| Author |
Message |
    
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3368
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 11:06 am: | 
|
Peter Viereck, one of the intellectual fathers of modern American conservatism (not to be confused with what W and his ilk call "conservative"), died this week. In his obituary, the Times quoted from his book, The Unadjusted Man--a classic statement of how to define "liberal" and "conservative" from the traditional conservative point of view. With all the tossing around of these terms on MOL and in the popular press, I thought it might be interesting to go back to the roots of the resurrection of the conservative movement in the 1950's:
The liberal sees outer, removable institutions as the ultimate source of evil; sees man's social task as creating a world in which evil will disappear. His tools for this task are progress and enlightenment. The conservative sees the inner unremovable nature of man as the ultimate source of evil; sees man's social task as coming to terms with a world in which evil is perpetual and in which justice and compassion will both be perpetually necessary. His tools for this task are the maintenance of ethical restraints inside the individual and the maintenance of unbroken, continuous social patterns inside the given culture as a whole.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2707
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 5:20 pm: |
|
I had to read The Unadjusted Man for a Poli Sci course in College. I remember liking it alot and think the rest of the class felt that way as well. A number of class members said that they thought of themselves as Liberals until they read it and realized that they were actually Conservatives.
Unfortunately, as you point out ESL, those terms don't mean what they used to. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 209
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 9:42 am: |
|
I have never read Peter Viereck, but his definition seems sound. I sometimes hesitate to call myself a conservative because I don't want to be identified with Rush Limbaugh or the Republican party. Most of what passes for the liberal vs. conservative argument today is about building a power base and raising money.
Today's liberalism fuses the absolute moral autonomy of the individual with a rigid politics of identity that brooks no dissent. Today's conservatism pays lip service to limits and the wisdom of the past, while cheerleading for a limitless economic growth that is often destructive of traditional communities and folkways. No one seems to ask the questions: Liberty in what context, to what ends? Conservation of what, by whom, in what setting?
The writings of Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet are indispensable for learning about conservatism (and liberalism). Chilton Williamson's recent The Conservative Bookshelf is also a good place to start.
Cheers |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3369
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
Three cheers for threeringale! And for anon! You said exactly how I feel. I certainly hold many classic liberal positions, and even many modern liberal ones, but overall I have always considered myself a conservative (except for that wild period in college......that we all go through). But not a conservative in the sense of the New Right or the Neocons--they are as rigid and radical in their positions as the Marxists I used to hang out with. I have always been a conservative in the classical sense.
When I am with Libs, I often can move them to agree with conservative core principles if stated in broad terms--personal responsibility as a counterweight to personal freedom, government out of our lives to a great degree but also there to impose rational limits on behavior (corporate and individual), the need for a strong military used judiciously to back efforts of reason and incentives in foreign policy. And vice versa when I am with Conservatives. One would think there is a broad ground for concensus here that politicians can use and that would help our country get past the divisiveness.
However, the divisiveness is not caused by political philosophy differences--it is cloaked in these terms, but the real battles are over power and control. Part of it is pure partisan bickering--if the Dems win Congress, they can rape and plunder like they did before and like the GOP does now. Part of it is having different friends to steer contracts to. Much of it is cultural differences that have nothing to do with political philosophy--abortion, religion, language, ideas of community. The use of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are now simply shorthand for identifying which side you line up with in the culture wars. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Having read (and then re-read because it made little sense to me) Viereck's definitions, I find it hard to apply these terms to anything useful. These definitions mean little to either party and to be honest, I'm so used to political parties defending their "platform" and discussing specific issues that these vague ideas of the evilness of man and ethical restraints inside the individual strike me as both prose and somewhat childlike.
>Part of it is having different friends to steer contracts to.
How is this still legal? Does either political party support this idea? Isn't there laws in place to prevent this? In the end "we the people" get screwed the hardest because of stupidity like this. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3189
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
|
Quote:>Part of it is having different friends to steer contracts to.
How is this still legal? Does either political party support this idea? Isn't there laws in place to prevent this?
