

The conservative critique of Agre then is obvious. He's got a pie in the sky 'democratic' and radical 'egalitarian' agenda, which he doesn't quite specify. Be that as it may. Then there are two possibilities: He favors radical actions in furtherance thereof; he favors evolutionary 'parliamentary' solutions (make a law; set up an enforcement agency). Taking the second case, he'll likely fail. An example would be the failure of affirmative action in elite universities and in elite corporate positions.

Colly, I trust this at least partly agrees with your point of view.
---

PS I note rgraham has, very concisely, made some similar points about hierarchy, using the term 'natural' where I used 'organic'.