Outdated political definitions: conservatives and liberals unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains
There was an argument–that is to say, a lively discussion–in Tuesday’s comments section in the “Cold hubris” post. The subject was political definitions, such as “conservative” and “Left.”
It started about here, and went on–and on and on. Read it if you want some background to the sort of confusion that can reign when trying to pin down what are in some ways outdated and poorly defined political concepts and categories.
I use these terms–liberal, conservative, Right, Left–myself, because they are in such common parlance, but I agree they are misleading. None of these groups are unitary by any means (and hey, whatever happened to that good old epithet from my youth–“reactionary?”) “Fascist” is another one that has come to mean, simply, “bad person trying to do something I don’t like.”
Redefining these terms, or trying to come up with new ones, is a huge undertaking, one I’m not about to tackle this moment.
Besides, plenty of people have done it before me. One of them was Steven Den Beste. Here is his attempt at a comprehensive reordering of the political grid, and here is a description of his own political leanings (he’s conservative because he’s a liberal–read it and it will make sense. And, for those of you unfamiliar with Den Beste, he was one of the best bloggers ever; my paean to him can be found here.)
What I’d like to focus on now is the commonly offered definition of “conservative” as “one who seeks to preserve the status quo.” This definition is wholly inadequate for today’s conservatives, and actually leads to quite preposterous results, as stated here by the commenter “a guy in pajamas”:
Hmmm…. So every administration is conservative, because they try to preserve their own power. I.e., those in power are always conservative. E.g., Clinton was progressive when elected, but conservative afterwards. Hmmm… methinks this is a simplistic definition of ‘conservative.’
Another example: Hitler was progressive when he was trying to change the status quo of the Weimar Republic, but then became conservative when he actually held power and tried to maintain it.
It seems like a joke of sorts–or a meaningless semantic exercise in which a political term “conservative,” which was originally derived from the word “conserve,” has become defined as almost identical to it, which it most certainly is not.
And, lest you think “guy in pajamas” is setting up a straw man–au contraire. In fact, this is the very definition used by the authors of the seminal study of conservatism cited in the Psychology Today article you’ve heard so much about, the Jost study (the other part of their definition of conservative was “tolerant of inequality”–and don’t get me started on that).
Guy in pajamas is merely paraphrasing Jost, et. al, who actually do state that Stalin was originally a figure on the Left but arguably became a figure on the right because he wanted to preserve the Soviet system. Now, just let that sink in: Stalin was a conservative for supporting an entrenched Communist regime–the important word here being “entrenched.”
I think we can all agree–I fervently hope we can all agree–that this is an absurdity. But it’s an absurdity into which many fall, because the original definition of “conservative” on which it’s based is incorrect.
Oh, it may have once been correct in a certain limited set of circumstances. For instance, way back when powerful monarchs were in vogue, those looking to preserve that status quo against those wanting to limit the divine right of sovereigns would have been called “conservative” at the time. But time marches on–even for conservatives–and those olden-day conservatives have virtually nothing in common with most conservatives of today who tend to believe (note that word “tend;” there are always exceptions) in less central government, not more; and in the importance of individual rights and liberties. Just those things those old liberals were fighting for.
After all, libertarians today are conservatives, and they are fairly radical (as in, “extreme,” not “Leftist”–see the quicksand that looms everywhere, waiting to trap us when we try to use these words?) in the changes they advocate. And, of course, no one could accuse neocons of wanting to do business as usual in the international sphere–leave that to the realpolitikers, who now seem to include most of the formerly radical Left. Go figure.
And don’t liberals want to return to–or conserve–many aspects of the glory days of the 60s, or the Clinton administration?
Oh yes, but neocons are “conservative” because they champion the spread of old-fashioned pre-modern (is that the opposite of post-modern?) ideas such as liberty and justice for all (that’s in the Pledge of Allegiance, so it must be conservative, right?) But didn’t liberals used to do that, at least in theory? Once again, you can twist these definitions almost infinitely to try to fit them into a framework where they just don’t make much sense without the gyrations. Which means they’re not all that helpful.
