Society/Culture Do conservatives reject reality?

[Old Skool]

I never said strictly.

Meds identifies as a 'libertarian' and he certainly sees no place for notions of positive liberty.

There are others in the classic libertarian school that continue to reject the notion that a failure to act by the State to ensure liberty is no different to the State failing to ensure liberty (which is what we as liberals put them there to do).

I come from the position that sometimes, non discrimination is itself a form of discrimination.

The trick is to know when.

I don't pay much attention to medusala. I suggest you do the same.

Indeed. Heck the very notion of liberalism relies on the tendency of man to be selfish, and look after his own intrests above those of others. 'Maximise personal pleasure while minimising personal pain' and all that.

The theory rests on the premise that humans are inherently selfish mofos and will sometimes screw each other over if given the chance.

It recognises that an external authority (i.e. the State) is thus needed to protect the individual from harm from others.

Classical liberals theorise that the State should only do as little as possible to ensure freedom, and let the dice fall where they may.

Clearly this position is rubbish. Even the classical economic libertarian posterboy Adam Smith supported State interference and regulation of the economy to prevent monopolies and cartels from market dominance (invisible hand notwithstanding) and the effective restriction of liberty and market exclusion that would result.

I tend to agree, but the sophisticated manipulation by those positioned to most benefit from the entity we refer to as "the state" has now driven such concepts to a point of crisis.

I honestly believe that we are currently dwelling in a system that promotes the best psycopath.

 

[Malifice]

I don't pay much attention to medusala. I suggest you do the same.

I like Meds.

He may be a bitter and twisted right wing nutter with a burning hatred of ethnic minorities, but he's our bitter and twisted right wing nutter with a burning hatred of ethnic minorities.

Besides, Batman needs his Joker.

I tend to agree, but the sophisticated manipulation by those positioned to most benefit from the entity we refer to as "the state" has now driven such concepts to a point of crisis.

Funny you should mention this.

The Right (in particular the European Far Right) make the exact same arguments.

Guess its a question of perspective.

I honestly believe that we are currently dwelling in a system that promotes the best psycopath.

Yeah, nah.

Liberal democracies might not be perfect, but theyre the best weve got at the moment.

Id certainly rather be living in a Nation governed by one of the worlds liberal democracies (Western Europe, the UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Oz etc) than any other Nation State currently 'out there'.

There is no avoiding the fact that liberal free market based capitalist States do tend to do quite well. Historically and in a contemporary sense.

We just need to be temper the excesses and be mindful of human nature.

 

[philohk]

I like Meds.

He may be a bitter and twisted right wing nutter with a burning hatred of ethnic minorities, but he's our bitter and twisted right wing nutter with a burning hatred of ethnic minorities.

Besides, Batman needs his Joker.



Funny you should mention this.

The Right (in particular the European Far Right) make the exact same arguments.

Guess its a question of perspective.



Yeah, nah.

Liberal democracies might not be perfect, but theyre the best weve got at the moment.

Id certainly rather be living in a Nation governed by one of the worlds liberal democracies (Western Europe, the UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Oz etc) than any other Nation State currently 'out there'.

There is no avoiding the fact that liberal free market based capitalist States do tend to do quite well. Historically and in a contemporary sense.

We just need to be temper the excesses and be mindful of human nature.

That's quite incorrect, mal, though a common misconception. The states you're thinking of didn't do well through free-market economics - they didn't even practise it. European countries became rich through mercantilism and colonialism (I include slavery here, until it was superseded by the still-imperialist consumer economy), and Britain only started promoting free trade when they realised they'd benefit from it as the largest economy. A German economist of the 19th century called it 'kicking away the ladder' after they'd climbed up it. The rise of the US was highly protectionist too. This revision has gained prominence over the last few years, but is still taking a while to filter through the 'free trade is good because it made countries rich' mindset.

 

[Tex_21]

Still don't have free trade anyway - the overhang from mercantilist thought still permeates, particularly in rich-world governments, that use some of the worst protection in the world, in some of the dumbest places in the world, discounting all the aid they give to third-world countries. The EU's CAP and subsidies to US agriculture are the biggest offenders (there is no ****ing way the US should be the world's biggest producer of cotton).

