Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 18, 2020 10:05:35 GMT -8
Jay Nordlinger has a typically vapid article at NRO about what defines conservatism: ‘Conservative’: A Term Up for GrabsHis answer: “It means a lot of things to a lot of people.” Not surprisingly, there is no attempt to define it. If the eggheads at NRO want to know why Trump was ever elected president in the first place it is because he drew some lines in the sand while the "conservative" intelligentsia waxed poetically on meaningless generalities. In any article about “What is conservatism,” you ought to help clarify the subject. But we’ve all seen this kind of intellectual mush from NRO for far too long. However, even though this commenter wasn’t specific regarding ideas or policies, if one were to give an overall to the description of what a conservative is, I like this definition: In my view, trying to define conservatism without mentioning specific ideas or policies is an exercises in mental masturbation. But if you are looking for an “overall” philosophical view, I think that commenter may be onto something. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 18, 2020 10:42:26 GMT -8
There have been a number of pieces lately which take NRO apart. They show that it is as useless as tits on a bull. They even note some of the things we have been pointing out for the last 7 years. The Goldbergs, Frenches and other neocon and establishment Wall Street types have been flushed out.
NRO has become irrelevant.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 18, 2020 10:59:05 GMT -8
I just think it’s completely word-quota disingenuous to have an article about the meaning of conservatism and the answer is basically “It depends.” Here was a chance to help clarify (especially after a contentious election with a controversial party leader). And all we got was word salad.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 18, 2020 11:24:29 GMT -8
Buckley once mentioned his conversation with Whittaker Chambers when the latter decided to leave National Review sometime in the 1950s. Chambers said Buckley was a quintessential conservative, whereas Chambers himself was a man of the right. There's a lot of overlap there, but still a difference, though Buckley gave no explanation, either from himself or Chambers.
As I see it, true conservatism is caution about change. This doesn't mean rejecting all change (that's more reactionary than conservative, though one could say that the latter includes the former), or at the least honoring traditions. (Of course, in America those traditions would represent the Founding Fathers, not monarchy, aristocracy, and an established religion. This is why words such as liberal and conservative don't mean the same things in America and Europe.)
By contrast, being a rightist refers to a specific ideology, which can vary somewhat over time and from place to place. Conservatism, due to its caution, rejects total fidelity to any ideology.
Incidentally, Richard Scammon once noted that women actually tend to be conservative, though in more immediate terms. Thus, when the Demagogues are the party of change, it works against them. According to exit polls, for example, Nixon actually had more support from women than JFK did in 1960. When the GOP is the party of change, as has often been the case since 1980 and especially 1994, that makes the Demagogues more popular.
Of course, some women (femocrats) have become a Demagogue pressure group, mainly out of Molochite sentiments but also in many cases because they're welfare mothers. (Probably because of the high crime rate among black men, women make up a higher percentage of black voters than they do of whites.) This skews the overall numbers.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 18, 2020 11:46:41 GMT -8
For my part, I don’t think conservatism can have any real meaning in a country where the size and reach of government is so broad. Everyone now has a place at the government teat, if only via Social Security.
What we can probably rally around is resistance to the various forms of Communism. We chafe at the irritating increments, but in the end most conform. It’s especially ironic that Nordlinger could write such a vapid article when the essence of his old boss’ conservatism could be summed up as “standing athwart.” And at the end of the day, that’s what it’s all about. He couldn’t even write athwart.
At the same time, various attempts to “stand athwart” (including via the problematic character of Trump) have blurred the idea of basic principles. Very apt is the expression, “I’ve been up to my ass in alligators for so long that I forgot the initial objective was to drain the swamp.” We forget (or have never been taught) what the basics of American traditionalism are. We’re so busy just trying to do what little we can to parry the advance of Communism in its various forms.
And we can list those specific principles and policies (and should). But the problem with the details of American traditionalism is that they are mostly completely incompatible with the de facto Progressive universe the people actually have to live in. And I think that’s the very reason people tend to speak in generalities.