But they are the only words we have at the moment to use, and they at least have some common meaning that we all think we understand. I strongly urge you to read that Den Beste essay in which he suggests some different ways of ordering things. He’s got quite a few dimensions, such as conservative/revolutionary, liberal/autocrat-elitist, realism/idealism, tolerant/conformist/, capitalist/socialist, individual/group, and opportunity/result (yeah, I know, too complicated–it will never replace the old liberal/conservative).
Here’s an excerpt:
This is where Michael [Totten]’s argument, based on a single axis, breaks down. The people he refers to as “liberals” aren’t liberal. For lack of a better term, we’ll have to call them “leftists” for the moment. The vocal leftist movement which has been revealed in the last year in the US manifests as being elitist (i.e. not liberal), idealistic (not realistic) and conformist (not tolerant). There’s a lesser dedication to equality (over inequality) but it’s not totally consistent because it is a side effect of a basic choice of groups over individuals and to some extent of socialism over capitalism. And within the US right now, they’re revolutionaries because they strongly disagree with the status quo. It is because they are revolutionaries that we tend to categorize them as being “leftist”; it has nothing to do with liberalism as such (especially since they aren’t liberal)….
And here’s still another attempt, by Jerry Pournelle, to redo the political classification system, this time with two axes, statism and rationalism. It’s worth a read, as well. And anyone interested in wading into the works of Den Beste (allow a bit of time–his stuff is loooong, but worthwhile), click on any of the above links to his blog, and then look on the right sidebar and click on the “best of” link (I’ve done this instead of adding a direct link myself, because each time I’ve tried to do so Blogger goes nuts and messes up this entire post of mine).
So, what do I think? I think conservatives tend towards the following: especially interested in individual rights, identity, and especially responsibility over group rights, identity, and responsibility; and in general favoring smaller government over big, including a more laissez faire approach to capitalism (which they also favor over other economic systems). Liberals tend in the opposite direction, and Leftists even more so in the opposite direction–including a liking for socialism, and an increased dislike for the US and the West in general.
That’s it, at least for now.
Oh yes–and bigotry, narrowmindedness, rigidity, self-interest, political wrangling, hypocrisy, lies, and inconsistency know no sides–they are equal opportunity characteristics.
Hi, pj guy, yeah I asked the lefties to answer a question a while back. So far, no takers.
The creation of external enemies in order to grab domestic power is a rather perfected system for the Left. Surely Venezuella has shown us how it is done. Very few secrets of such acts are unknown by the Left, for surely they talk about it often to remain in practice.
Perhaps “Socialist” and “Republican” are better terms for today? “Statist” and “Capitalist”?
What a hassle I had with Blogger in trying to post this today! Thwarting me at every turn! I’ve noticed a few typos, but I’ll fix them later–I’m finished wrestling with Blogger for the moment.
Hitchens on Fascism:
First of all, it has to meet two or three conditions. One is ethnic, national, even religious paranoia – either that the group itself is in danger, or has special privileges, or both. Almost inevitably, that means anti-semitism-the idea there is a secret government out there, responsible for your woes.
Second, an alliance between the oligarchy and the lumpen. You couldn’t have it better than the Saudi sponsorship of madrassas.
Another is its irrationality. With the Soviet Union there was a degree of predictability, it was essentially rational. There were certain things we knew they weren’t going to do. It was containable. But fascism tends to irrationality. It is not an accident that suicide – the death cult – is a part of this. Attacking New York in broad daylight on 9/11, for example, when they could have taken over Pakistan, and had a nuclear-armed state in their hands, if they were just willing to do it quietly. On the other hand the elaborateness of the display meant battle is joined, which excited some of their constituents.
It both hates and envies modernism. It doesn’t want to do science, but it wants what science produces, to seize and pervert it. The Nazis could have had the nuclear bomb, but they got rid of all Jewish scientists. In this, you can look at A. Q. Khan, and his work to exploit science, and turn it against modernism.
Which means they’re not all that helpful.
They weren’t designed to be helpful neo. They were designed to make sure that Stalin and Hitler were always the products of conservatism and the right, never of the left. The Left starts things, and everyone else gets the blame.
