I'm at least glad that some conservatives are recognizing the central problem with 1950's nostalgia (although the starkest problems are two that aren't even mentioned by Dreher, i.e. civil rights and feminism).
Reminds me of a very old joke/koan from AI research:
In the days when Sussman was a novice Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6. "What are you doing?", asked Minsky. "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe." "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky. "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play." Minsky shut his eyes. "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher. "So the room will be empty." At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
Dilian, read the Dreher essay linked to by Freddy. One paragraph says:
Surely conservatives don’t want to be in the position of defending a social order that degraded women, subordinated blacks, marginalized Jews and shamed homosexuals into invisibility. Surely conservatives can admit that there was a significant price paid to maintain conformity and collusive silence in the face of hypocrisy and injustice. Surely conservatives can agree that at least some of the Fifties’ false ideals deserved rebelling against.
Also, the quote from Dreher's essay in Freddy's is itsself a quote. RTWT before casting stones.
Oh, and Freddy - good essay. I've struggled with
the issue myself. Decided Pascal's Wager is a good starting point.
Good grief Rob, don't tell me you actually believe that "conservativism" is the same as "conservation." If so, you need to take a political philosophy course. "Conservatism" is about a return to traditional social structures and morality and strict controls to preserve the status quo (after restoring the status quo ante). It is the antithesis of liberalism, which emphasizes progress and change.
Back to the article...Megan, why is it you have no comment? Freddie posted a lengthy (angst-ridden) discourse on his disbelief. Do you agree with him or not? What's your take on the whole religious vs. humanist/existentialist debate Freddie suggests? If you have no comment, do you agree with everything he said, or did you just want to point us at a lengthy disquisition on belief for no particular reason? (Perhaps for its entertainment value?)
Pascal can stick his wager. If I'm wrong, so be it (and God already knew what I was going to do, so it was all preordained anyway, so screw him too for just wanting to mess around with me).
Al Qeada's agenda gos far, far beyond anything that can be called "traditional." In many cases, they are attempting to supplant the moderate, traditional values and social structures and replace them with a rigid--and foreign--religious code.
It's rather like calling one of those Lew Rockwell "Lincoln was the most evil tyrant in the history of the Republic" libertarians a "conservative." It makes no sense unless "conservative" is just an all-purpose epithet for people you dislike (and it is, for some people).
These liberals who want to call Al Qaeda conservative remind me of the liberals back in the 70's who didn't understand why the Republicans wouldn't trust the Soviet leadership. After all, Brezhnev, Gromyko, etc. were conservative. They were, but only from a Soviet perspective. It was a stupid argument then and it's a stupid argument now.
So, Carlos, I take it you believe Al Qaeda is a bunch of liberals? ROFL. There's no other possible response but to laugh.
Al Qeada's agenda gos far, far beyond anything that can be called "traditional." In many cases, they are attempting to supplant the moderate, traditional values and social structures and replace them with a rigid--and foreign--religious code.
Not at all. They want to institute a rigid religious code, yes, but it is not at all foreign to them. We see it as foreign because their whole culture is foreign to us. I keep going back to Aaron Sorkin's insightful equation: Al Qaeda is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. The "moderate" modern values and social structures are what they see as degradation and decadence, threats to be fought against and defeated. The "traditional" values they seek to impose are those of 6th century Islam, which they see as a better, purer, more Godly social order. They are most definitely conservative; fanatically so.
So, if you go "far, far beyond" the traditional (in the retrograde direction), eventually you circle around and become liberal again? Perhaps you see Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as liberals, then. That would explain a lot, if you perceive the left-to-right spectrum like this:
I take it you believe Al Qaeda is a bunch of liberals?
Clearly they are not liberal. But it is possible to be "not liberal" without being properly "conservative." I refer you to the above-referenced Rockwellians, who defy easy categorization.
They want to institute a rigid religious code, yes, but it is not at all foreign to them.
It is foreign to many of the people on whom they would impose it. Moderate Islam has flourished in (for instance) Indonesia for some time; that is apparently beginning to change as hard-line Wahhabists move in. I don't doubt that Al Qaeda is anti-modern, but I question whether the exportation of rigid Arab social mores to Indonesia--where they have not existed before--constitutes conservatism.
It was for this reason that some conservatives have criticized the Iraq invasion as a radical, not a conservative, project, and I agree fully with them there. There could be few things less conservative than invading a country and trying to impose a foreign social order on it. It might be a good idea, but it's not a conservative idea.