And that has led to conservatism being an affectation or an mere identity. It’s about posting some “guns, bacon, and liquor” graphic on Facebook but otherwise going along to get along. I think of my gun-wielding friends who so meekly don a mask when going into a convenience store.
For Libertarians it’s been as bad, if not worse, as they’ve tried to repackage the liberalism as some sort of independent-minded rugged individualism. You have to take one big toke of weed to make that work out — and that’s exactly what many Libertarians do, although it still doesn’t work out.
Just off the top of my head, let me give you an example of what I think conservatism is (or at least encompasses). You’ll easily see that espousing these notions is not easy and will put one outside of the mainstream. And it will certainly put one at risk in many areas of one’s job.
American Conservatism is:
+ Against abortion (because “life” is the most fundamental right of all)
+ For the Free market (Nordlinger does note the futility of the “five-year plan”)
+ For Individual responsibility (thus for limited government and low taxes)
+ Against interpreting the law according to what you want instead of what the law says, and means to say
+ Against feminism (which is a movement for marginalizing men, not “equality”)
+ Against institutionalized racism, whether in the form of affirmative action or anything else
+ Against environmental utopianism
+ Against demonizing white people and pretending that “people of color” are not only sinless, but desirable over whites
+ For common and immediate decency as opposed to justifying one’s proximate indecency by supposedly having a higher cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 18, 2020 12:15:26 GMT -8
I would just make one quibble. Christina Hoff Sommers differentiated between equity feminism (seeking equal rights for women) and gender feminism (based on misandry). I call the latter femocracy, which technically means rule by women (or by female activists, in practice).
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 18, 2020 12:15:52 GMT -8
How hard would it have been for Nordlinger to posit that perhaps the basic tenet of American Conservatism is "freedom and rights of the individual vs the tyranny of the majority or mob?" I think this is summed up nicely in this paragraph:
It would seem that most people have forgotten this. Never forget that Lincoln formulated much of his thought from the Declaration of Independence.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 25, 2020 7:00:33 GMT -8
An interesting piece on how Florida might be turning into a Red state. One thing the author does not point out is that the governor cleaned out the corrupt election commissioners in places like Miami-Dade and Broward Counties. The state also cleaned up it crooked election system. Florida was able to count the votes as quickly and cleanly as any state in the Union. Jeb Bush could have done this years ago, but did nothing. Red Florida |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 25, 2020 7:25:21 GMT -8
Very encouraging. I especially liked the gains in the state legislature. This was the year the Demagogues hoped to finally overcome their losses in swing statehouses during the Black God's term, and instead they only dug themselves in even deeper.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Nov 25, 2020 7:35:29 GMT -8
And just think how many Demoncrat votes would disappear once states were forced to clean up their voter rolls.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 25, 2020 7:50:23 GMT -8
That's why Soros spends megamillions on electing radical Secretaries of State, who would be in charge of such a project in each state. His lackeys won't do that, among other misdeeds. They're probably as important to him as local prosecutors to effectively decriminalize Demagogue storm troopers rioting.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 10, 2021 12:33:22 GMT -8
I realize that “deaf ears” and “falling upon” are constants at NRO. Still, I can’t help chiming in on Kevin Williamson’s article. This may simply be a “two peas in a pod” situation. Being naïve could have nothing to do with it. That said, the role of National Review should be to clearly articulate specific policies and goals. I’ve read a lot of criticism of Trump, but unless I’ve missed it, I’ve yet to see a clear “Here’s out laundry list of specific goals for 2021”. You guys are upstream from the Republican Party, or should be. You should be a clear guiding force. Therefore, I say, get specific. Endless word salad is not a replacement for leadership, either in the halls of Congress or in the conservative media. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 14, 2021 11:59:21 GMT -8