For lack of a better term, we’ll have to call them “leftists” for the moment.
I called them fake liberals, which I think Neo noticed once or twice while I was commenting on her site in the beginning.
(allow a bit of time–his stuff is loooong, but worthwhile)
It didn’t seem long to me, Neo, when I was hungry for insights after 9/11. Neither did your posts in the Change Series seem long, if only because I was very interested in hearing more and was disappointed when each part ended.
Neo, you haven’t even gotten into the Jacksonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Hamiltonian models ; )
The number of models to model human behavior is infinite. More or less.
When I first read Den Beste’s work on left vs. right, I emailed the link to everyone I thought would be interested. His writing has held up very well. He was my favorite blogger, and no one can take his place. Neo comes close in political writing, but Den Beste’s technical work was also unmatched.
Now that was a well written, well thought through piece.
The only thing I’d disagree with is the claim that,
“Liberals tend in the opposite direction, and Leftists even more so in the opposite direction–including a liking for socialism, and an increased dislike for the US and the West in general.”
Specifically that leftists dislike the U.S and the West. Now I now that’s a general summation but it seems to be common belief that those who criticize U.S policies must have a strong dislike for their country and/or culture.
I don’t understand that myself – but, other than that – bravo for an intelligently written comment…
Hi Neo,
I don’t know if you saw this at LGF:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24254_Grievance_Theater_Training_at_ASU&only
but it would be interesting to examine the psychological aspect of such experiments in a post. If universities actually “create” leftists by this and other processes.
The only true Liberal, otherwise known as Centrist, represented in America is George W Bush.
Karl Stengel: Wow! Comparing me to Den Beste is music to my ears. He was pretty much my favorite blogger, as well.
syn–I assume that was sarcasm of some sort? If so, it was rather obscure.
I remember some of syn’s comments, so it doesn’t seem so that it was sarcasm.
Certainly Bush can be said to be somewhere in the middle.
neo: I think conservatives tend towards the following: especially interested in individual rights, identity, and especially responsibility over group rights, identity, and responsibility; and in general favoring smaller government over big, including a more laissez faire approach to capitalism (which they also favor over other economic systems).
That’s largely true in the US, though not completely. Even in the US — and much more so in Europe — there’s an older, more traditional strain of conservatism that places considerable emphasis on a so-called “organic” view of society or the community, into which individuals are expected to find and keep to their place. It’s a bit different from the group identity politics of the current left, but similar enough that they can often find common cause from time to time — as in, e.g., a hostility to the vulgarities of “trade”, on the right, or capitalism, on the left. They also both tend to share an ugly tendency to identify a scapegoat group upon which to focus the hostility of their own collective, as a means of enhancing solidarity — the left, of course, has an assortment of various “oppressor” groups to play this role, but it’s particularly fascinating to see both latter day left and old right join in demonizing Israel, the modern home of the very model of group scapegoat.
Europe has a very strong connection between socialists, aristocrats, and conservative-monarchists. Because it all tied in. The socialism was simply akin to the patronage system under the aristocrats. Folks got paid what the rich elites said they would get paid, and this is more or less the same in a socialist unionized society. Those in power decide what the wages are and who gets hired.
When industrialization came along and private property for serfs and what not, the aristocrats said let us get a piece of that.
I have noticed that over here, we call ourselves “citizens”, while in most of Europe(especially U.K.), they still refer to themselves as “subjects”. My father(in the navy at the time) told me about a conversation he was having with a British sailor. Dad said he was going belowdecks to get a cup of cocoa. The Brit replied “Cocoa? Only the bloody Queen gets cocoa!”.
TC:
The trouble is, most liberals/leftists I come in contact with _do_ seem to dislike not just the current Administration or current US policies, but the nation and its people.
They don’t like McDonald’s and the people who eat there. They don’t like Wal-Mart or the people who shop there. They don’t like SUVs and the people who drive them. They don’t like churches and the people who go to them. They don’t like malls, Boy Scouts, country music, fireworks, classic cars, or college sports.
