Conservatism is a tough sell
It’s long puzzled me why it is that so many conservatives seem to think that conservatism’s superiority to liberalism ought to be obvious, and that people would gravitate towards conservatism once they understood what it was and the logic behind it. All the country needed was an articulate, grounded conservative who could explain it in lucid terms and relate conservatism to people’s lives.
As a conservative, I came to think it would certainly be a good idea to give it a try. But I never thought it would be the least bit easy. I believe that conservatism is inherently difficult for people to accept (far more difficult than liberalism), a sort of “tough-love” approach that is counter-intuitive and seems—for want of a better word—cold.
This campaign season has revealed a number of things to me, and one of them is that a lot of people who kept clamoring for that articulate, grounded conservative didn’t really want one when they got him. He wasn’t the right one. Or they had tired of the idea. They wanted something quite different—a populist progressive with a loud mouth who spoke to their anger and frustration rather than to their conservatism.
Thus proving, once again, that conservatism is a tough sell.
In February I wrote this:
It strikes me, and not for the first time, that the Trump candidacy may represent the death knell of conservatism, probably for a long time in this country, maybe forever. Conservatism has long been a hard sell, swimming against the tide of so many cultural influences and against the gimme-ism inherent in human beings. But I don’t count it out yet.
And in April I wrote this:
…[I]t’s not at all easy to combine conservatism with winning on a national level, unfortunately. And although that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, it may take someone with conservative principles plus a charismatic personality to do it (Trump lacks the former and IMHO also the latter, and Cruz lacks the latter).
The flaw is in people as a whole, not some special flaw of the Republican establishment. People like politicians who offer them pie-in-the-sky, not tough-love. Liberals and big government people sell the idea of helping and caring to the voters. Conservatives sell liberty, yes, but at what cost? Teach people to fish instead of giving them fish, yada yada yada.
So all elected officials””or people who would like to be elected””will naturally tend to drift in the direction of big government even if they didn’t start out that way. It’s not an evil design to thwart the Republican “base.” The base just hasn’t always been big enough and strong enough to counter it.
Conservatism swims against a powerful tide, the tide of people’s desire to be taken care of, and to think of themselves as compassionate and kindly. It does have one tremendous strength, though, which is to swim with the tide of people’s desire for liberty. But I wonder whether the people who value the former don’t outnumber the people who value the latter.
I’ll leave the rest to Robert Frost, in this excerpt from a talk he gave in 1960:
Naturally there’s a constant natural conflict between justice and mercy. The big joke is that somebody on earth ought to balance them up. Probably God does. It could be assumed. That is the most Godlike thing: to balance them””mercy for justice or a just mercy. But there’s something there that’s almost too hard for a mortal man to get.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are having quite a time about it right now. They both want to sound merciful enough, and they both want to sound just enough. They’re going to outdo each other in getting that right. The nice way is to choose the Democrats for being too merciful. Somebody calculated that the mercies that they promised the world were going to cost us about fifty billion dollars a year””if they did all they had in their program. The Republicans have got to sort of match that somewhere if they don’t get broke.
Human nature hasn’t changed much.
Conservatism offers satisfaction in the inherent fairness of it’s approach to life and government as well as it’s high probability of producing a successful society. However it requires a high degree of commitment and self responsibility. The lure of the freeby from government or elsewhere and the implied personal risk reduction is like the snake in the garden. Notice that the only candidate who even tried to be against popular boondoogles like Ethanol was Ted Cruz. Trump, Clinton and Sanders require no explicit sacrifice from anyone but everyone will get the blow back.
I think the first more conservative, liberal societies grew up in Europe with the Reformed church because of the high degree of personal responsibility called for by the protestant church of the time. In days past this was still there. People were ashamed to have food stamps, take welfare or go to soup kitchens. Paying back debts if you had a business reversal was common if not universal.
Neo:
“Thus proving, once again, that conservatism is a tough sell.”
Sales is competitive. The social cultural/political marketplace, the activist game in the arena, is competitive.
As such, given that conservatives have yet to compete for real, I couldn’t say whether conservatism is tougher to sell than the other prominent sets of ideas and principles.
In marked contrast, the insurgent Trump phenomenon overtook the GOP nomination race by mimicking Left activist ‘salesmanship’ to exploit a ready market inefficiency in the GOP constituency.
I posted this yesterday (h/t G6loq):
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_quiet_revolution_how_the_new_left_took_over_the_democratic_party_.html
Powell’s article describes the depth and multi-dimensional breadth of ‘sales’ the Left has invested in the market, demonstrating that social political product is a “tough sell” for everyone. The Left has simply worked smarter, harder, and longer to make their “tough sell” in a competitive market. Now, the alt-Right insurgency is mimicking the Left’s ‘salesmanship’ to strive for their “tough sell”.
In that light, have conservatives honestly tried yet to match their competition in the market by collectively adopting the proper activist mindset, adapting the necessary activist skillset, honoring the zealous commitment, and investing the plain hard work over time needed to compete for the “tough sell” of conservatism?