 

[Clay Davis]

Just wanted to reply to a few peripheral things as well: re slavery, it also (mainly?) ended due to economic reasons. A slave economy couldn’t progress into broader capitalism as it didn’t create consumers.

I always thought it ended because of the industrial revolution, and machines could do things cheaper and better than people, even relatively cheap slaves.

 

[Richo83]

I haven't followed this thread in detail but my primary concern with conservatism is it's capacity to react to and adapt to change. Western society has changed vastly in the past 100-400 years and clinging to a past which does not exist and cannot be replicated seems futile. It also can cling to policy positions which don't work, saying that they are the traditional method. The drug argument is a classic situation, with some conservatives fearing the change of drug liberalisation, not realising the money and the lives wasted on the war on drugs.

The conservatism which prides traditions seems to forget that there are plenty of traditions not worth preserving. The stonings of women are a classic examples.

Then there's the racist version of conservatism, the purists who aim to purge society of undesirables, immigrants, gays etc. Most of these complaints are based on paranoia, the Pauline Hanson types who say that we're being overrun by Asians.

The conservatism which clings to biblical commandments seems more out of touch than ever. Even Christians themselves seem to ignore these types. Santorum was too radical even for republicans.

Then there's the conservatism which sees society as corrupt, in which it must be limited in powers in order to achieve order. This comes from a theological concept which seems ridiculous. On the other hand there's the conservatism which states that new ways of social organisation are doomed to fail, as if humanity has no clever ideas of social organisation. Democracy was seen as a ridiculous idea by the likes of Plato. I think this is a short sighted view.

The only type of conservatism which seems to make sense is fiscal conservatism, which is essentially economic liberalism. I don't see it as conservatism though, because it's main aim is freedom, not tradition, and liberal systems of economics can be quite radical in terms of changing social structures.

Positions like being tough on crime, supporting capital punishment and war may seem conservative, unless you look at the motivation behind such positions. If you believe that, like me, the main aim of justice is protection, and capital punishment is the most effective form of protection, then capital punishment makes sense, it's a utilitarian argument not a conservative one.
If you believe war can be used for political change/justice/whatever then it's hardly a push for conservatism. This is the problem with listing conservatism as a bunch of policies when it is really an attitude, an unwillingness to embrace large amounts of change.

 

[Malifice]

I haven't followed this thread in detail but my primary concern with conservatism is it's capacity to react to and adapt to change. Western society has changed vastly in the past 100-400 years and clinging to a past which does not exist and cannot be replicated seems futile.

Thats actually a common misconception of 'conservatism'.

Conservatives dont reject change, nor do they seek to blindly cling to the past.

They do seek to maintain the priveleged position of the status quo (predominatly in 'western' nations this means the white, upper class, christian, heterosexual male).

They'll implement whatever legislation is needed to protect these intrests.

Look at Howard - he was our most 'conservative' PM yet, and he introduced (or attempted to introduce) a raft of wide ranging legislation and extensive policy - all pretty much aimed at the 'status quo' (Work choices, 10 point plan + native title, Migration act ammendments, gay marriage, work for the dole, Privatisation, university reforms, military intervention in Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, Tampa, 'Culture' tests for new migrants, etc etc etc)

By contrast, 'progressives' tend towards seeking to advance the cause of minority groups and causes - migrants, the poor, GLBT, minority religions, the environment etc.

The reality is no side is more 'progressive or 'conservative' than the other - they just represent different sections of the community.

 

[Richo83]

Re: Is conservatism a form of mental illness?

Who the hell doesn't think their views are based on rationality?

Lots of people. Both the left and the right both appeal to irrational arguments, feeling, hope, fear, tradition etc. The notion that they're performing some philosophical Kantian ideology is unrealistic. Go ask some Christian conservatives about their position on homosexuality, or the pill. It's the devil's tool I tells ya! It not only sounds irrational, but by their own admission, makes no attempt to be.