In that sense, Bush is a radical. And given his liberal (NCLB, Medicare Part D) propensities, maybe you wouldn't be too far off to call him a radical liberal. Heck, even his alleged "conservatism" was radical rather than properly cautious (marriage amendment).
You can be a nationalist socialist, say, advocating for a liberal social and economic agenda combined with isolationism and country-firstism.
If you want to be right-wing but neither conservative nor liberal, you could be a National Socialist, which would make you a right-wing blood-and-soil radical, but not a conservative as that term is usually understood (conservatives of that particular time being most likely aristocrats or supporters of the older quasi-feudal order).
That is to say, it is not possible to put absolutely everyone on a liberal-conservative axis, especially if your guideposts are 2008 American politics.
I should point out that it's also possible to yearn for a return to a past which is entirely in your imagination, in which case your philosophy will have the trappings of conservatism but you won't be a conservative. I think some of Ron Paul's more fervent supporters fit that description well.
liberalrob: And Al Qaeda is definitely conservative. They sure as heck aren't liberal! So what else would you call them? Moderates? Progressives? ROFL.
Progressives is it exactly. They believe they have the blueprint for a perfect society (and that they are therefore justified in using any means necessary to bring it about); have a theory of historical determinism that predicts their ultimate victory; and are ostensibly universalistic and transnational (while maintaining a rather egotistic provincialism).
(This is, of course, a quite extreme and inhumane form of progressivism, but the basic structure is there and quite different than the sort of conservatism that scorns efforts to immanentize the eschaton.)
Cool. Got a link?
Never mind...
Lovely, but what does that have to do with Medicare?
The post is okay, but far too complimentary to Rod Dreher.
Someone should steal that guy's keyboard before he does any more damage.
I'm at least glad that some conservatives are recognizing the central problem with 1950's nostalgia (although the starkest problems are two that aren't even mentioned by Dreher, i.e. civil rights and feminism).
You can absolutely choose to be premodern without acknowledging choice and therefore becoming postmodern.
You can encounter the postmodern and reject it violently.
As long as you don't think about it, you'll be safe from the postmodern.
Needless to say this is the typical path chosen by the conservative, be they Al-Qaeda or Christianist.
Reminds me of a very old joke/koan from AI research:
In the days when Sussman was a novice Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6. "What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe."
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play."
Minsky shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
"So the room will be empty." At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
That is a maze that I never got lost in; which is as well as those in there seem only able to come out by that same door by which in they went.
The Copy Book Headings say:
- Traditions come and go, but don't discard one you still need.
- A God or gods may or may not exist; but be sure he, she or they know more than you do.
- You are what you are because of what your ancestors were; for all the rest you are to blame.
- Consistency can be the hobgoblin of any sort of mind.
Al Qaeda's conservative?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Al Qaeda is a radical group. It's the polar opposite of conservative.
Geez.
You can be a radical conservative. Radical=extremist, fringe, out of the mainstream. Al Qaeda is certainly out of the mainstream of Islam.
And Al Qaeda is definitely conservative. They sure as heck aren't liberal! So what else would you call them? Moderates? Progressives? ROFL.
And Al Qaeda is definitely conservative.
What is it that they want to "conserve"?
Right-wing, maybe (although with an internationalist streak that's positively communist), but not conservative.
Dilian, read the Dreher essay linked to by Freddy. One paragraph says:
Also, the quote from Dreher's essay in Freddy's is itsself a quote. RTWT before casting stones.
Oh, and Freddy - good essay. I've struggled with
the issue myself. Decided Pascal's Wager is a good starting point.
Good grief Rob, don't tell me you actually believe that "conservativism" is the same as "conservation." If so, you need to take a political philosophy course. "Conservatism" is about a return to traditional social structures and morality and strict controls to preserve the status quo (after restoring the status quo ante). It is the antithesis of liberalism, which emphasizes progress and change.
Back to the article...Megan, why is it you have no comment? Freddie posted a lengthy (angst-ridden) discourse on his disbelief. Do you agree with him or not? What's your take on the whole religious vs. humanist/existentialist debate Freddie suggests? If you have no comment, do you agree with everything he said, or did you just want to point us at a lengthy disquisition on belief for no particular reason? (Perhaps for its entertainment value?)