It doesn’t appear they have – yet.
Eric:
I knew you’d weigh in 🙂 .
I think that conservatism is an inherently tougher sell AND conservatives haven’t been selling it properly and in creative ways. All of the above.
“the Trump candidacy may represent the death knell of conservatism, probably for a long time in this country, maybe forever.”
If Hillary is elected, that will almost certainly be a side effect. If Trump is elected, it may well be a death knell for conservatism. But it cannot be ‘forever’.
That is because, more than any other political philosophy, conservatism denies the operative laws of the reality within which we exist and the realities of human nature… less than any other, yet conceived.
A revived conservatism may well be a bit different but since the operative laws of the universe can’t change, neither can an actual conservatism. Reality will always be with us and even if humanity goes through another long dark age, reality will have the last say. If conservatism ceases as an active force, the question isn’t whether conservatism will ever return, rather it is how much and for how long will the darkness last.
P. J. O’Rourke on the two parties:
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s non-threatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.”
The key to selling the conservative view is to convince a majority of people that the government has no money of its own. That the only money it has is extracted from the citizens through taxation. That when the government takes money from an individual and gives it to another individual, the government is trying to play God. That when the government favors one business or industry over another, it is again trying to play God. That government’s only proper role is providing for the common defense.
Everything else governments do is optional and open to question by the citizenry. Surely Madison Avenue could put that into a palatable ad campaign.
neo,
I think that too many conservatives an politicians are too far removed from the public. They just don’t know how to make their ideas hit home. You need more bottom-up approaches. I bet there isn’t a town in America where local pols don’t brag about getting state or federal funding for a project the town doesn’t need. Yet the pols sell them on the idea that the many came from heaven. Maybe governors could reward local governments that use their resources and ingenuity to solve the problem in a more efficient and cheaper way. There should be a way to turn people from top-down thinking. Make heroes of the locals who come up with better ideas.
Neo,
“Tough sell”, marketplace sales, is a useful conceptual metaphor.
“Behavioral economics”:
http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/gems/abrahamsmatt/HowObamaIsUsingTheScienceofC.pdf
Conservatives tend to talk about the zeitgeist as though it’s a mysteriously occurring environmental phenomenon to be, at best, ‘tapped into’. Yet public opinion is purposefully engineered, cultivated, harvested, manufactured, and sold, like marketplace sales.
That’s not a revolutionary concept. It’s common knowledge. And Left activists apply that common knowledge and work hard to earn what they get in the arena. In contrast, conservatives, after some token effort, would rather evaluate their cause as quixotic rather than make a serious activist attempt to compete for the “tough sell” in the market.
The article tis longer at the “behavioral economics” link, and I couldn’t find another ink with a google search, but the google search yielded this related item:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american
Ugh. Fix:
The article
tis longer at the “behavioral economics” link, and I couldn’t find another link with a google search …no longer at
For me, in order to understand what conservatism was about and why it worked for me, I had to read quite a lot and listen to many discussions. Without this background research, I would have found it difficult to justify my basic beliefs, and I think this is part of the problem. It’s not a natural sell and does require a certain minimal amount of contemplation.
At the same time, I notice that some of the more committed advocates of liberalism/progressivism seem to hold their views with an almost religious fervor that I don’t find in conservatives. I’m not entirely sure why this should be the case, but I wonder if it relates to one’s own religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Only about 3% of the US population were actually active resistance.
On a statistical level, many people provide logistical support, but only 3% are actually individuals who move according to their own will and schedule.
If Hillary is elected, that will almost certainly be a side effect.
The Left’s culture became even more powerful under Bush II 8 years.
How do people explain that one?
Llwddythlw: “At the same time, I notice that some of the more committed advocates of liberalism/progressivism seem to hold their views with an almost religious fervor that I don’t find in conservatives.”
Speculation here on my part- I wonder if you take Chesterton’s quote -“When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing but worships everything.” and apply it here, what do you get?
I believe in God and all my other belief systems follow from that idea. Like the shepherd and sheep example- the sheep do not go wandering off. Without a shepherd, they do wander off. My goal is to walk the path of the shepherd.
I would venture a guess if you take a liberal from the 1950’s they too for the most part followed a shepherd. Not so much today, hence Chesterton’s quote seems to apply well here.
Another speaker said- A Fanatic is one having lost or forgotten the end goal, doubles or triples the means to the end. And the end the speaker talked about was “union with God- in whatever way you understood that to be. In the Judaeo-Christian way it mimics the Shepherd and sheep scenario. But the committed liberals of the current era gave up this type of an end goal a long time ago. Hence you find view of them willing to admit to the actual horrors that Socialism/Communism has inflicted on the world. They will say- Yes, Stalin, Mao, Castro got it wrong but they were individually the problem. We will get it right the next time.
(Remind you any of the liberals you are speaking of or the Muslim terrorists? No desire to live in Peace with those around them and accept there are alternate points of view. But a strong desire to use any means available to compel others to their point of view.)