As for the issue of many of the left joining conservative parties, it's damn depressing when you hear this "immigrants are going to take our jobs" crap from the populist left. What this shows is that a large portion of the left are really just protectionists looking to protect their interests. These people often take populist positions which apply a simplistic attitude to politics. They're also socially conservative. "Labor right" is a large and growing movement, and it's bloody depressing. They're simply watered down members of the far-right. No wonder they like the BNP, it appeals to their mix of populist/irrationalist economics, social paranoia and prejudice against people they don't know and have funny names.

"Top Three Myths about Immigration"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM&feature=relmfu

It's no doubt though that there just plain racists within the right, who revel in notions of racial purity and cultural essentialism in order to culturally cleanse society and keep it the way they like it. The people who judge a person on the colour of their skin and the nation of birth, rather than their character.
You should listen to some of the Chinese in Shanghai, you'd think the Japanese were the scum of the earth, even though Nanjing was over 60 years ago. I suppose old wounds heal slowly eh?

 

[Malifice]

Re: Is conservatism a form of mental illness?

It's no doubt though that there just plain racists within the right, who revel in notions of racial purity and cultural essentialism in order to culturally cleanse society and keep it the way they like it.

Funniest thing about Meds in this thread is how he attempts to attach Fascism, Xenophobia, Nativism and Racism as traits of the Left.

I wonder if he really beleives it, perceives it that way based on misconceptions, or knows deep inside that he's wrong.

I suggest the latter.

 

[Richo83]

Thats actually a common misconception of 'conservatism'.

Conservatives dont reject change, nor do they seek to blindly cling to the past.

Read between the lines buddy, I've read Burke's discussions of conservatism too. However, many conservatives do idly hark back to a past. Heidegger was a classic example of this.

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers."

Who said this? Some old crank? Aristotle of course.

Then there's the maxim that the worst and most rude of generations is the newest. And the best and most polite of generations are their parents.

They do seek to maintain the priveleged position of the status quo (predominatly in 'western' nations this means the white, upper class, christian, heterosexual male).

Burke didn't oppose the French revolution because he wanted to protect his privileged position in French royalty. Not all conservatism can be reduced to interest. Nietzscheanism is fun but it has its limits.

He opposed it because he saw the presence of abstract right as dangerous, open to demagoguery. That the revolutionaries would be radicalists, impractical in terms of policies and ideology. Further, he argued that such radical change was disastrous for society, and that change in politics should be incremental, and driven by pragmatic concerns. In the end, Burke was right, as the French revolution went to crap. But overall, Burke's viewpoint is way too restrictive and impractical in this day and age.

In essence, Burke was driven by his personality, one of a timid pragmatism, not some self-interest, and not all conservatives are driven by self-interest. Some, like Santorum, are driven by a love of a dusty old book.

 

[Malifice]

Read between the lines buddy, I've read Burke's discussions of conservatism too. However, many conservatives do idly hark back to a past. Heidegger was a classic example of this.

Im not suggesting that they dont. I just tend to find that such appeals to 'stabilility' and a return to 'the glory days of the past' far more often than not are code for national purity and authoritarian regimes.

Fascism, Francoism and National Socialism all relied heavily on jingoism and calls to revive a glorified past.

My argument is that such calls were only window dressing on something far more insidious.

 

[medusala]

I haven't followed this thread in detail but my primary concern with conservatism is it's capacity to react to and adapt to change.

On what basis is the philosophy of Adam Smith and Burke obsolete? You are a very harsh to call Burke a timid pragmatist, see Hastings trial as but one example.

Property rights, low taxes, the rule of law etc are still just as applicable today (although sadly rarely in practice) as they were then.

Given the spectacular car crash of social democracy one would think it's not hard to argue that the classical liberal / conservative viewpoint has been shown to be the rational one.

However, many conservatives do idly hark back to a past.

And for good reason. The "progressive" agenda of the last 30 to 40 years has been an unmitigated disaster in a number of areas ie freedom of speech, education, welfare traps etc.

