• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Conservatism needs work 2.0

Journeyman said:
Our current political belief system is broken. The tenets of liberalism and conservativism have a significant amount overlap;  in order to provide a different marketable brand, both sides increasingly seek out the more extreme elements who are less informed or constrained by reality.  As the edges become more shrill, it makes for 'better,' but more shallow, headlines and Twitter posts.  This inevitably disillusions the majority within that central overlap, most of whom will eventually walk away in disgust, forsaking political thinking and action to the more radicalized, often irrational, individuals.

I agree in general, though may quibble on the specifics. I tend to believe that as far as neuroscience is concerned, the deeper into the processes one gets, the fewer differences exist between political ideology and religious belief (one could argue that the nation state itself replaces the concept of God, but that would get very messy). The extreme left and extreme right are just as dangerous as any religious extremist, it's just the specific hazard posed by each presents a very different profile.

I could add a fourth core assumption rather easily - Hatred functions as sociological entropy and has only destructive purpose.
 
FJAG said:
I think that we won't get back to where you and I think we need to be until a lot more of us moderates get off our collective butts and get more involved.

:cheers:

FJAG, agreed.  :nod:  I discussed this need with one of my Aunts, who happened to be part of a number of Joe Clark's election campaigns, and she fully agreed that the middle masses need to be sitting on our butts complaining a lot less, and more on our feet engaging and talking.

Regards,
G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
FJAG, agreed.  :nod:  I discussed this need with one of my Aunts, who happened to be part of a number of Joe Clark's election campaigns, and she fully agreed that the middle masses need to be sitting on our butts complaining a lot less, and more on our feet engaging and talking.

Regards,
G2G

I certainly put myself in that number. I was very involved with the local riding back in Manitoba but since moving to Ontario I've been completely uninvolved other than voting. I've let my membership lapse. Wonder how many more there are like me these days?

:cheers:

 
Perhaps what is missing is a clear definitional understanding of what principles are at work (which isn't helped by the deliberate mangling of the language, what we call "conservative" today was "liberal" in the Enlightenment, while current Liberalism is very reactionary, and indeed embraces many collectivist and even totalitarian elements from 20th century mass political movements. And then of course there is the endless refrain that "National Socialists" are somehow "right wing", an artifact of 1930 era Soviet propaganda. Stalin would be so proud).

In many cases, I suspect the problem is also the changed environment has rendered many of the systems, structures and institutions obsolete (the prime example is the distinction between "Left" and "Right", which reflected the seating arrangement's of the Assembly just prior to the French Revolution.

This article looks at an alternative to "Left" and "Right" (but points out the pejorative nature of "Open" and "Closed", as well as the rather inverted meanings these take in the way they are used).

https://unherd.com/2018/08/deeper-meaning-open-closed/

The deeper meaning of Open and Closed
Peter Franklin
PETER FRANKLIN
03 AUGUST 2018 | @peterfranklin_

Following Brexit, Trump and the formation of a populist government in Italy, there would seem to be an open-and-shut case for open-and-closed.

And yet there’s a big problem with the narrative surrounding the concept. If one looks at the numerous opinion pieces that have appeared on the subject since 2016, almost all of them are written from an ‘open’ perspective. And no wonder! Who would want to identify themselves as being ‘closed’?


Read part two of this essay
The rise and rise of Open and Closed

BY PETER FRANKLIN
The associations of the word are not encouraging: closed mind, closed session, closed membership, closed shop, closed doors, closed borders. Contrast that with the associations of ‘open’: open minded, open hearted, open handed, open to offers, open door, open house, the open road – the list goes on-and-on .

At least the terminology of left-and-right sounds neutral to modern ears.1 The language of open-and-closed, by contrast, is one-sided in the impressions it conveys – and is intended to convey.

That’s something that any open-minded liberal ought to recognise. Some of them do. One such is Adrian Wooldridge – the current custodian of the Bagehot column in the Economist:2

“Open v closed clearly matters… [but] the division is too self-serving for comfort. It looks more like ammunition for a political war than dispassionate analysis, and thereby contributes to the polarisation that it claims to diagnose.”

Wooldridge also questions the idea that open-versus-closed is just another way of saying liberal-versus-illiberal:

“Consider Brexit. Remainers regard it as the quintessential revolt against the open society. Yet some of the most prominent Leavers, such as Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell, are classical liberals who regard the European Union as a protectionist bloc that is bent on subsidising inefficient industries.”

That said, there are some populist leaders who are clearly illiberal – because they’ve said so themselves. For instance, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has declared his intention to build “an illiberal state, a non-liberal state.”3

West of the old Iron Curtain, however, populist rhetoric tends to take a different tone. ‘Closed’ policies on immigration, trade and international obligations are often presented as a defence of liberal values – for instance, of secularism,4 women’s rights5 or a ‘level playing field’ in trade6 – against those who do not share western values or play by the same rules.