As a conservative, Conservatism is not my God. I try to look at the facts and factor them into my view of the world.
It is just like Trump- not my first choice based on facts but hopefully better than the alternate choice.
It is like Gravity. It doesn’t care if I believe in it or not. If I walk off a 10 story building, I will not like the consequences no matter how much I believe. While a crazy person trusting in his belief system will take that step off the building. I think progressives simply have not waken up to the fact that their wants can’t be met by the goose laying the golden eggs. And they are sure if they kill the goose they will get all the gold at once. We as conservatives know better and continually try to hid the Ax. But it simply may be like it is with Hugo Chavez and his followers in Argentina- There is no way to reason with them. They, having forgotten the end goal, triple their efforts to reach that goal.
Sorry for rambling on so. Hope it makes some sense. 🙂
Every ideology that isn’t conservative is somehow liberal. Liberal ideologies always spend money that isn’t theirs until they run out.
Conservatism will never die because it works in the long run, and liberalism doesn’t.
Like I’ve said, it is pointless to try and sell a dog a fiddle, implying nothing against dogs of course. It is just that no man wants to, nor need feel any moral obligation to live like one; merely in order to make the dogs feel better about, or exist more comfortably, themselves.
All well and good. However as a self-consciously founded polity, one of the relatively few that actually were, it was not designed for sheep in the political sense.
That is an interesting remark and a view shared by many, many people. And after a considerable amount of time thinking about it myself, I have come to the conclusion that it is pretty much wrong, at least in its more idealistic construal.
Careful recollection of the past, close reading of diaries and popular literature, aware review of popular entertainment from the past, all remind us of just how morally bad many if not most people were. They just did not wish to suffer the social sanctions involved in publicly contravening or being caught out living in defiance of public morals.
They were as bad as they could get away with being at the time; and not any better.
One of the interesting things about old movies and TV reruns, is how upon reflection, just how sleazy it is revealed as attempting to be. Amazing what a pause and rewind function will allow you to reconsider in historical and social context.
A certain segment of the population has been at war with conventional middle-class morality – i.e., Christian bourgeois and individual responsibility morality – for a very long time. And although conforming to the extent necessary, it has been busily undermining, subverting, and digging at the foundations for a very long while – if not always.
I suppose the main difference is that intellectuals once would have conceded, many of them at least, that children were to be protected. Now they just want to use them in their sacrifices to the Moloch of the socialist libertines.
@JJ – what PJO’R said might have been true at one time. Not today.
@DNW – re: trying to sell a dog a fiddle – presume, by this, you mean it is no use trying to sell conservatism to folks who won’t ever buy.
True in one sense (as there is very little that can be sold to 100% of the population), but it presupposes the outcome on a given set of individuals, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy if no one bothers to try.
That’s the difference between entrepreneurs and people who want to just have a job. And, as they say, no one ever got rich with their job (not entirely true, but you get the point). IOW, no risk, no reward.
@JJ – forgot to mention, you hit on ae good angle / message that really does need to reach folks.
I suspect it requires a multi-faceted approach, as it ultimately is a cultural issue that we are dealing with.
You know what would be useful, is for someone in their 60’s or early seventies, who actually remembers the 1950s accurately, to write about it, but not just in nostalgic terms of the icons we either remember or respect, the ’57 Chevys, new suburbs, Thanksgiving dinner at Grandma’s and drive in movies.
Those of us even alive then were small kids or apparently teens, still protected by Mom and Dad, and not generally faced with making a living working say, for a corrupt foreman, or having to deal with buddies who gambled irresponsibly and frequented prostitutes, or suffered conniving or noxious in-laws … all the stuff the adults of the time had to deal with as real moral problems and challenges. We don’t remember it because it was invisible to us as children; but it was there.
Here’s something to do. Take a look at top 40 AM radio in the late 1950s. See a problem there? Then reflect for a moment that this is more or less all anyone had to listen to. In fact some people defend it today as perfectly legitimate and as serving higher social diversification aims.
What America had going for it was an explosion of young upwardly mobile families headed by men who had grown up early and disciplined due to the force of historical circumstances and were trying to make the most of it in a positive and responsible way.
That is what we remember. But they were even then something of an island in a sea. It was the island we toddled on as kids. A large island, but a moral island nonetheless.
And of course that does not even address the nascent ideological assault of the time that fully bloomed in the 1960s.
Thinking about it carefully, I don’t think people in general, were any better back then in a “spiritual” sense. They just could not get away with as much as a practical matter.
After all, who gave birth to this generation of tattooed and pierced nihilists, and how did they come from such morally straight stock?
The question is, launching off the formulation and opening Neo has provided, and informed to some extent by Prof Jon Haidt’s research and surmises, whether some people even have the “taste” for it.
“Liberals and big government people sell the idea of helping and caring to the voters. Conservatives sell liberty, yes, but at what cost?