The bill is due now in Europe and it is predictably ending in tears (and tear gas)

 

[Old Skool]

My thread on conservatives and reality has been hijacked by conservatives debating the merits of different forms of conservatism.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

 

[medusala]

My thread on conservatives and reality has been hijacked by conservatives debating the merits of different forms of conservatism.

See above. Social democracy has blown up badly. Yet the OP posits that it is conservatives who reject reality. Cognitive dissonance indeed.

Reminds me of Stiglitz saying that there was no Greek crisis they should just borrow more money cheaply.

 

[Richo83]

On what basis is the philosophy of Adam Smith and Burke obsolete?

Adam Smith's book on liberty seems to be more focused on liberty than conservatism. Then there's that famous line of Mill: "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

Generally, Mill is painted as a utilitarian, which frequently isn't conservative.

The capacity for states to change in such a rapidly changing world is limited by Burke's conservatism. Imagine China not trying to embark on the radical change they've done in the past 30 years because it's too a radical a change. I just think that states cannot simply appeal to a sense of tradition and "the way things have been done" in this current world where politics moves so fast and changes so quickly.

You are a very harsh to call Burke a timid pragmatist, see Hastings trial as but one example.

It's not a criticism med, you're jumping ahead of yourself. It is an awareness that Burke and many of his friends were philosophically restrained in terms of reform. Not all reform is scary, the west has gone through tremendous political and economic reform, and I'd say this is mostly good. It's gone from a place of kings and queens to a highly sophisticated liberal democracy.

Property rights, low taxes, the rule of law etc are still just as applicable today (although sadly rarely in practice) as they were then.

Absolutely. But as Burke said, society is: "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born" It seems like he's too attached to the past.

"We fear God, we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests; and with respect to nobility. Why? Because when such ideas are brought before our minds, it is natural to be so affected"

This sounds like a defense of the hierarchy, the old hierarchy of kings and queens, of aristocracy as seen as some sort of necessary force for keeping society together. He's a Hobbsean med, no doubt, in feeling there has to be some permanent leadership that rules over all of us to keep society from falling off the cliff. The notion of libertarianism in say evo's form would be seen as too radical.

And for good reason. The "progressive" agenda of the last 30 to 40 years has been an unmitigated disaster in a number of areas ie freedom of speech, education, welfare traps etc.

The bill is due now in Europe and it is predictably ending in tears (and tear gas)

I don't know which progressive agenda you are discussing, but overall I'd say that society is in good shape. We're closer to racial and sexual equality, we have more economic freedoms than ever before, we have more social freedoms than ever before. I think we're lucky we don't live in 1612, or 1952, or 1212, or 1852.

 

[Malifice]

The bill is due now in Europe and it is predictably ending in tears (and tear gas)

Good to see 'conservative' tactics dont change.

Theyll be sending in the brownshirts soon.

 

[medusala]

Adam Smith's book on liberty seems to be more focused on liberty than conservatism.

Few would call Smith a conservative, more of a liberal.

Then there's that famous line of Mill: "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

Burke and Mills are hardly miles apart. Things were a bit different back then due to the Tories and the Whigs. Look at what Gladstone did and said and now look to which party he would be most comfortable in. It would be the Conservative party. Just as many Conservative members these days would have been Whigs back in the day.

The capacity for states to change in such a rapidly changing world is limited by Burke's conservatism. Imagine China not trying to embark on the radical change they've done in the past 30 years because it's too a radical a change.

I disagree. Conservative doesnt mean simply accepting the status quo. There are basic tenets of conservatism. Adhering to that would have meant China becoming a market economy. Otherwise you would have to argue that Fraser was a real conservative whilst Thatcher wasnt.

I just think that states cannot simply appeal to a sense of tradition and "the way things have been done" in this current world where politics moves so fast and changes so quickly.

We will have to agree to disagree on what conservatism means in this context.

This sounds like a defense of the hierarchy, the old hierarchy of kings and queens, of aristocracy as seen as some sort of necessary force for keeping society together. He's a Hobbsean med, no doubt, in feeling there has to be some permanent leadership that rules over all of us to keep society from falling off the cliff. The notion of libertarianism in say evo's form would be seen as too radical.