Pascal can stick his wager. If I'm wrong, so be it (and God already knew what I was going to do, so it was all preordained anyway, so screw him too for just wanting to mess around with me).
What is it that they want to "conserve"?
Traditional values.
Chet, liberalrob
Al Qeada's agenda gos far, far beyond anything that can be called "traditional." In many cases, they are attempting to supplant the moderate, traditional values and social structures and replace them with a rigid--and foreign--religious code.
It's rather like calling one of those Lew Rockwell "Lincoln was the most evil tyrant in the history of the Republic" libertarians a "conservative." It makes no sense unless "conservative" is just an all-purpose epithet for people you dislike (and it is, for some people).
These liberals who want to call Al Qaeda conservative remind me of the liberals back in the 70's who didn't understand why the Republicans wouldn't trust the Soviet leadership. After all, Brezhnev, Gromyko, etc. were conservative. They were, but only from a Soviet perspective. It was a stupid argument then and it's a stupid argument now.
So, Carlos, I take it you believe Al Qaeda is a bunch of liberals? ROFL. There's no other possible response but to laugh.
Not at all. They want to institute a rigid religious code, yes, but it is not at all foreign to them. We see it as foreign because their whole culture is foreign to us. I keep going back to Aaron Sorkin's insightful equation: Al Qaeda is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. The "moderate" modern values and social structures are what they see as degradation and decadence, threats to be fought against and defeated. The "traditional" values they seek to impose are those of 6th century Islam, which they see as a better, purer, more Godly social order. They are most definitely conservative; fanatically so.
So, if you go "far, far beyond" the traditional (in the retrograde direction), eventually you circle around and become liberal again? Perhaps you see Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as liberals, then. That would explain a lot, if you perceive the left-to-right spectrum like this:
Radical liberals->Moderate liberals->Moderate conservatives->Radical liberals
Which reminds me...you said
Right-wing, but not conservative.
How can one be a right-wing liberal?
I take it you believe Al Qaeda is a bunch of liberals?
Clearly they are not liberal. But it is possible to be "not liberal" without being properly "conservative." I refer you to the above-referenced Rockwellians, who defy easy categorization.
They want to institute a rigid religious code, yes, but it is not at all foreign to them.
It is foreign to many of the people on whom they would impose it. Moderate Islam has flourished in (for instance) Indonesia for some time; that is apparently beginning to change as hard-line Wahhabists move in. I don't doubt that Al Qaeda is anti-modern, but I question whether the exportation of rigid Arab social mores to Indonesia--where they have not existed before--constitutes conservatism.
It was for this reason that some conservatives have criticized the Iraq invasion as a radical, not a conservative, project, and I agree fully with them there. There could be few things less conservative than invading a country and trying to impose a foreign social order on it. It might be a good idea, but it's not a conservative idea.
In that sense, Bush is a radical. And given his liberal (NCLB, Medicare Part D) propensities, maybe you wouldn't be too far off to call him a radical liberal. Heck, even his alleged "conservatism" was radical rather than properly cautious (marriage amendment).
How can one be a right-wing liberal?
You can be a nationalist socialist, say, advocating for a liberal social and economic agenda combined with isolationism and country-firstism.
If you want to be right-wing but neither conservative nor liberal, you could be a National Socialist, which would make you a right-wing blood-and-soil radical, but not a conservative as that term is usually understood (conservatives of that particular time being most likely aristocrats or supporters of the older quasi-feudal order).
That is to say, it is not possible to put absolutely everyone on a liberal-conservative axis, especially if your guideposts are 2008 American politics.
I should point out that it's also possible to yearn for a return to a past which is entirely in your imagination, in which case your philosophy will have the trappings of conservatism but you won't be a conservative. I think some of Ron Paul's more fervent supporters fit that description well.
liberalrob:
And Al Qaeda is definitely conservative. They sure as heck aren't liberal! So what else would you call them? Moderates? Progressives? ROFL.
Progressives is it exactly. They believe they have the blueprint for a perfect society (and that they are therefore justified in using any means necessary to bring it about); have a theory of historical determinism that predicts their ultimate victory; and are ostensibly universalistic and transnational (while maintaining a rather egotistic provincialism).
(This is, of course, a quite extreme and inhumane form of progressivism, but the basic structure is there and quite different than the sort of conservatism that scorns efforts to immanentize the eschaton.)
hi, Check out the photos of my new emo haircut
in http://tinyurl.com/59ps64