You're kidding, right? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3303
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
Wow, ESL, those definitions surprised me. In Viereck's world, I guess I'm a hybrid. I've always felt that the "inner, unremovable nature of man" is the crux of virtually all of our problems -- we are fancy animals whose brains grew too quickly. We are constructed in a way that causes behaviors which get us into trouble. Things like the apparent need for an enemy, and the tendency to focus on smaller rather than larger groups or spans of time are constantly tripping us up. But I think that the ultimate social task is to improve, globally, an understanding of human nature, so we can redirect the forces that make us harm ourselves and each other into something helpful.
I was reading just last night about Bertrand Russell's insistence that every single iota of humanity will eventually be utterly gone. He was a bright guy, but, geez, why even bother writing books if everything is so pointless? Fortunately, many of the scientists on the bleeding edge of "grand unifying theories" and "theories of everything" are starting to find their way mathematically toward validating an idea that has been around for thousands of years: nothing is ever really gone. Every action of every particle, every thought is "stored" into the structure of the universe. Ervin Laszlo calls it the "Akashic record". Perhaps in just a few generations, people will be able to somehow tap into it. I wonder what the descendants of today's neo-cons will feel about their progenitors? |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2072
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
Rastro, I know it HAPPENS (all the time). I'm familiar with the no-bid contracts. But I don't understand WHY if everyone (both sides) hates it, why is it still legal? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3191
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
The people that hate it are citizens, not politicians. The politicians may talk a good game about how they are opposed to it, but in the end, it's how they really make their money. No one goes into national politics for the betterment of the country. They do it because it gives them power and influence.
I used to believe that there were some good eggs out there. Now I think there are the slimy and the less slimy. I don't think any national level politician gives a rat's ••• about me. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 210
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Alleygater,
It's not that no bid contracts are necessarily legal, but there are always alternate routes that will bring you to the same place. Politicians are concerned first and foremost with having a seat at the table when the pie is being divvied up. Even when they are in opposing parties, progress is possible. Today we take care of my friend, tomorrow we'll take care of your friend....... Everyone gets fed.
Notehead,
I always thought that Edgar Cayce was in charge of the Akashic records.
Cheers |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
So your saying there is no legislation against this because every politician is corrupt? I'd say our country is f-ed up. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2934
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
It is funny the convolutions we see. William Buckley said the conservative "stands athwart history yelling 'stop'". What the hell does that even mean? Now Conservatives generally favor rapid and radical changes to the way we live through the dislocation that the market creates. In a land with no zoning laws, no unions, no minimum wages, and no environmental regs, everything would be in flux. Did he mean social movements? OK, maybe free love was a bad idea, but the Voting Rights Act was pretty good.
You look at the Amish, and they are nothing if not "conservative". They dress plain. Remember when your elderly relatives used to dress like they were from another world, with heavy shoes all summer, hats, neckties? But now some Alabama Christian millionaire with ATVs for the kids, and a Hummer in the driveway, golf club memberships, and a flashy house and trophy wife is a "hardcore conservative" if he talks about Jesus and rejects affirmative action.
The part of "conservatives" that rejects ostentatious display of wealth has been relocated to Northampton hippies. Capitalism is inherently liberal. I think "conservative" now means almost nothing, but I know it when I see it. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
An alternative taxonomy?
Friday, May 19, 2006
Statesmen, Yeomen, Ninnies, and Politicians
As far as their public character as citizens goes, long observation has led me to divide people into four types.
1) Statesmen. This tiny minority is responsible for most of the positive aspects of government. Those with original ideas and broad vision, who accomplish benevolent laws and institutions, even taking into account the welfare of posterity. Leaders who provide great moral examples by serving their people rather than themselves: George Washington, R.E. Lee, Charles de Gaulle, the late Pope John Paul II. (You can think of others. I tend particularly to admire skillful and indomitable leaders of small, beleaugured peoples, like President Kruger of the Boers and Marshall Mannerheim of Finland.)