I dont disagree. Hence the difference between libertarians and conservatives. Still these differences are far smaller than between say conservatives and social democrats.

I don't know which progressive agenda you are discussing, but overall I'd say that society is in good shape.

See Europe. Much of it is stuffed and it will be for quite a while until the welfare state is dismantled to a large extent.

We're closer to racial and sexual equality, we have more economic freedoms than ever before, we have more social freedoms than ever before.

How can we have more economic freedom than ever before when the state is taking more of the countries wealth than ever before? How can we have more social freedom than ever before with nonsense like blaspemy laws being in place and things like internet censorship being promoted? Freedom has been dramatically curtailed as the state has grown bigger.

 

[Malifice]

Few would call Smith a conservative, more of a liberal.

You know you can be both right?

I disagree. Conservative doesnt mean simply accepting the status quo. There are basic tenets of conservatism.

What are these 'basic tenets'?

How can we have more economic freedom than ever before when the state is taking more of the countries wealth than ever before?

Weird - I could have sworn that general standards of living, wealth disparity between the poor and wealthy and corporate wealth in general were (and have been) on the increase over the past 40 years?

How can we have more social freedom than ever before with nonsense like blaspemy laws being in place and things like internet censorship being promoted?

You realise that Blashpemy laws have been in existence in the UK (under the common law) for centuries Meds?

Freedom has been dramatically curtailed as the state has grown bigger.

What freedoms? The freedom to racially villify people?

Name some examples of these 'freedoms' that these pesky progressive governments have taken from you Meds.

 

[medusala]

Weird - I could have sworn that general standards of living, wealth disparity between the poor and wealthy and corporate wealth in general were (and have been) on the increase over the past 40 years?

There is a thing called opportunity cost.

You realise that Blashpemy laws have been in existence in the UK (under the common law) for centuries Meds?

And were not used in recent times. They are now and for vile politically correct purposes.

People are now not equal under the law due ie hate crimes.

What freedoms? The freedom to racially villify people?

Anything can be deemed as vilification and I mean anything as long as the person allegedly vilified deems it to be offensive.

An utter joke. Right up there with giving people smugglers legal aid.

Name some examples of these 'freedoms' that these pesky progressive governments have taken from you Meds.

The list is far too extensive. Look how many laws Gillard has introduced. They all equate to less freedom.

 

[Richo83]

Few would call Smith a conservative, more of a liberal.

So then why did you bring him up in a discussion of liberalism?

Burke and Mills are hardly miles apart. Things were a bit different back then due to the Tories and the Whigs. Look at what Gladstone did and said and now look to which party he would be most comfortable in. It would be the Conservative party. Just as many Conservative members these days would have been Whigs back in the day.

Burke didn't have Mill's utilitarianism, and IMO Mill was more of a pure liberal, Burke was closer to the Hobbsean model of conservative leadership of hierarchy.

Overall, I think Mill's philosophy is better than Burke, who benefited from living in a time where reform didn't work. One of Burke's biggest problems is he wasn't able to properly explain what prudent pragmatism is in terms of policy outcomes. At least liberalism has clear set ideals.

I disagree. Conservative doesnt mean simply accepting the status quo.

I never said it was med. What I did point out was that conservatives are slow to reform, worrying that too much reform will destabilise society, which is problematic given politics moves so fast these days. I would assume that Burke would oppose say the war on terror, being a radical ideologically based policy, full of risks. Now, such prudence can have it's strengths, it can also have it's weaknesses.

There are basic tenets of conservatism.

The conservatism you're thinking about is tied to British politics, rule of law, private property etc. Not all conservatives are like that Santorum isn't a British conservative. Neither are the radical Islamists who are very conservative in their mindset.

Now, the British strain of conservatism is fine, but that's mainly because it's co-opted liberal ideals and then attempted to conserve them. But what makes it good is it's liberalism, not it's conservatism.

Otherwise you would have to argue that Fraser was a real conservative whilst Thatcher wasnt.