[snip]
The base just hasn’t always been big enough and strong enough to counter it. “[Neo]
I think the base completely misses the point. As Milton Friedman opined:
With this in mind, I submit that the #NeverTrump non-voters are missing this point yet again. See also Eric @2:12 above.
I disagree with the premise. (At least, I think I do, and I’m in an ornery mood.)
Conservatism is easy to sell. People naturally believe it. What’s a hard sell is conservatives. Just about everyone think that we’d be better off with, say, 10% less government. They just don’t trust anyone who says that they want to get rid of it. What if the guy only wants to cut my 10%? Conservatism needs a good-faith agreement to proceed, and these days that’s a tough sell.
I don’t know if Neo has ever read anything about game theory – you should. You recently mentioned Chicken, and you often mention the Tragedy of the Commons. They both fall under game theory. What I’m describing here is game theory, too.
There’s something called a Nash equilibrium. It’s a situation in a multiplayer game in which no one is made better off by changing their strategy. In the case of the Commons, everyone would be better off if they changed strategy, but no one person would be better off if he changed strategy. Breaking out of a Nash equilibrium requires trust among players, or some kind of outside enforcement. If there are no such circumstances, everyone will rationally act in a way that makes everyone’s lives worse.
Ymarsaker @5:13,
Iraq and an incessant media campaign of demonization.
Iraq and an incessant media campaign of demonization.
So we have the Alternative Right, or they are potentially our allies, and they have just as powerful, if not more powerful, media and propaganda apparatus than the Left.
Culture can survive a Leftist and evil occupation, even without political power. The Left has demonstrated that for decades. American patriots will have to live and adapt to it, sooner or later. Learn from their enemies. Which is, of course, something a lot of people refuse to do.
Given what I know, it’ll be a relief to have the Alternative Right fight the SJW and Leftist alliance. That’ll be a real contest. Even if people are doing it for Trump’s sake. People will soon learn what the reality is, whether they like it or not. And I do not think it will be the reality they thought it would be.
The American monolithic culture of Morality and economic progress, gave birth to the Boomers or the decadent luxury based pleasure seekers of the 1960s. Which in turn gave birth to whatever the generation was in the 80s and 90s, which once subsumed under the power of the Leftist alliance, gave birth to the Alternative Right, online.
People should record the history here, because it is being made. 3 very different cultures, all diverged due to technology and then politics.
It will be interesting to see who wins, if any.
I treat this as a war ongoing. So contingency plans should be set for all potential possibilities.
Putting all the eggs on one outcome or candidate, is a political thing. And it is good propaganda, but strategically it is a mistake.
DNW,
In some ways, I agree. We who grew up in the 50s and very early 60s did grow up on an island, an island of certainty and steadfast ethics. That world we knew was slowly corrupted by the so called Gramscian march. Periodically the right (as in correct and aligned with human nature) has prevailed for short periods of sanity. It is a never ending struggle that will continue far beyond my life.
There will be days of sorrow, days of evil, and days of joy in goodness. All we can do is teach our children who will teach their children who will teach our great grandchildren well. (Pause, you and the horse you rode in on jesse j.) Thus endeth my sanctimonious comment.
Conservatism — in a nutshell — embodies the K reproductive strategy — writ large.
Progressivism — in a nutshell — embodies the “r” reproductive strategy — writ large.
See r/K reproductive theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
&&&&&&
Bill Whittle has much to say on the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY-ueR0OLlQ
While this VLOG ^^^ is a tad long — it’s astoundingly descriptive of WHY there is this perpetual dichotomy in political discourse.
Progressivism implicitly assumes that resources are unlimited.
And, for a time, at the peak of economic booms, such an illusion can be maintained.
Such periods are fleetingly brief — in a world of exponential biological growth.
I give you the astounding population dynamics of Yemen, Somali, and Saudi Arabia.
If there is ONE key trait that separates Black culture from White culture — it’s that “K” reproductive strategies never worked in Africa.
And they were not permitted to function in the Antebellum Old South.
Whereas, European (White) culture has been intensely “K” for countless generations. It was “r” reproductive strategies that failed the test.
At bottom, “r” strategies can’t survive Northern Winters — anywhere.
Yes, resources (food) are that limited — and are not even possible to steal in the depths of Winter — when the impulse must be the greatest.
&&&&&&
One of the great disasters — of arrogance — is the migration of African Blacks — with “r” DNA — to northern latitudes.
For there is an entire cluster of DNA that needs shifting — for such individuals to even tolerate northern latitudes.
At the top of the list: the long winter nights. These are hard on Whites. They drive Blacks absolutely bonkers.
No-one advised them thus is so — in the tourist literature.
Six months of snow is w-a-a-a-a-y beyond the comprehension of any African. Believe me, they HATE it. With a passion.
Whereas, Whites actually look forward to snow season !
In the Arctic, most dread the high points of Summer — too many flying, blood sucking pests, …something that Blacks are inured to. (!)
&&&&
Progressivism is based ENTIRELY on the premiss that resources are limitless… which is a logical impossibility.