Here is an article from the American Conservative, which should be reason enough to ignore the site. Repent the end is nighThe author sounds like a calm Paul Ehrlichman. In any case, one can't help but believe he is one of those who are behind or very much agree with the KFF shut downs over the last year. The author, like Gates, is like early nineteenth-century Tories who don't much like the idea of the hoi-poloi getting above themselves. Who needs trains and brick houses, especially for the plebs? These people are basically Malthusians with a bit of Darwin and Nietzsche mixed in. I now understand what type of "conservative" The American Conservative represents. Them's that's got ther'n already. It was already clear to my in the late 1960s early 1970s when I looked at the Kennedy's. Their actual motive was to keep everyone else down through socialism, as the Kennedys already had their pile. I believe Mitch McConnell, Mitts Romney and Liz Cheney probably agree with this sentiment. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 24, 2021 9:44:19 GMT -8
Another rare article at NRO that is worth a read: Technology Will Destroy Us by Cameron Hilditch The gist of it is that technology has progressed past shaping nature for the basics needs (food, clothing, shelter) and now we use it (or are trying to) to shape reality for out mental needs. One should be cautious and note that most will acknowledge this phenomenon about the other guy but not themselves. Nor did this (probably another non-shaving) yute at NRO mention “Kevin D. Williamson” or many of the other Establishment Republicans who bubble-shape their own reality with their incestuous back-slapping views. One certainly could have applied this to them and not just Trump True Believers or Black Lives Matter apologists (although the writer actually applied it to no one specifically). And... If you’re a conservative and doing Facebook and Twitter, that’s the equivalent of a prohibitionist running a tavern. Or near enough so. Scrambled analogies are fitting in this circumstance. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 11, 2021 15:28:06 GMT -8
The title of this thread is "What is Conservatism." I think the answer, at least in America, is "a feckless pseudo-political philosophy, which under the guise of "The Republican Party" does nothing to stop the advancement of leftist policies and culture. To wit, a lie." Victor Davis Hanson |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 11, 2021 19:14:37 GMT -8
In a lot of ways, VDH’s essay could be titled “The Liberal’s Lament.”
My view is unkind to the dreamy, self-congratulatory romanticism of the supposed do-gooders (aka “liberals”).
I don’t see liberals as a separate species from Leftists, untainted by the excesses of Leftists because, after all, they were full of good intentions. No. They are first cousins.
The idea of “Where did we go wrong?” never occurs to me in regards to understanding and judging liberals. They were always on the path to greasing the skids to totalitarianism.
Liberals are the useful-idiot enablers of Leftists. Always have been. Always will be.
Liberals were ever and always a means to the destruction of our cultural immune system of tradition, common sense, facts, prudence, objectivity, decency, honor, truth, and reasonableness.
The liberal believed (when he could believe anything outside of his self-congratulatory assessment of himself) that he could topple a pillar, tear down a wall, or burst the dam of common sense and the water of his own good-intentions would find a level and even spot on its own that was stable — so pure and good that, of course, we would all just reside there once shown the way.
That is, a liberal — blinded by his own supposed good intentions — could never be bothered by the consequences of the policies, beliefs, and morals that he advanced. It was just assumed that people of such exalted good will were pointing the way to a solid truth that needed no buttressing from the forces of reality. Having broken barriers as a habit, they had no moral bearing or taste for saying “enough.” They had no social, ethical, or intellectual way to push back against those who would take every one of their supposedly “enlightened” policies and take them to a totalitarian extreme.
Liberals could ever only be enablers of a cause that never had the desire to reside in the peaceful common and solid ground dreamed of by liberals. The walls that liberals helped to unwittingly destroy became the material for the Left to build new walls, far higher and harsher than the original ones.
The story not yet written (or clearly written) is how liberalisms, fueled by foolish and self-absorbed people, was never a separate thing on its own. It was always a force for greasing the skids to totalitarianism, toward the total destruction of all norms, laws, methods, and truths.
The self-congratulatory delusion of moral and intellectual superiority is so powerful, millions of “liberals” continue to vote for the forces of oppression even as they romanticize about all the supposedly good things they stand for, many of which VDH pointed out.
