From: pacodegallo@attbi.com
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 18:32:23 BST
Hi Sam and Dave and gang
DMB says:
A very important thing to see here is
that "institutions that have
stood the test of time" ARE social values.
Traditionally, the church, the
army, and the ecomony are the favorites of
Conservatives precisely because
modernity (intellect) has had an enormous impact on
these institutions.
PACO:
We ARE discussing political patterns, so I fail to see
that this observation is as inciteful as you seem to
imply. Economic and social equality -- liberal
favorites -- are social too. The whole big C little c
thing is indeed a bit confusing. Both the C and the L
words -- even if focused on political ideology -- have
multiple definitions that differ by society and time.
They also do not correlate all that well with the
official political parties of the US or GB.
DMB says:
Are you trying to imply that liberals and intellectuals
are in favor of
accepting unproven ideas, of widely distributing
unproven new ideas? That
they don't see "the value of the ongoing society"? No
way. Liberals want all
that too. And more besides. In any case, I don't think
its fair to make
exclusive claims about these values.
PACO:
Haven't you been making exclusive (or near exclusive)
claims about values? Why the double standard?
But back on point, the proofing of ideas is EXACTLY the
potential downside to modern Liberalism. It has tons of
ideas on how to achieve equality, health care,
environmental quality, peace, social safety nets,
better education, lower prices, etc. The problem is
that these ideas often backfire and achieve unexpected
results. Frequently, liberal solutions have led to the
opposite result intended (increased crime , worse
control over one's retirement, higher prices and
shortages, poverty, family breakdown, socialism, etc).
This weakness is further exascerbated by the liberal
tendency to judge on intentions rather than results and
by its current daliance with anti-rational post-modern
philosophy and cultural relativism.
Alone, Conservatism and Liberalism are are both
suboptimal. At their worst, one is statically latched,
the other dynamically out of control. It is the
combination of the two that leads to a healthy
society. Sq and DQ. One preserves what works, the
other tries new things. Each party controls or limits
the excesses of its opposite. Failure to achieve this
balance leads to Cuba on one side and Iran on the
other. Marxism was the greatest liberal mistake of the
last century, causing the deaths and impoverishment of
untold millions. Iran on the other hand represents a
fundamentalist, conservative country that not only
hasn't entered modernity, it has actually moved
backward over the past 30 years.
DMB:
This doesn't add up.
And it contradicts so much of what Pirsig says. Rigel.
Think of Rigel. He's
a classic American Conservative. He's not some gun-nut
neo-nazi militia guy.
He's just a Republican. What's so hard to get about
Rigel?
PACO:
Since when have Manhattan divorce lawyers been classic
conservatives? This is as silly as saying that Jamie
the pimp is your classic liberal.
DMB says:
Oh, well there's your problem. Conservatism has come a
long way since the
reign of terror, although they're still very fond of
mentioning it.
PACO:
And liberalism has come a long way from Marxism, but
the fringe element is still fond of the idea.
DMB:
But
seriously, I thought the conversation began as an
analysis of the Bush
Administration and so was about contemporary
Conservatism. And its fine to
trace the roots of today's Conservatism, but I think
your breif description
has unsound and unfair characterizations. It seems to
imply that only
Conservatives were horrified at the bloodshed, as if
only Conservatives have
basic human decency. Also, Conservatives at the time
didn't just object to
violence, they also opposed those three famous ideas,
not least of all
because those ideas would cost them in both power and
wealth.
PACO:
Good points all, but when are you going to take your
own advice? Your caricature of conservatism was also
unfair, as if only liberals have intellectual
capacity. Look back at some of your word choice on
conservatives.
Sam concludes:
So: conservative and Conservative are not the same. The
latter is an
intellectual level filter designed to preserve social
level quality from
dangerous innovations, not a social level reaction
against all innovations
whatever their source.
DMB says:
I'm glad you re-stated this. It deserves re-beating.
Your definition of
Conservatism as an intellectual level social preserver
is illogical, defies
Pirsig's depictions, doesn't match people or events in
the real world and is
otherwise bogus. Sorry, friend. I don't buy it.
Wouldn't even take it for
free. (This is a criticism, not an insult. Please take
it as an intellectual
challenge.)
PACO:
How is it illogical? You already agreed with me on 4 or
5 intellectual values that are part of mainstream
conservatism last week. The static/Dynamic model
EXACTLY matches the MOQ. As for matching real people
or events, it kind of depends upon how we define said
people and events doesn't it? Rigel is a bad example
(being not real and all). Could you provide
substantiation that it doesn't match real world (or
refute what I suggested if you think Marxism or
lifetime entitlement to welfare etc. were such grand
ideas)
DMB muses on the topic:
I think liberal intellectuals can understand
Conservatives because you can't
have any ideas without social values first. So liberal
intellectuals have
what Conservatives have, but they also have something
more. They have
something additional that Conservatives tend to
mistrust. And for the same
reason, Conservatives really don't trust or understand
Liberalism.
Discussions about the MOQ are not immune to this
problem.
PACO:
As a non-conservative I both reject your analogy and
suggest that it is a cheap and logically-bankrupt
trick. You are trying to establish what Karl Popper
calls "reinforced dogmatism" that cannot be disagreed
with in the definition of the issue. This is a CLASSIC
example of the anti-intellectualism in such ideas as
Hegelianism, Marxism and some religions. I guess
according to your definition, you are a conservative
(joke).
DMB:
Most of what passes for issues worthy of political
debate, abortion and gun
control for example, is little more than a distraction.
Rights and freedom.
That's where the action is. Ask yourself how
Conservatives and Liberals come
down on those issues and you really start to see the
line between social and
intellecual values.
Ask yourself,
1) who was behind McCarthyism? Conservative extremists
2) Who sought to
restrict artistic expression and political dissent in
the name of security? Not aware of the former, but the
latter has been attempted by extremists in both parties
(PC speech is the liberal version)
3)Who voted against the civil rights act? Conservative
democrats primarily
4) Who sank the Equal rights amendment? Conservatives.
5) Who hates the American Civil Liberties Union?
Conservatives.
6) Who support[ed] right-wing military coups in foriegn
countries [during the cold war]? Conservatives.
In the real world, the Conservatives have
a weak record on freedoms and rights. They talk about
it alot, but they
don't really get it. Either that or they're
monstorously hypocritical.
BUT, YOU FORGOT A FEW QUESTIONS:
7) Who supported a corrupt N. Vietnamese government
that violently conquored those to the South, killing
more people in the establishment of the totalitarian
state than occured during the entire war, and leading
to the impoverishment of a generation? Extreme
Liberals.
8) Who blames the US for 9/11 and prefers theocratic,
anti-feminist, homophobic totalitarian governments over
armed liberation? Extreme liberals
9) Who supports nationalizing vast swaths of free
enterprise industry and freezing prices? Liberals (and
Nixon)
10) Who supports the restriction of of property rights
to protect snail darters? Liberals
11) Who wants to restrict freedom of choice on health
care (by adding fringe coverages and/or socializing
it)? Liberals
12) Who is trying to indoctrinate children that Western
Society is founded on the principle of oppression,
rather than on freedom and rightful liberty? Extreme
liberals
13) Who stood behind Marxism as it impoverished
generations and led to some of the worst attrocities of
the century? Liberals
Do you see my point? You are presenting half the
story. You have this odd, extremist view of all-that-
is-liberal is intellectual and good and all-that-is-
conservative is backward and stupid and power-focused
and evil. The truth is that either version, if taken
to an extreme is of very low quality. It is the
interplay of the two that creates quality.
but I could be wrong,
Paco
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:54 GMT