To the gang,
The argument has always been that the BUSH IS STUPID
position says a heck of a lot more about those that
write it than about the intended target. I REPEAT, I
know nothing of the man's intelligence, I don't
especially respect many of the decisions he has made,
but the HE IS AN EVIL STUPID DICK level of
argumentation is way, way below the expected level of
discourse from this or any other forum. It is simply
childish. Could we try to take it up a notch? Squonk?
DMB?
Now, let me address David's attempt to equate
conservatism with anti-intellect. First, let me start
that there is a good reason to make this mistake. A
very good reason actually. Conservatism is indeed the
position (which exists in both parties btw) of
defending established social patterns of quality from
destruction. The threat can come from social,
biological or intellectual patterns.
As such, if you rewind history, the CONSERVATIVES of
the time would indeed be the ones that defended the
patterns of the time -- be they the rights of
aristocracy, social stratification, Victorian mores
etc, etc etc. The LIBERAL position would indeed be the
one that AT THE TIME encouraged such new intellectually
based social patterns as:
DEMOCRACY
FREE ENTERPRISE
TRIAL BY JURY
FREE SPEECH
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
WOMENS RIGHTS
CIVIL RIGHTS
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
SOCIAL SAFETY NETS (such as of LBJ and FDR)
MARXISM/LENINISM
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR WOMEN
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMOSEXUALS
ETC, ETC
David is right that each of these ideas went through
(or are going through) a period of struggle where the
conservatives of whatever parties existed at the time
defended that which was established and liberals fought
for trying new ideas. Let us not oversimplify though,
during this battle, the fight was accompanied by social-
level power struggles for those that would win and lose
based upon the outcome of the struggle.
Platt is right that the Conservative position played an
important role in defending and preserving the survival
of the social organization during such traumatic
changes, as well as of defending it from low quality
ideas or adjustments (Lenninism for example).
So, on the surface, it seems that both Platt and David
are right. However, there is something important that
David completely misses. Namely that the intellectually
inspired ideas of the past become the conventional
social patterns of the present. As such, CONSERVATIVES
of later eras BY DEFINITION are fighting to preserve
such INTELLECTUALLY-driven, SOCIALLY proven ideas as:
DEMOCRACY
FREE ENTERPRISE
TRIAL BY JURY
FREE SPEECH
LIMITED GOVERNMENT/CITIZEN RIGHTS
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
WOMENS RIGHTS
CIVIL RIGHTS
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
These are now all established conservative positions
(conservative today is virtually synonymous with
liberal of 200 years ago). Other ideas are still
enmeshed in the struggle. Liberal positions now push
the envelope in new directions, some contradicting
previous liberal positions, others taking past advances
further (even more rights, even easier collective
bargaining, etc).
So, David completely misses the dynamic dimension of
terms that evolve over time. As such, he misses that
in the USSR or China, that the recent struggles against
Socialism involved the Conservatives of those countries
defending David's intellectual nirvana from liberals
touting what conservatives are defending in this
country.(please re-read carefully)
In summary, CONSERVATIVE is a term with an evolving
definition. It refers both to that generic political
philosophy defending static patterns, as well as to the
particular defended patterns of the time.
David could improve his argument if he changed it from
intellectual vs anti-intellectual to one of static vs
dynamic. The liberal wing is more dynamic, and thus,
according to the MOQ, more moral. The MOQ would warn
that we need both forces, and I would agree. The
conservatives aren't taking us anywhere new -- that
will have to come from the liberals. All the
conservative positions can do is explore minor
variations on old themes and defend against BAD ideas.
Paco
PS -- As warned above,it is important to separate
intellectual patterns from old fashioned social level
self interest. Conservatives pandering to big business
and agriculture or liberals pandering to unions,
lawyers and government employees is no longer part of
the intellectual struggle, though it may derive its
roots from the intellectual divisions. The point is
that most of the political struggles of our day are
just good old fashioned power grabs. Again,
representing this part of the political struggle as
intellectual vs social is pure BS. It does complicate
matters immensely though.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:35 BST