-snip-

Read the rest at the link.
 
One example of the problem "solving itself": Jordan Peterson's discourses on Youtube ("Maps of Meaning") and especially his book "12 Rules for Life" is changing the discourse in ways that are outside the boundaries of current political discourse (much like the "Open and Closed"  labels discussed upthread). By essentially kicking the props from under "Identity politics", Peterson provides avenues for discourse on many topics which were long considered off limits, much to the fury of "Progressives":

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson
The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.

CAITLIN FLANAGAN
AUG 9, 2018

Two years ago, I walked downstairs and saw one of my teenage sons watching a strange YouTube video on the television.

“What is that?” I asked.

He turned to me earnestly and explained, “It’s a psychology professor at the University of Toronto talking about Canadian law.”

“Huh?” I said, but he had already turned back to the screen. I figured he had finally gotten to the end of the internet, and this was the very last thing on it.

That night, my son tried to explain the thing to me, but it was a buzzing in my ear, and I wanted to talk about something more interesting. It didn’t matter; it turned out a number of his friends—all of them like him: progressive Democrats, with the full range of social positions you would expect of adolescents growing up in liberal households in blue-bubble Los Angeles—had watched the video as well, and they talked about it to one another. 

The boys graduated from high school and went off to colleges where they were exposed to the kind of policed discourse that dominates American campuses. They did not make waves; they did not confront the students who were raging about cultural appropriation and violent speech; in fact, they forged close friendships with many of them. They studied and wrote essays and—in their dorm rooms, on the bus to away games, while they were working out—began listening to more and more podcasts and lectures by this man, Jordan Peterson.

The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.

That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.

Because all of this was happening silently, called down from satellites and poured in through earbuds—and not on campus free-speech zones where it could be monitored, shouted down, and reported to the appropriate authorities—the left was late in realizing what an enormous problem it was becoming for it. It was like the 1960s, when kids were getting radicalized before their parents realized they’d quit glee club. And it was not just college students. Not by a long shot.

Around the country, all sorts of people were listening to these podcasts. Joe Rogan’s sui generis show, with its surpassingly eclectic mix of guests and subjects, was a frequent locus of Peterson’s ideas, whether advanced by the man himself, or by the thinkers with whom he is loosely affiliated. Rogan’s podcast is downloaded many millions of times each month. Whatever was happening, it was happening on a scale and with a rapidity that was beyond the ability of the traditional culture keepers to grasp. When the left finally realized what was happening, all it could do was try to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a spoon.

The alarms sounded when Peterson published what quickly became a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, because books are something that the left recognizes as drivers of culture. The book became the occasion for vicious profiles and editorials, but it was difficult to attack the work on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success. All of this frustrated the critics. It’s just common sense! they would say, in one arch way or another, and that in itself was telling: Why were they so angry about common sense?

The critics knew the book was a bestseller, but they couldn’t really grasp its reach because people like them weren’t reading it, and because it did not originally appear on The New York Times’s list, as it was first published in Canada. However, it is often the bestselling nonfiction book on Amazon, and—perhaps more important—its audiobook has been a massive seller. As with Peterson’s podcasts and videos, the audience is made up of people who are busy with their lives—folding laundry, driving commercial trucks on long hauls, sitting in traffic from cubicle to home, exercising. This book was putting words to deeply held feelings that many of them had not been able to express before.

Read the rest at the link
 
I read that yesterday, thank god we do have people like him stirring the intellectual pot. I do like the term "Intellectual Dark Web"  8) 
 
Colin P said:
I read that yesterday, thank god we do have people like him stirring the intellectual pot. I do like the term "Intellectual Dark Web"  8)

Yesterday on CBC's Power and Politics, the Liberal talking head (who happens to be the spouse of the PM's COS) was taking aim at the conservatives as xenophobic, alt right mouth pieces (a preview of the Libs election strategy?).
He then ended his little tirade with this gem "the Rebel Media is their base, Jordan Peterson is their base". I know that many progressives have accused Peterson as Alt Right, but I didn't think the LPC would make that leap so forcefully.
 
FSTO said:
Yesterday on CBC's Power and Politics, the Liberal talking head (who happens to be the spouse of the PM's COS) was taking aim at the conservatives as xenophobic, alt right mouth pieces (a preview of the Libs election strategy?).
He then ended his little tirade with this gem "the Rebel Media is their base, Jordan Peterson is their base". I know that many progressives have accused Peterson as Alt Right, but I didn't think the LPC would make that leap so forcefully.

Peterson strikes me as a liberal in the most classical of sense - the kind of person politicians dislike regardless of any political leanings.
 
Back
Top