From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 19 2005 - 14:54:38 BST
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:47:12 +0100, "David M" wrote:
> Ham said: left-wingers who want to replace individualism and national pride
> with an
> elitist social order
>
> DM: that's silly abuse. OK wise guys give us your wisdom.......
>
> How do conservative values support DQ & the evolution of SQ?????
[Arlo]
From Wikipedia:
Conservatism: "Conservatism is a generic term for a wide range of ideologies,
political philosophies, political movements, and social and cultural attitudes,
which oppose change to some degree, and seek to limit change in some way. All
conservatives would reject the proposition "Change is good in itself...
Conservatives also vary widely in the limits to innovation which they propose.
Secular Burkean conservatives insist that change should be organic, Christian
conservatives look to the Bible for their criteria, Muslim conservatives to the
Quran, and there are many other sources for such limits."
Liberalism: "Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and
present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty and private
property as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent
from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious
matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism.
Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure their
own society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism and collectivist
ideologies, particularly communism."
Etymologically, anyways, "conservatism" was about maintaining status quo social
patterns. Which is why it aligns well with Rigel in Lila. "Liberalism" was an
attempt to bring reason (intellectual patterns) into governance.
Note here two very interesting dialectic move that has occured in the national
dialogue. "Intellectual governance" is described as "elitist social order",
when the meaning of the "intellectual" venture was opposed to that. Also,
"Capitalism", so often heralded as the proprietary possession of "conservative"
political ideology, is missing. And indeed, the entry for "liberalism" goes on
to say: "The original Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke and Baron de
Montesquieu, attempted to establish limits on existing political powers by
asserting that there were natural rights and fundamental laws of governance
that not even kings could overstep without becoming tyrants. This was combined
with the idea that commercial freedom would best benefit the whole of the
political order, an idea that would later be associated with the advocacy of
capitalism, and which was drawn from the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
The next important piece of the triad of ideas of liberalism, was the idea of
popular self-determination. Most liberals support a combination of these ideas,
although many would ascribe more importance to one of them than to the other
two."
Looking for "capitalism" on the "conservative" page, one reads: "In addition
most modern conservatives support the free market and capitalism, although an
economic system as such is not conservative. (The free market, in its present
form, is an early-modern innovation). Most have similar positions on
bio-ethical issues such as abortion and euthanasia."
You'll see that the efforts of political propaganda denies this entirely, and
paints dreaded, evil "liberalism" as a "communist, anti-capitalist,
anti-individual, anti-American" philosophy.
Of course, this is the problem when you begin with the premise that every
socio-economic/political stance can be neatly divided into absolutist
categories such as "Conservatives-Glorious/Liberals-Evil". In order to
accomplish such a dialetic manuever, you have to bend certain things to make
them fit, and then pretend they couldn't possibly exist "in the other side".
The ultimate success is in the villification of individuals of the opposing
party, such as "liberals lie", "arrogant liberals" and the like.
In the end, one has to face the reality of the modern political parties. The
ongoing battle between conservatives and liberals is really nothing more than a
dialectic distraction. "Liberals" are not communists and "conservatives" are
not nazis. But it makes good theatre. And keeps us from stepping outside these
absolutist categorizations.
For example, all the hunters and fishermen I know are also the most avid
environmentalists I know. They want clean forests and streams, land for game to
roam, and to stop the encroachment and pollution that threatens a wilderness
they love. When not hunting/fishing, they tend to want to be outdoors hiking,
boating, camping, etc. But since "hunting" has been dichotomized erroneuously,
by its association with "gun control", as "conservative", environmental
advocacy is splintered and weakened. "Liberals" portray hunters as Bambi
killers, "conservatives" portray non-hunting environmentalists as "tree hugging
wackos". They both want the same thing, but an absolutist dichotomy makes them
arch-enemies. Foolish. And who wins? Business that can develop wild lands, or
use them to dump their trash.
But I digress...
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Aug 19 2005 - 15:37:01 BST