If you want to undermine Progressive logic — tackle their ‘resource Ponzi logic’ at its base.
For the platform underlying EVERYTHING that Progressives believe (ok, hope) is that other people’s resources will never run out.
That they ARE running out is apparent in this century.
As an ex-modern day liberal I will say modern liberalism runs on emotion, indignation and arrogance. It also runs on ignorance. It is uniformly said that conservatism are these things. I disagree. Conservatism was never as sexy and alluring as modern day liberalism. Why? It’s because conservatism is reflective in a healthy, critical way. It is cynical but within its cynicism there is hope. Conservatism has standards. Modern liberalism is marshmallow fluff.
Conservatism vs. Progressivism is really a moral issue and should be argued that way…but Republicans never do.
“The question is, launching off the formulation and opening Neo has provided, and informed to some extent by Prof Jon Haidt’s research and surmises, whether some people even have the “taste” for it.” – DNW
Then I think I nailed it. Thanks.
It is true that not “everyone” will be sold. But, then, what is the take away?
Too many think, “Then, why bother?”
I got sick from my first full cigarette, and avoided them ever since. Fortunately, for beer, I acquired the “taste”.
Point is, people can change. BUT, we have to make the effort.
“And yet instead of making even the most cursory effort to adapt the conservative message to meet these realities, conservatives have all too often just sneered at non-conservative voters as inherent lost causes. “ – from an excellent postmortem series by Leon Wolf…
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/12/postmortem-conservative-movement-part-3-failure-communicate/
One could argue and Pew Research supports the fact that the true conservatives in some respects are the Trump supporters. I would be curious what percentage of Tea Party members are now in fact Trump supporters.. Time to get past the TDS and support a conservative..??
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/trump-supporters-differ-from-other-gop-voters-on-foreign-policy-immigration-issues/?utm_content=bufferb789c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
@snopercod – Disagree, with your premise.
The moral element has been very much implicit in conservative rhetoric, to the point that it has created a near stasis of messaging, positioning, and even our ability to get to real solutions, in some cases.
For instance, we already label people who jump the border as “Illegals”. Yes, it is true, but, it also carries with it a moral connotation.
It is probably this connotation that drives us toward the implicit moral statement in the word “Amnesty!”, a word that has effectively shut down most any negotiation aimed at getting some concrete and stronger border controls in place.
Result = stasis = the problem persists (and has for, what, 20-30 years?). “We” were “arguing” for one notion of the “morally perfect” instead of “stopping the bleeding”, with both sides using it as a wedge issue in elections.
“Amnesty!” even shuts down our own internal debate.
For instance, most states (and the federal government) have a statute of limitations on most crimes. The most common exception is murder.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html
So, are we equating crossing the border surreptitiously with the heinous crime of murder? What in our principles says it is so?
Betcha never seen that asked in most “conservative” media circles?
The over-emphasis of the moral imperative for messaging has pushed us towards “purity”, when the reality seems to allow us a way to deal with issues that would be consistent with our principles.
Yes, our views of morality are the foundation for our principles, but it is not, and should not be, the only selling point we go forward with.
People want to hear more than just that something is “right”, and why – they want to know how it “works for them”.
@Walter – yes, one could argue a new definition of “conservative” and what it stands for, then point to people who hold those views as “proof” of what it is.
Or, one could say that many really didn’t hold conservative views in the first place, or were willing to trade them in to be on a “winning team” – at least, in their judgement, so.
blert,
An outstanding insight into white vs black cultures.
Though arguably, it’s northern hemisphere vs southern hemisphere. The apparent contradictions are Australia and New Zealand but of course they are culturally dominated by N. European stock. S. Africa is returning to its r culture, as white k culture is pushed out.
Northern white cultures ARE highly ‘k’ oriented and both African and S. American cultures are highly ‘r’ oriented.
Northern European climates FORCED people to save, to plan ahead so as to have an adequate harvest to survive the coming winter. Acceptance of familial responsibilities was critical to women and their offspring surviving. Acceptance of personal responsibility as well and, education a pathway to easier survival in harsh conditions.
Many, even here in the comboxes, have an acute historical consciousness as well as developed critical faculties.
Thus the challenge of understanding the 1950’s accurately should be manageable in intellectual terms.
What we as idea and media consumers have been eating however, is a diet of either dewy nostalgia, or a leftist debunking that screams “Jim Crow!” and “Hollywood Blacklist Injustice!!” in response to every mention of a Sunday picnic in the country, or a soda fountain excursion.
Now, my own knee high personal and impressionistic recollections of being led by the hand through a city department store or standing on the lawn under the willows at Grandpa’s country house, are not sufficient to frame the issue properly.
But I think that statistics, and the records of both political and popular society and culture are enough to give us an unvarnished but somewhat positive on-balance view of the period.
And I think that what we see in retrospect, is that but for that large class of Americans determinedly getting on with their lives by raising families while having a sense of moral confidence in the rightness of what they were doing, the 50’s were as filled with as much garbage as many other eras.