The version of history they teach is one of oppression, hypocrisy, and violence. Their heroes are victims rather than leaders.
They really do believe that America is a racist, sexist, theocratic, soulless, greedy, environment destroying, anti-intellectual, technology dependent, homophobic, sex-obsessed, Puritanical, parochial, imperialist society.
They don’t like America and Americans; President Bush and his policies draw their ire only because he is unashamedly patriotic and refuses to mouth the appropriate internationalist pieties.
Tris. Good response to TC.
I would have said the same thing in twice as many words.
The only thing I would add is that I hope TC doesn’t think he’s fooled anybody.
In other words, they(the left) don’t love America; they love what they think they can shape and mold it into becoming.
If you want a better map, check out the World’s Smallest Political Quiz here: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html. Read the FAQ, too.
Am I the only one having a hard time going to Little Green Footballs? Can’t go through links, my ISP, search engines, anything.
Oh I knew I couldn’t put one past you, Richard.
Seriously – I’m not trying to fool anybody. But maybe you could say why.
Trimegistus: I know people somewhat like what you describe and don’t particularly like them myself – but I think those people generally don’t have too much good to say about anything, let alone America in my opinion. And I find alot of liberals pretty obnoxious – the Air America team comes to mind, especially that radio hostess. They have good intentions and I agree with the idea that the left has to be a bit more aggressive, but they do it to the wrong people and mostly sound like a bunch of whining childish snots.
Having said that – I am very much a leftist. And I do know that most of them don’t hate America – you don’t have to like fast foods, churches, definitely not country music(Johnny Cash and the King aside)sports etc to love the country. America is many things to many people – one of the things I feel gets overlooked by those to the right of things. America is a very diverse place and you don’t have to be a whole hearted pop junky to enjoy it.
What about the people, the history(which isn’t all about war), the land – and yes, the good things America does for the world(unfortunately it’s usually not the government – but Americans are very generous people).
Anyway – I think your presenting a sterotype – one that certainly exists – but I don’t think it’s representive of people to the left. It’s housewives, teachers, doctors, musicians, blue collar workers, kids, Christians, Muslims, Jews, – in other words it’s most of the population. And yes I really do believe that.
By the way – I love muscle cars. I’d love to have a 1970 camero. And I drive a dodge and I really don’t care if people want to drive SUVs, I don’t blame them for doing what they do. Enviromental issues need a collective effort, yes but for the all the great work non-profit organizations do and the hard work people put into it – without real government support and a real and honest political discussion it’s not going to happen- that’s how I see it.
“The version of history they teach is one of oppression, hypocrisy, and violence. Their heroes are victims rather than leaders.”
That is a real part of American history. As I say, not the only part but it’s a part that isn’t discussed for the most part – and it’s something that needs to be talked about. And that’s probably the reason for the disdain – nobody likes a party pooper.
Who do you have in mind when you say the left’s heroes are victims?
America has it’s problems – and there are those who think it’s important to talk about them and those who think ignoring them is the way to go. There is racism, homophobia, materialism, commodification, and sex obsession in America. And there are those on the right who feel American society is a steaming cesspool of sin and immorality. But again if you only focus on those things all the time you’d pr
probably be a pretty miserable person – and most of the leftists that I know personally are extremely warm people. As are many god-fearing Christians, and devoted Muslims from my experiences – and I am a complete athiest.
Needless to say – when your talking about politics – they come in all different shapes and sizes…
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the left’s heroes are victims.
But they need victims, the more the better, to set off the nasty oppression which is the main theme of their history. No vics, no oppressors.
I once heard a discussion of Mann’s “1491” which is about how disease killed as many as 90% of the population of the America, mostly before the white man got to wherever. The disease went faster than settlement.
Several people objected. Disease, before the germ theory, was not any agency of the evil whites. They needed every Indian who died before his time to have been personally shot by Daniel Boone. Or Custer. Or somebody. But disease wasn’t a villain. So they objected to the thesis.
So lefties claim to love the vics, but they only need them as stage dressing.
In other words, TC, what you love about america is platitudes.