Inherent to maintaining a good society is the ability to say “no” to accesses, to set boundaries, to foster reasonableness and to not be driven by a zealous, religious-like utopianism. Liberals are incapable of the wisdom required for balancing freedoms and responsibilities. All of their causes are destructive.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Feb 12, 2021 8:41:48 GMT -8
Liberals are incapable of the wisdom required for balancing freedoms and responsibilities. I would suggest that you are on the right track but I think it is the inability of applying wisdom. I think deep in their pointy little heads liberals/progressives/democrats/communists fully understand the falsity of their positions but they are afraid. It is the fear that they cannot control their own if the truth slips out. It is fear that motivates the destruction of people's lives, ask Mike Flynn. It is fear that has normal people afraid to refute the obvious absurdity of masks and the moving goal posts of success. Again, I suggest Eric Hoffer's True Believer as a source to understanding how these people think. "Discontent by itself does not invariably create a desire for change. Other factors have to be present before discontent turns into disaffection. One of these is a sense of power."
"Those who are awed by their surroundings do not think of change, no matter how miserable their condition. When our mode of life is so precarious as to make it patent that we cannot control the circumstances of our existence, we tend to stick to the proven and the familiar. We counteract a deep feeling of insecurity by making of our existence a fixed routine." Or Things were bad yesterday, they are bad today and will be worse tomorrow. it is when things begin too get better that revolution is possible. "Lenin and the Bolsheviks who plunged recklessly into the chaos of the creation of a new world had blind faith in the omnipotence of Marxist doctrine. The Nazis had nothing as potent as that doctrine, but they had faith in an infallible leader and also faith in a new technique. For it is doubtful whether National Socialism would have made such rapid progress if it had not been for the electrifying conviction that the new techniques of blitzkrieg and propaganda" |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 12, 2021 9:59:13 GMT -8
That certainly explains the harsh orthodoxy of the Left, as recently display by The Racism of Lucasfilm & Disney. The ass-kicking bounty-hunter female (the point in Mandalorian where I couldn’t take it anymore and I had to turn if off and cancel my subscription) played by Gina Carano was basically banned for comparing the Old Nazis to the New Nazis. I think the analogy is apt and not overwrought, as Mr. Dreher sees it (although otherwise he is in full agreement). Dennis Prager had a chick on her show yesterday. Allow my eye-rolls to go unspoken for the moment. She seemed the type of person who would jump from one fad to another. And at the moment, she was all enthused with conservatism. That’s a good thing. But…I’d wait and see how deep it is. Anyway, she noted that the indoctrination she and everyone else received (not just in college…she became some kind of activist) had the result of making them perpetually angry. Apparently she noticed this condition in herself (being a c-word) and that was one of the things that led to her changing, including apparently watching some PragerU videos as well. Those videos are fantastic. But I think a person has to be ready for change before the truth, as shown in those videos, has a chance to sink in. I’ve often referred to the Left as a religious cult. And so I think it is. But as we (not a royal “we” this time) have noted, there are the top-tier hardcore Leftists and the legions of useful-idiots (aka “liberals”) on the bottom rung who enable them. That said (and we remain on the cutting edge of thought here), I think the maelstrom-of-garbled-thought that grips us now is due to politics becoming thoroughly a product of fashion and fad. More to say on that later. But I think the implications of that are yuge and are playing out now. |
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Feb 12, 2021 11:45:41 GMT -8
I recall the Stalinist era when hard core revolutionaries were stood up in court and plead guilty of the most horrible crimes. They did not plead because they were guilty, but because they had fallen out with the party line. They were ostracized, mad non-persons, taken out of photographs and socially excluded. The non-person status was worse than any punishment Stalin could inflict, including a bullet in the back of the head. This is the fear the left inflicts on their dissents. For conservatives the idea of being cast out produces a F-off response and you go your way, I'll go mine and we will both boycott the SOB on the hill. Leftists do not have the self-reliance to go on their own, thus, the fear.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 13, 2021 18:10:07 GMT -8
The analogy is apt, well said, and makes it all the more ironic how Disney responded like Nazis (or Stalinists) when confronted by that actor chick who said that “woke” culture was becoming Nazi-like.
This shouldn’t even be controversial. Disney making her a “non-person” is Exhibit A. But these utopian kooks (and other opportunists) have so much invested in their image of all being Albert Schweitzers that they fully intend to Thelma-and-Louise themselves off the precipice before ever admitting that they are a bunch of kooks.
|
|