It was the behavior of one class of people, shaped by one set of moral values and historical experiences, that produced what we regard as the best of that time.
And, as we know from political and sociocultural history, it was under a planned and organized assault – a ruthless criticism of all existing institutions – even then. It is just that there was too much historical inertia for the de-moralization plan and effort to accomplish its worst work at that moment.
As Neo has pointed out, as you have just said, it is the Gramscian march through the institutions, which became tax (or at least publicly) funded roosts for ideological enemies of political and economic liberty, that has produced the social changes we see today: which are essentially the demoralization of the once dominant ethos to the point where still living beneficiaries of it are afraid to speak up to their own relatives in order to contradict patent nonsense.
They will not even stand for the principle of reciprocity which equality implies. That is how easily cowed many Americans have become.
And what does that imply about their having the “right stuff” for a free life, in the first place?
But back to the topic for a moment. what is needed, or what I would personally find interesting, is an actual history of that Gramscian movement in the US. Not another Alan Bloom-like ideological sweep and survey with anecdotes, but a history that actually lays bare the nuts and bolts and levers and cranks; comparable perhaps to some of what one sees in the Mitrokhin Archives: The Sword and The Shield.
Most would find it a very boring kind of history, I suppose; without the drama of real spies and official saboteurs. And I suppose that pissing on the graves of the dead is seen as indecent by many fastidious types, who find comfort in believing that at the end of the day we are all one … or some crap like that.
I guess that is yet another way of refusing to face the facts.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 12th, 2016 at 10:42 am
It’s notable that Australian aborigines shunned the southern latitudes.
None were to be found at Botany Bay.
They were only encountered as the English// Aussies moved north.
In sum, because of the geography of the world, there is virtually no southern latitude with harsh winters as known in Canada, Europe, Russia and Northeast Asia.
One might note that Orientals practice “K” reproductive strategies to the extreme, as well. Geishas shunned childbirth.
Like mannorism//feudalism in Europe, the Orientals were locked down on the farm. Both cultures were over the top “K” cultures.
Hence, it’s no wonder that the Japanese ‘connect’ with White culture — at a visceral level.
ALL of the K cultures have ‘issues’ with Blacks.
Slavery and Jim Crow are not required to establish emnity.
&&&&
Ghetto culture — in the ‘projects’ is astoundingly “r” based.
Which utterly baffles Progressives.
One might note that “K” oriented Jews — living in the exact same buildings ( cloned designs erected in different cities ) don’t evidence ANY of the destructive practices of Blacks. The Jewish occupied senior citizen projects look pristine. Jewish teen males don’t wander in to ‘establish turf.’
The latter tic is universal in Black Africa. The boys ‘buddy-up’ so that every fight is much more like the Sharks and the Jets. And, there’s plenty of fighting.
Most of the fatalities in Big City ghettos are turf wars funded and driven by drug retailing.
As in Africa, there can be NO let up in such micro-wars.
Europeans had campaign seasons. Blacks in Africa have 12 month campaign seasons. Weather is not such a factor.
Last night I attended a lecture in Omaha given by a Harvard prof on global warming. It was based on her book “Merchants of Doubt” and she bashed “deniers.”
About 1,000 old and rich people there. Old as in lots of gray hair and one guy had to be 80.
Just complete BS, but the crowd ate it up.
I tricked her into agreeing with me that the investigation of CEI was a “witch hunt” (her words; not mine).
The laugher was when the crowd went wild when she said, “We don’t even have people in Congress who represent us.” This coming from a person who probably is on a first name basis with Senators Warren and Markey.
Second lecture attended by me with the CAGW crowd. They are clearly nuts and don’t see it. Zombies.
GRA
I saw lots of arrogance and ignorance at both lectures. Also constant use of logically fallacies.
The thing is THEY think they are morally and intellectually superior. We are dolts. And the regular people are easily fooled. See, Ben Rhodes in the NYT.
Geoffrey Britain:
“Ymarsaker @5:13,
Iraq and an incessant media campaign of demonization.”
Right. In multiple ways, including and especially the activist game, the political treatment of the Iraq issue has been about (much) more than just OIF, as big as the mission was in its own right.
My appreciation of the multi-dimensional course-setting, cornerstone strategic value of public perception about the Iraq intervention, which reached beyond the epochal mission itself, motivated my attempt to set the record straight on the law and policy, fact basis – the why – of OIF.
My explanation, showing the decision for OIF was correct on the law and the facts, could have functioned as a basis for the narrative reframe of the issue at the premise level of the public discourse.
Yet, instead of re-litigating the Iraq issue to set the record straight with a straightforward set of law, policy, precedent, and facts, conservatives and Republicans instead chose to effectively stipulate the demsonstrably false narrative of OIF in a guilty-looking attempt to skirt the Iraq controversy.