You said:
“Oh yes–and bigotry, narrowmindedness, rigidity, self-interest, political wrangling, hypocrisy, lies, and inconsistency know no sides–they are equal opportunity characteristics.”
No, you’re wrong. That is an inflammatory comparison, and inaccurate. Sure, it will be possible to find those within the conservative camp who exhibit those qualities, as it would be in any large group.
But those things are so much more descriptive of the today’s left as to make your statement absurd. You may have been awakened by 9/11, but you still have one foot stuck in leftist quicksand it you really believe it.
Lee – some things probably need to change. And if there is country and a people that can do it – it’s here. And I think the ways in which it needs to change reflect the views of the majority of the country.
“Everybody I know” is not reflective of the “majority of the country”.
I think all this left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative stuff basically boils down to the conflict between two differing concepts of equality. On the one hand you have the idea of “equality of outcomes” which leads to socialism, communism, etc., and debacles like the French Revolution. On the other hand you have the idea of “equality before the law” and/or “equality of opportunity” as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Granted, it doesn’t always work like it’s supposed to, and it can be a little rough around the edges sometimes, but the bottom line is that, over time, it works. The same cannot be said of any of the collectivist systems that have been tried.
Maybe we’ll get an explanation of what a “neo-con’ is ?
Platitude: A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if original or significant; lack of originality. In other words, cliche.
Right – what I mean is what, that I wrote in my thread as an example, is a platitude?
I’m Native American. Obviously a terrible chapter in our history was the near-genocide of “my” people(as Ward Churchill would say). So, why did native americans step up and fight in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert One, Somalia, Iraq, etc. if the people who lead, the system itself, the inherent class system, etc. is flawed, repressive, evil, etc.(after all, shouldn’t “WE” better than anyone know this)? All lefties(Anon, TC, WR, etc.) simply answer this question first. I hope you’ll indulge me, I think I am attempting a logical train of thought.
Today on Yahoo they point to an article about the Tuskeegee Airmen(Segregated Black AAF unit in WWII). Why did they step up?
The Irish Brigade(Civil War), Black Union soldiers. Why?
“Undocumented Workers”. Why?
Because of AMERICA. We ARE America(no parenthetical around we this time). We establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
In many ways, America itself is a belief. While it will NEVER be perfect, it has worked better, and striven harder to attain as near perfection as possible.
BUSH is Hitler???? You don’t think there aren’t enough AMERICANS at ALL levels, departments, compartments, that might say it’s all being manipulated for the purpose of THE POLICE STATE, TO ENRICH THE RULING CLASS?
Well, bit of a surprise seeing my words on the front page here. I’m flattered. Den Beste was great.
TC, when you say: Having said that – I am very much a leftist.
I’m interested to know what you mean by ‘leftist.’
People WITHOUT a hidden agenda? People who HAVEN’T sold out? People WITHOUT guns to their heads? People like US?
I feel like I missed something. Lee, did a troll wander through and get deleted?
BTW, good series of posts, right up to the ‘BUSH is Hitler?’ one, which seems a bit of a non-sequitor at the moment.
Bush isn’t Hilter! It is stupid, cheap remarks like that make people irrelevant in geniune political discussion. After a remark like that no one takes them serious. Hilter never had a moral bone in his body. Bush although not the wisest President America has every had doesn’t compare to Hitler. Be more realsitic or be considered a person who mouth is bigger than their brain!
TC: There is racism, homophobia, materialism, commodification, and sex obsession in America.
Hey, ya left out sexism! And what about ageism? Sizism? Lookism? Smartism? Strongism? Xism? (And don’t you just love that “commodification”? Can’t you just imagine poor Marx rolling his eyes, even in his grave, at this sort of befuddled trivialization of his attempt to make sense of capitalism?)
But seriously, folks — America, like all countries, like all societies, has its problems and its faults, yes. So aren’t lefties — you know, those “extremely warm people” — just pointing out the faults? Well, no. The Birkenstock crowd, for example, are like the rednecks of the left, who think that there own particular tastes ought to be everybody’s tastes, and think that difference implies fault. They’re flaky and obnoxious, but harmless.