I don't think she was a pure conservative. Remember the guy she loved? Hayek? Remember how he wrote a book called why I am not a conservative? It's more accurate to say she's a neo-lib who combined some conservative positions for political expediency. Her politics was driven by liberal market ideology though.

We will have to agree to disagree on what conservatism means in this context.

a) I think you misunderstand how traditionalist some conservatives are and b) that there are different types of conservatism. Look at Romney, the guy who thinks a 200 year old document has all the nation's answers when it doesn't teach them how to tackle China or the ME. Romney's clinging to the constitution as if it's some guide to global problems is representative of the modern problem of conservatism: searching for outdated methods to solve modern problems.

I dont disagree. Hence the difference between libertarians and conservatives. Still these differences are far smaller than between say conservatives and social democrats.

It depends which conservatives you're talking about. If you're talking about the conservatives like Santorum who are very big government conservative, who piss off the libertarian Ron Paul, then there is a schism between conservatism and libertarianism. IMO Burke was not a pure liberal because he saw a certain level of hierarchy as important in social order, which, among other things (not being merit based for a start) was not liberalism.

See Europe. Much of it is stuffed and it will be for quite a while until the welfare state is dismantled to a large extent.

a) I don't live in Europe, and b) as it stands though, movements to legalise abortion, drugs and ban racial discrimination have been positive.

How can we have more economic freedom than ever before when the state is taking more of the countries wealth than ever before? How can we have more social freedom than ever before with nonsense like blaspemy laws being in place and things like internet censorship being promoted? Freedom has been dramatically curtailed as the state has grown bigger.

Med, ever since the neo-liberal reforms of the 70s and 80s, our economy has been more flexible than ever. We have more social freedoms than ever before. People can have abortions, take the pill, do all sorts of things they weren't allowed to do before. I agree that there are modern conservative pushes to curtail freedom, but to pretend that the 20th century was not a movement towards freedom and away from tyranny and authoritarianism is silly.

Overall I'd say we're a lot less restrictive as a culture too. My experience of Australian life is not one of oppression. If I want to call someone a k*** I can do so. Internet censorship hasn't kicked in, partially due to those progressive types who want the pill and abortion. In fact I'm accused of being a radical progressive because I support things like abortion and the pill, maybe I'm just a liberal?

 

[Malifice]

There is a thing called opportunity cost.

So under consecutive conservative governments wealth disparity between the poor and wealthy and corporate wealth in general would have increased more over the past 40 years?

People are now not equal under the law due ie hate crimes.

How so?

What hate crimes create an inequality?

An utter joke. Right up there with giving people smugglers legal aid.

Lol. Murderers get legal aid too. So do peadophiles. And rapists. And so-on.

Innocent before proven Guilty Meds.

Remember just because the State charges you with a crime and detains you, it doesnt mean that you are guilty or should be prohibited from the practical ability to mount a defence.

In fact, as a 'libertarian' you should be suggesting quite the opposite.

The list is far too extensive. Look how many laws Gillard has introduced. They all equate to less freedom.

Name one.

Then I'll name you a dozen more that were introduced by Howard.

 

[Contra Mundum]

See above. Social democracy has blown up badly. Yet the OP posits that it is conservatives who reject reality. Cognitive dissonance indeed.

Reminds me of Stiglitz saying that there was no Greek crisis they should just borrow more money cheaply.

Meh even the most ardent conservative outside the USA would still cling to aspects of the Welfare State. It would be a disaster for our betters if the toiling classes started to die of TB or other diseases during winter. Also a safety net for medicine is necessary for a civilsed democracy - the boys and girls of the English Spectator would agree with that

 

[Clay Davis]

I'm not sure you can even say social democracy has blown up badly. Previous large economic downturns in the European peninsula often resulted in war and revolution. If the safety net keeps the masses from assembling into Carbonari, then it's doing a decent job.

 

[Monniehawk]

If only poverty had a color.

in-the-red spectrum?

 

[Old Skool]

in-the-red spectrum?

Doppler or Marx?

My comment related more to the deliberate manipulation of race politics to divide and weaken the underclass.