The Megyn Kelly “knowing what we know now” hypothetical in May 2015 was a gift opportunity to set the record straight at the premise level of the public discourse and lay the foundation to discredit proponents of the false narrative of OIF and flip the cultural, political zeitgeist in the GOP’s favor in the activist game.
Instead, Jeb Bush, followed by the other GOP candidates, gave the wrong answer in a brazenly pathetic manner that signaled a craven vulnerability and open hunting season on the GOP. Until the end of his candidacy, Jeb Bush remained eager to make sure that everyone within earshot – and camera microphone-shot – heard him say the last Republican Commander in Chief’s decision for OIF, the primary American foreign affair of the 9/11 era, was a “mistake”.
More than anything else, the GOP response to the Kelly hypothetical signaled the political evolutionary unfitness of the GOP to lead America. As competitors, alt-Right activists and Trump simply accepted the invitation by Jeb Bush et al to exploit the weakness.
DNW:
“But back to the topic for a moment. what is needed, or what I would personally find interesting, is an actual history of that Gramscian movement in the US.”
See the Scott S. Powell article I linked in my comment at May 11th, 2016 at 2:12 pm.
Powell’s webpage: http://www.discovery.org/p/561
He wrote a book on the subject that answers your question. I haven’t read his book. I’ve only read the 1 article that G6loq recommended. But the article is a recommendation for the book.
Amen, Neo!
It’s astounding so few Conservatives get this when they should know more than anyone else it would be so.
When I re-read the comments, for a moment thought this was Breitbart…
“Conservatism – in a nutshell – embodies the K reproductive strategy – writ large.
Progressivism – in a nutshell – embodies the “r” reproductive strategy – writ large.”
Followed up by:
“If there is ONE key trait that separates Black culture from White culture – it’s that “K” reproductive strategies never worked in Africa.”
And,
“An outstanding insight into white vs black cultures.”
So we stretch a theory that may explain evolutionary genetic “survival” strategies across species (to paraphrase) to explain human culture?
.
Woodrow Wilson would have been your best buddy!
.
That idea is a derivative of an old one, and is not founded on any other published research, but is put forward by some alt-right guy running Anonymous Conservative Blog – selling a book based on that theory.
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/about-the-author/
He ascribes all kinds of behavior and actual political party ideas to this genetic programming (my words).
That’s about as credible as the “meat puppet’s” (Scott Adam’s) “meat puppet” theory, and “great persuader” masterful pied piperism he ascribes to Trump.
That Bill Whittle lends his name to give this r/k theory any credibility is truly sad.
And, for those who don’t know, Molyneaux is something of a stark mix of alt-right “anarcho-capitalism” (IIRC) on the verge of fanatical.
Guys, if you think this is a refuge for just another branch of eugenics the left so loved at the turn of the last century, you are mistaken.
That type of loose and poor thinking helps lay the foundation for Authoritarianism, is prone to identity politics, and woefully under-rates human capacity to adapt and change – and, ultimately, to choose.
The R/K selection theory which I have read a bit about, is one of those theories which promises to make a kind of roughly plausible case at first glance but which as far as I can tell, does not clearly specify just what it is claiming in anthropological terms.
Let’s grant for the sake of argument that among the human sub-species if you insist on calling them that, found in varying climes, that different “reproductive strategies” have been on average employed … or better “have developed” as associatively tolerated.
Well the first thing that becomes an issue, if we aim to think of this in the terms of Darwinism, is the stripping away all of the teleological and intentional language.
That means either tossing out words like “strategy”, or carefully stipulating what their use implies. lest we begin to imagine that environmental “filtering”, or opportunism, is a plan or aim.
Then, it seems to me we have to figure out whether these apparently noticed behavioral tendencies within specified populations, are supposed to be inherent and gene linked, or the result of an environmental shaping which has not progressed so far as to produce an organism which not only defaults to some reproductive pattern when allowed, but more or less must act on it in an instinctual manner.
I suppose I could answer these questions for myself by actually reading whatever books are said to feature these arguments, but I got so far as the political “you get more of what you pay for” facet of the whole thing, and stopped there at that pretty much undeniable platitude.
Thank you.
Big Maq Says:
May 12th, 2016 at 3:38 pm
1) Deep impulses spring out of the subconscious — and the DNA.
This has been beaten to death via twins research… you know… twins that never lived in the same environment, same household.
Yet, every manner of choice expressed in their lives track each other… foods… clothing… and all else.
2) Whites in northern climes didn’t suddenly decide to become highly moral folks, shunning polygamy, polyandry.
The latter one might recall were endemic to the ancient Romans, Greeks — with the Spartans rating off the scale WRT kink.
Yet, the Hellenic Greek and ancient Roman elites were White Europeans.
So they were White, but still following the impulse to spread DNA willy nilly.
Politically, socially, historically, that reproductive strategy died off with those societies.
The dang barbarians that Rome invited into various alliances — and then stiffed for payment of martial services ( Vandals, et. al.) carried with them hyper “K” value sets.