On the other hand, there’s a much more sinister (so to speak) group — you see them behind the violent demos on campuses and at international gatherings, among other contexts — who positively hate America, its flag, its symbols, and everything it stands for, particularly the freedom, autonomy, dignity, and rights of the individual. Some of these people, of course, are simply young and misled, like TC himself here (by the sounds of him) — but some are mature enough to know exactly what they’ve chosen, including some influential figures in academia and among the cultural elite. They aren’t critics, they’re hostile enemies, and they know it.
So we better wake up and get behind each other. If we went into Afgahnistan because our President said it was necessary, it was necessary. If our President said it was necessary to go to Iraq, it was necessary. I don’ mean Rich Clark or Ritter or Blix or Salikashvili or cohen burger clinton, I mean one of US?
Way to go, Sally!
Way to go, Lee!
Two great post!
Because there ARE people out there who want to destroy AMERICA(US).
Project for the New American Century? Downing Street Memo? CFR? Skull and Bones? Pyramids on MARS?
GOD! I’m going enough ranting. Ponder
In the name of Yeshoua, my Savior I pray, Amen.
Neo, you are absolutely right. Current political language is ambiguous, obsolete, misleading and grossly inadequate. It reflects some realities of the past that do not exist anymore, and can’t grasp some new phenomena that emerge later. Even worse, it was bent by utopian ideologies specifically to manipulate people and cheat them. So a big purge is needed. But we should also understand that politics is a very complex stuff, and any possible classification is somewhat arbitrary and hardly can be universally applied. Different language is needed for US and Europe; may be, even Continental Europe and Britain need different language. Orwell was right in his assertion that those who can control language can control thought. That is why free speech is so important: it breaks monopoly of elitist groups to frame the discussion.
Dull binary thinking, like the weapons of mass delusion. Get out more and breath reality.
Friedrich A. von Hayek’s individualism vs. collectivism says it all:
The Road to Serfdom
Today’s “liberals,” our friends on the left side of the aisle, are the totalitarianist collectivists — the Hillary Clintons who know better than you what is good for you — while “conservatives” and others on the right are for the most part the champions of individual freedom.
If the country survived eight years of Bill Clinton, I think it could survive Hillary. The whole reason George W, Bush is President is because of the backlash against Bill in the late 1990’s. That energized the Republicans so when they gained total power they governed like “liberal” Democrats!
I think we have been giving Bush far too much credit in defining him as a Conservative. He has been ineffective in balancing public opinion. He has been ineffective in communicating our values. He has been ineffective in attacking those who are at war with us (the Saudis). He has been ineffective in protecting the little store of wealth and the many opportunities that individuals have in creating something of value. Instead of securing these things that we conservatives expect from a competent conservative leader, Bush has bumbled his message. He has contributed to an “us versus them” attitude between fellow Americans, which has marginalized his administration. He has offered various concessions to that other elite of ours, stock-holders and the corporations that represent their will. These concessions have left the middle class with less viable opportunities to better themselves and increase our nation’s actual production. We produce little ang Bush ha sopported those who export our capital rather then invest it in American productivity. His deal with the Saudis to keep the US dollar the note by which their oil is sold has been the reason we fight in Iraq. If Bush had understood liberty one bit he would have stopped pressing for democracy and instead kept Iraq’s infrastructure of administration intact while injecting the notion of civil liberties into Iraqi society. It is these liberties, which has made good old American initiative the great engine of our history. It has secured our trust in property rights and the safety of our personal rights. None of this has been the experience of people in Iraq. I can’t explain why he has blundered so. I can only think that if one speaks in one way but the results of your effort are far from your goals then you are either incompetent or a liar.
I say we return to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist monikers. It’s as fitting as Liberal/Conservative.
I see the good intentions expressed here as an attempt to bring about a “vast classically liberal consensus.”
People, including political opponents, who can’t agree on terms and definitions, are lost. As in perdido.
Sorry for the earlier rant. I notice the lefties still have no answer to my earler original question. What’s up, TC, WR, neoneoconned, anon?
Hey Neo.
