posted
...I found this column interesting, not least because I suspect that I'm proud to be exactly the kind of "rational cosmopolitan" that has Goldberg so nervous. His argument -- that conservatism is at its heart a defense of one's own things, and therefore that liberalism is a dangerous rejection of self and identity -- is actually very similar to my own, except that I think a rejection of self is a good thing.
posted
Actually, I liked the column, I thought it tied into a lot of what Rabbit has been talking about. I guess it is the balance between selfishness(conservatism-patriotism) and altrusim (liberalism-globalism). You can not always take from people because you make everyone else miserable but you can't always give to people either because then you are left with nothing.
posted
Conservatism doesn't necessarily equate to selfishness. If you truly believe that the status quo is more condusive to long-term happiness that the untried order clamoring to replace it, holding down the fort is an act of charity.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always considered there to be a few things that are absolute - very few, and very absolute - and everything else is up for grabs.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you truly believe that the status quo is more condusive to long-term happiness that the untried order clamoring to replace it..."
I would argue that most people who defend the status quo, at the very least, BELIEVE they believe this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally happen to think that conservativism is a protection of ones own and all the other stufff attached to it is not neccesarily part of conservatis. The main problem I have with liberalism is the globalistic views, the we are all one community views, the thought that t is their job in life to make laws about everything, I am of the view that as little government as possible is best.
posted
"why do you think rejection of self is a good thing, Tom?"
Because I think an attachment to "self" -- and to the familiar things and trappings of "self" -- prevent a proper attachment to the universe, which is one of my stated goals for humanity. I believe a self-centered outlook, while a valid and practical one, prevents the kind of empathy that's going to be necessary for our species if we want to move beyond our animalistic natures.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberalizing trade has become a conservative issue. The left in this country would not like to see free trade and more free markets. Most of the democratic presidential candidate are vying for the union vote, and will lampoon NAFTA and globalization.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but then Rhaegar, maybe you have a simpler view of what "one's own" is?
--- I think this article hits some good points, but at such an abstract level as to render it irrelevant... Except for the Red Sox/Yankee part. As he mentions at the end, it's that sort of grounding that will help convince people.
But the rest of it is at a level of discourse that renders it eye-glazing to those who are powering the so-called "Christian Right", or the "Neo-Cons", whoever you feel is the biggest bogeyman.
Honestly I think the rise of conservativism lately is a confluence of few things, and isn't all that surprising, nor at all dumb, as many on the left would make it out to be. We have a huge, mostly affluent class of citizens in prime voting age (50s+), who have been living through one of the fastest increases of the standard of living, coupled with self-congratulatory media, which isn't surprising, since they manage most of it.
Yup, the Baby Boomers. I foresee a time when the Boomers are all aged and need the support of the younger generations (is this will be the case with or without social security and the like) and the struggle and strain it will cause. They have had the luck of being the first generaion to see extensive medical advances, prolonging and consolidating their democratic and fiduciary influence. The "kids" may still make most of the noise, but little gets done without the okay of the grownups. Of course, thanks to their well-publicized rebellion before most of us here were born, I think there is a sub-concious realization that they can't just apply social pressures to control unpleasant behaviors, rather, they have to go to the legislatures and courts.
Now, with the "echo boomers" coming along, and being shaped by certain societally shared experiences and culture, I wouldn't be surprised if someday the "Gen Xers" are seen as a sort of a second lost generation, or more correctly, the "Silent Generation", not because we are particularly reticent, but because our voice will be largely drowned out.
Or maybe my martyr complex is kicking in again.
-Bok
PS- See, who said all Leftists are classists? Some of us are congenerationalists! Not too far from my congregationalist upbringing, I guess.
posted
I'll willing to concede that Rhaegar, if you are willing to concede it hasn't been particularly efficient at it, in terms of human life.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bokonon, I have to say most of what you said I agree with totaly. Their are a few things I differ on but most of it is solid intelligent thought.
posted
I do concede that, but the idea of a eutopia is just absurd. If we all become bunny people (peace lovers) sooner or later someone will come along just like Hitler and then, how do I put this, were screwed. We will not be able to stop him.
posted
I believe that Conservative and Liberal are out dated notions. They were created 150 years ago to talk about Communists and Unions working for the masses of abused workers versus the Patriotic, Up-by-their Bootstrap Manufacturing Barons and their entourages trying to conquer thier world with their own will.
Today you will hardly find two conservatives or two liberals that agree on anything other than that the otherside is dangerous and must be destroyed.
This leads to the polarization of parties and the terrible, no holds barred manuevers such as the Texas Redistricting, California Recall, or Senate Fillibuster Flurry.
The first person to break out of the box, to reach for a new pardigm and label it to their advantage (Geez, can I quote any more obnoxious marketing terminology) will win any election.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Hitler would have been fairly powerless at the time if all the Germans had been 'bunny people'. His capacity for destruction arose from the fact that he could convince many other people to not be bunny people, primarily by appealing to their pride in their own selves - pride in Germany above all other peoples.
If the world was full almost entirely of bunny people, there could be no Hitlers. There could, however, still be suicide bombers...
posted
I dont think your totaly accurate Dan, their are still some who hold their own views, but as soon as we ge a truly independent candidate, yes he will wil.
posted
He had vision, and any man with vision can cause others to share his, the next Hitler will be able to raise his own army, while we left in a state of horror that he has the audacity to do anything remotely violent will not be able o get it together to stop him this time. But if we maintane our martial nature, hes just as screwed as last time.
-Rhaegar The Fool
[ October 15, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
To me, the Yankees have already won the World Series many times. They know the joy of that moment. The Red Sox last won the World Series in 1918. The Cubs in 1908. New Yorkers, at least some of them who think like I do, want Chicago or Boston to know that kind of joy. If the Cubs or Red Sox win the Series, it won't take the joy of past victories (and very recent victories) away from New York.
And to me, that is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want another pennant. I don't know if they feel that the pennants they already have will be taken from them, or if they just need more pennants because more pennants would be more power and more power is a good thing, but either way, they would rather win the pennant. Whereas liberals would be happy to have Chicago or Boston join the ranks of "those who know what winning a pennant feels like." They enjoyed winning the pennant and they want others to share that joy. It just seems like that is the difference to me. One group wants others to share their joy and the other group is afraid that if someone else is happy, their own happiness will be diminished. But, I could be wrong.
Oh, and full disclosure. I grew up a Cub fan, which means I'm still a Cub fan at heart, but I know the joy of a city winning the pennant because I was Cardinal fan in 1983. (Of course, I was also a Cardinal fan in 1985 when we were robbed, but that is another story. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:New Yorkers, at least some of them who think like I do, want Chicago or Boston to know that kind of joy. If the Cubs or Red Sox win the Series, it won't take the joy of past victories (and very recent victories) away from New York.
I guess by your reasoning I'm a conservative, then, because this thinking is alien to me. I want my team to win. That is my first desire. If someone else wants to feel what that's like, let them freaking earn it. If the Yanks can't win it, and Florida can't win it, then I'm happy enough to see some traditional underdog win it, but it's certainly not comparable to seeing my team do it.
And I would never, ever, under any circumstances, want to see the Red Sox win it all.
If you want to make some sort of moral judgment based on team loyalties . . .
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