The Romans and barbarians repulsed each other — morally. Which is why the Vandals left Rome — having stayed not even a week — as that place was no place for the kids.
&&&&&&&
Generations of punishing DNA gene sets — via morality — behavior codes — actually changes the DNA.
Darwin’s selection mechanism can work via social norms, too.
Something that you plainly deny.
&&&&
In today’s urban ghettos, the Big Boy is fathering — via “r” ethics — a very high fraction of all the babies.
A guy that procreates with that abandon is operating upon his impulses — driven by his DNA — and is causing the next generation to be enriched — dramatically — by said DNA.
“K” selection is a losing proposition in warmer climates.
One might take note that Mexicans are flat paranoid that their wives will stray. Indeed, that fear runs all over.
In the Pick Up community — it’s universally accepted that Latino babes are easier to ‘bang’ than many — and that they cheat — A LOT. ( The PUA gringo is in town for two weeks — nails babe after babe — that has a steady boy friend. And yes, they were good Catholic girls, too.
&&&&&
So, America really is becoming like Brazil, a nation in the running, with Venezuela and Italy, as having the hottest women.
&&&&&&&&&&
In an “r” selected society you have a few Big Boys fathering an astounding percentage of the babies — and all of the losers tearing the walls down.
This situation was, and is, the default behavior in man.
It leads to huge populations of desperate people, as internal sexually based strife makes modernity impossible.
{ Cue up countless tales from the Peace Corps about cousins killing off live stock — and more. }
&&&&&&
This is not racism.
This is realism.
Social mores DO operate as genetic selectors.
The feed back loop is slow — but certain.
&&&&&&
Then lay on the re-programmable mind. Nothing stops a fella with a predisposition towards “K” morality from tossing it to the winds — and going all out “r.”
I give you the PUA community.
The reverse is plainly true, as well.
Don’t be a DNA denialist.
Lastly, and OT.
The Romans never were ‘invaded’ by the barbarians, raided, yes.
The barbarians were INVITED in — in every case I can track down.
The screw balls being the Hun — who got their tushes kicked — out all the way back to Hungary.
Rome’s armies never got that weak.
It was Roman culture, economics, ideology, gods, that got so weak that they came to depend upon the, so-called, barbarians.
( A term originally intended by the Greeks to refer to the “easterners” — the guys short on shaving. This tic is understandable in ultra dry climates… and very cold climates.)
“Don’t be a DNA denialist.” – blert
Yep, we are all “meat puppets”. We don’t really have choices, just impulses.
So, why bother going through the illusion of voting? Democracy is meaningless? Freedom is meaningless?
Why don’t we collectively lay back and let Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. have their way, because what will be will be? Just because THEY make a claim that they know better, or are superior because of their genetics?
Or, why don’t we take out all those lesser beings, like the Neanderthal before us?
All that flys in the face of the fundamental foundation of our society. Either we think all mankind is endowed with equal natural rights and therefore have sovereignty over self, or we don’t, and scrap this whole idea called “the United States of America”.
.
Twins studies are just scratching the surface of the nature vs nurture argument, but you use that as the full in justification for this bogus k/y theory for human culture.
Then you leap to the next level of complexity to tie it to culture, using the spurious “correlation is causation” type argument, by talking about “Whites in northern climes…” as somehow it also proves that same bogus k/y theory.
Come on, if we want to classify (write off) the cultures (as if they all had an overriding cultural foundation) of whole groups of humanity based on some genetic theory, it HAS to have much more conclusive proof than just the ideas and possibilities suggested by people with dubious qualifications and weak so-called “evidence”.
.
You say it is not racism – I didn’t say that it was (this “theory” is a branch down the eugenics tree – it is not a new idea), you did.
But, since you raised it, I say it certainly smells so, when there really isn’t a solid foundation, as it is grounded more in a belief than in fact.
.
I’m not opposed to talking about the science and where that may lead us, but delving into the topic so haphazardly, with such dismal evidence does much to discredit the quality of discussion in these comments section, especially since it is jarringly off topic.
It is also a fast track way to alienate many good people from the case we are attempting to make for conservatism.
blert, you and GB have (and have had) a lot good to contribute. Giving credence to these “theories” are not one of them.
blert:
Twins reared apart studies do not indicate as overwheling an influence for heredity as you claim. See this.
As for the “K” vs. “r” argument, we’ve discussed this before and I have read some articles on it, and find it completely unconvincing as applied to humans.
Exhibit A: How NOT to argue against endorsing a demagogue…
Gingrich vs Huelscamp…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrKRd5p5T2M
The congressman just came off as unprepared. He wasn’t much better than listening to Trump repeat his own generalities.
Yes, he needs to stay “on message”, but he needs to change it up a bit (e.g. check out a thesaurus), and have several examples to point to as support for his case.
Frustrating to listen to him blow an opportunity like that to take on Gingrinch.
Doubt he moved many independent / swing voters, as he probably came across as a “very uptight” conservative, with his repeated worries of what his sons might hear from Trump.