Got this from Bookworm
It is about libertarianism in a way. Sort of like a Change story.
Thanks, Ymarsakar, I think Alger has answered the question. Lefties, anyone?
P.Ami, did you ever stop to think that just possibly, maybe, the guy(Bush) just might be HUMAN? “He” didn’t do this, “he” couldn’t do that, “he” has no right, what “he” is doing to “us”. Did Lincoln have the right to “inject” democracy in the South? Did T. Roosevelt have the right to “inject” democracy in Caribe? In Germany, Japan, Phillipines? EUROPE?
Between gripers like you and the MSM, no wonder the guy looks bad.
|quote|I think we have been giving Bush far too much credit in defining him as a Conservative. He has been ineffective in balancing public opinion. He has been ineffective in communicating our values. He has been ineffective in attacking those who are at war with us (the Saudis). He has been ineffective in protecting the little store of wealth and the many opportunities that individuals have in creating something of value. Instead of securing these things that we conservatives expect from a competent conservative leader, Bush has bumbled his message.|quote|
He is a perfect example of what’s often wrong with the current “Right”. Lack of nuance.
The social relationship between two people is complex, but the right often approaches politics and social problems, like we do this, we get this effect. It would be funny, if it didn’t get results like Iraq.
Why does the Macaque monkey cling to Harlow’s iron maiden when it’s abused, is as to why did the Iraqis did not fall over with joy at the arrival of the U.S and the “freedom” from George Bush. (And that example is not meant to be a direct argument for problems in Iraq, but simply to elucidate the complexity of human response)
The liberal left doesn’t have all the answers, but it has more promise because it does not usually over simplify the human condition.
Sally – you are a riot. You go girl!
I like the Burkinstocks thingy…you sound like somebody who got picked on alot in school…
You neocons are all the same, crying underdog even when you’re in power and acting as if failure were a form of vindication.
Aw, TC, I’m sorry, I bet you actually still wear Birkenstocks, don’t you? But what’s this “picked on a lot in school” business? I think you probably still are in school, TC, but I hope you’re not in some sort of Birkenstock gang, roaming around looking for non-recyclers that you can turn up your nose at!
Without a doubt we don’t have any chance of advancing political discussion without a common vocabulary, and the present terminology is failing us, making it more attractive to ascribe evil motives to those we don’t understand and demonize those with whom we disagree.
Examining what constitutes the meaning of “conservative” or “liberal” is a useful start, particularly when we recognize that these are not actually conflicting directions, and that the context of culture further differentiates meaning so that what is conservative in one culture is not in another.
Pursuing better language, holding political leadership to higher standards of meaning in what they aspouse, and promoting the idea that “the labels commonly used to define political viewpoints are not just vapid, they are antithetical to the desire to reach meaningful conclusions through dialogue” is a start to moving away from the traps we have fallen into within American national politics.
The confusion surrounding these words just about cripples any debate before it gets started. It would be great it we could come to an agreement on WHAT we are talking about before we commence the debate.
But constantly playing with the meaning of words and redefining them ad nauseum is a major part of the left’s strategy, so I just don’t see it happening.
The social relationship between two people is complex, but the right often approaches politics and social problems, like we do this, we get this effect. It would be funny, if it didn’t get results like Iraq.
Actually, those who oppose them do exactly that. Their entire explanation for anti-Americanism is, ‘we did this, we got that.’ Pretty simplistic. At least the neocons tried something new (making them revolutionaries).
The liberal left doesn’t have all the answers, but it has more promise because it does not usually over simplify the human condition.
Well …
You neocons are all the same, crying underdog even when you’re in power and acting as if failure were a form of vindication.
Funny juxtaposition.
TC, I’m still waiting for what you mean by ‘leftist.’
Neocons have no bearing on the human condition, thank goodness.
“Leftist” – A proponent of leftist ideology – generally speaking.
I’m sure to you I’m what you’d refer to as far, or ‘radical’ left.
Why do you ask?
No I never wore Berkinstocks in school – I didn’t have long hair until my thirties. I was into Harley Davidson and heavy metal, and was a male chauvenistic pig so I wasn’t exactly in the crowd you recall with such, err, charming exuberance.