2) Yeomen. The ordinary, decent folk who respect the gods, obey the laws, support themselves, help their neighbours, deal honestly, and do public duties faithfully when called upon (paying taxes, defending the country, jury duty, trying to cast a responsible vote). The most numerous and indispensible class of citizens. But because they go about their own business and expect others to be as good as themselves unless proved otherwise, they tend to pay little attention to public matters, change opinion slowly, and normally trust and follow rather than, as they should, suspect and question the constituted leaders of the state.
3) Ninnies. These are people whose ideas on public questions are childish and self-centered, who desire both to conform to fashion and to be regarded as superior in daring, wisdom, and virtue to the ordinary folks. This category includes most professors, journalists, middle-level bureaucrats, political activists, and, unfortunately, a great portion of the clergy. Ninnies are responsible for a vast amount of static and pseudo-knowledge which foul communication between Statesmen and Yeomen. I suppose Ninnies can be found in any country, but I have the impression that they are nowhere else as numerous and prominently placed as in America. (Americans began in the early 19th century to notice and decry the large number of aggressive, pseudo-intellectual, self-appointed moral superiors coming out of Boston.) Sometimes a Ninny acheives great status by serving as a front for Politicians, a classic example in recent times being George W. Bush. Ninnies are numerous on the left, but in recent years they have been found abundantly on the Republican side (example: people who think Condi Rice would be a great president). One particular right-wing subset of the Ninnies (O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc.) displays nasty fascist tendencies.
4) Politicians. People who create nothing but control everything. Machiavelli was not only giving advice, he was describing an eternal type. Man is an institution-building animal. Statesmens’ accomplishments lead to institutions, and institutions perpetuate themselves and bestow distinctions and profits. These distinctions and profits, in time, come to those who concentrate on maneuvering to position themselves well. During ordinary times of inertia and limited attentiveness, successful maneuvering for position within an institution is is enough to make one seem to be important, esteemed, and useful, even if one has contributed nothing to the world or to the mission of the institution. One can acheive political power by flattering the Ninnies and seeming plausible to the inattentive Yeomen. A certain number of clever but morally defective people will early observe that the world’s rewards are as often bestowed for the appearance of achievement as for achievement itself. The folk conception of a politician as one who watches which way the people are heading and then gets in front to “lead” captures this truth. It is commonplace for positions of great power and respect to be filled by people who have never in their entire lives done anything unselfish or useful for their fellow citizens or had any sincere idea or impulse directed at the public good. This category includes most congressmen, presidential advisors, bishops, media moguls, university presidents, generals, and top corporate executives. The type is universal and immemorial but, again, I suspect is particularly numerous in America, which invented the phenomenon of Celebrity—being well-known for being well-known—and where there is no measure of individual value except money. The worst part of this is that when real crises come, Politicians are in charge and they lack the intellectul and moral resources to meet the crisis. They can only think and do what they have always thought and done—manipulate appearances to keep themselves on top. Thus Dubya Bush can never resolve the Iraq debacle because his vision of the alternatives is short-term and self-referential. He may blunder or be forced into a solution, or he may acquire a handler who can find a plausible face-saving solution, as the politician Nixon did for Vietnam.
(There is another sizable category of persons inhabiting the United States who are not really citizens at all, merely Sports Fans, Gadget-worshippers, and Shoppers.)
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/wilson.cgi/2006/05/19/Statesmen,_Yeome n,_
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2110
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:46 am: |
|
OK, I know this isn't a definition of any particular political term, but that last post reminded me of a scene from Team America (which I watched this weekend). You gotta appreciate how the South Park guys are equal opportunity offenders. They don't just hate W, they hate the left and the right equally.
-------------
Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get f***ed by dicks. But dicks also f*** a**holes: a**holes that just want to s*** on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with a**holes their way. But the only thing that can f*** an a**hole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they f*** too much or f*** when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of s*** that they become a**holes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from a** holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us f*** this a**hole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in s***! |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 214
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
Alleygater,
I am probably the last person in America who has never seen South Park, but I did see Team America last year and found it to be fairly amusing. Equal opportunity offenders, indeed.
Cheers |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page