The neocons aren’t ‘new’.
And what they ‘tried’ is hardly new by any stretch of the imagination…
Tap:
My view is that we don’t have to decend into becoming semiotics police before we engage in discussion. Rather, engage those who for us use undefined/misdefined terms to get to the fundamentals (including to the extent possible base assumptions) of what they are trying to say. There is an element of deconstruction required.
Once we get to common meaning (which may include intent), the dialogue is underway.
It can be difficult, and sometimes impossible to come to such a state. We sometimes see a strong defense of weakly defined(or one sided) terms because it limits the scope of thought – and that limitation may be to the advantage of a particular perspective. Committing to dialogue does require a certain passion and desire. In my mind there is a truly patriotic (Romantic??) element to making a commitment to engage in this way.
When you find someone with a passionate, informed, divergent opinion who can commit to engage at this level, it can be one of the finest opportunities. It just takes a bit more time to define terms.
“Leftist” – A proponent of leftist ideology – generally speaking.-TC
Neo-Con= Proponent of a new conservative view.
The neocons aren’t ‘new’.
If the neo-cons aren’t new, why then are the Leftists proponents of leftist ideology?
You need better definitions.
“When you find someone with a passionate, informed, divergent opinion who can commit to engage at this level, it can be one of the finest opportunities. It just takes a bit more time to define terms.”
I agree! That ‘someone who will commit to engage’ is highly elusive, though.
TC, I asked because this thread was about defining political terms, and I was curious what your definition of that political term is. You self-identify as a leftist, so I wondered exactly what you meant by that.
For me at this moment, left means socialist, and far left means communist.
However, I’m in the process of working out more appropriate terms, so I’m actually trying not to use the traditional left/right, etc., terms right now. Anyway, just curious.
As for the neocons, they recognized that diplomatic alternatives, which were the only other ones offered, had been tried since 1945 and had consistently failed. They failed not through any fault of our own, but because a number of those in power in the Arab / Persian world would not negotiate in good faith, and key UNSC nations like France, Russia, and China consistently pursued their own national interests rather than what was best for the international community. I like Bill Clinton, but his presidency showed us that relying on the UN failed miserably (although I think he had to try). So, in terms of US Middle East policy, the neocons DID do something new.
I don’t think they’re new because you can go back to the 70’s with Cheney and Rumsfeld in Ford’s administration beginning a decidedly neoconservative approach to bolstering American power – by concocting a Soviet military buildup that didn’t exist.
“They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn’t know about, that the CIA didn’t know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with.” (Hartmann, 2006)
One might also, with more than a fair degree of legitimacy, claim that the notion of exaggerating a threat to mobilize public support for an aggressive foreign policy is not unique to neoconservatism – while being one of it’s central doctrines today…
I would loosely describe myself as a democratic socialist/revolutionary marxist – but as far as communism goes you wouldn’t find me singing the praises of the former Soviet Union – the totalitarian nature of that regime ultimately had little to do with socialist ideology.
But then you could say the same thing about capitalism and the current U.S programs…
Actually, the term ‘revolutionary/marxist’ would be pretty redundant I guess – so i should just say marxist – or neo-marxist.
But then I haven’t read the ol’ “Communist Manifesto” since high school, so, again, I use term pretty loosely….
TC, the “secret Soviet WMD” you allege Cheney-Rummy referred to was actually a new silent drive system for subs. I vaugely recall it’s called a “caterpillar” system(believe Clancy used it for ‘Red October’). Worked, too. Just not enough power to effectively drive subs. Concept still in people’s mind for further development. No “Grand Conspiracy”, no “give us cash and we’ll save us” tripe.
Lee – that is basically what it was. The idea, too, that something must be true because there is no evidence that it isn’t was just as ‘tripe’ then as it is now.
And you find the same ridiculous rants from Cheney today in his claims about Al-qaeda and Iraq. It isn’t conspiracy simply because these folks have come to believe their own lies – not an uncommon occurance among power elites…
Sheer belief in retoric does not a “lie” make, either, TC.