Conservatism

[smiling_bandit]

I don’t think Scylla could possibly respond to all those posts. That said, i can see that some people obviously do have an irrational hatred of Conservativism without actually understanding it. Oh well. Let them hate us so long as they fear us.

However, I think I can explain one facet of Conservative thought. Essentially, many conservatives are Cultural Darwinists. That is, the people choose the strongest ideas and adopt them. This is not merely a amater of appeal, but of the actual, intrinsic value of an idea to humankind, as selected by many, many people. People have chosen certain things en masse. Some groups, however, want to abrogate society’s choices by legal force, and in some cases in other nations, military force. People, ultimately, should be free not only to succeed on their own but to fail as well. Not only does this provide in the long run the best average level of prosperity and happiness for everyone, but people should not be protected from their mistakes. People should have an equal opportunity to succeed, but the only moral choice is to allow people to fail. We believe, in general, that not only does this allow those with drive, ambition, and ideas to thrive, it leads to the long-term betterment of mankind.

“This year better than the last, and the next better than this one.”

To fail, as well to succeed, is the right of all people. People should be protected from the failures of others, at least to the most practical degree (and conservatives are nothing if not practical). But this is not absolute. It is not that conservatives demand blind obeisance to the past, but that we respect that people before us were not stupid, and that people today almost always agree with what has gone before and do so for good reasons. By the same token, they were not omniscient or omnibenevolent.

The rule we unconsciously use is that one should be very careful. Indeed, government is a blunt instrument. Whatever one hits with it, other things get smashed, too. Only when the good that can be done clearly exceeds the evil, or the goal is simply neccessary on its own terms, or we have a definite understanding of the forces involved, should one use government.

It was commented that Conservatives ignore the unintended consequences of the free market. This is not so; we recognize and acknowledge those failings. However, those failings are the failures of individuals, or groups of individuals. A corporation has no existence aside from the people who invest and lead it and work in it.

PS: People, understand that in any reasonable posting space, youa re going to get a vague and rushed reply. You could write volume upon volumes about conservative thought.

[lissener]

*Originally posted by lissener *
. . . I just reread my original post, and I have nothing to backpedal or defend. I very carefully framed it in terms of my opinion and my conclusions and my understanding, and in terms of someone’s behavior and choices. . . .

–besides which, it was in answer to a question that seemed to be about conservative pundits, not every conservative human being, and it was within that context that I was responding.

Nonetheless, I knew someone (deep down, I hoped it would be you, Scylla, darling) would jerk their knee at me, and anticipated a splattering.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by eponymous *
**I’m not quite sure what you mean by “evolved”. I’m assuming you mean a society that has a history of some sorts given what you’re stated in your second sentence. If I’m wrong in my assumption, please correct me.

It also means that society has evolved solutions to problems. Sometimes to problems we’re not even aware of.

For example, the rule about not sharing your toothbrush may seem selfish and arbitrary on its face. But there are sound underlying reasons.

**Hmmm…I’m a bit confused. I’m stuck on “we are advanced and evolving as a society”. Which is conflicting (to me)in your use of evolved in the previous paragraph. May I assume that you are stating that not only is society evolved (i.e has a history), but is continuing to evolve?

We are evolved in terms that we have progressed. As a society we have made headway by overcoming problems and finding solutions. There are sound reasons behind many of our customs and the way we do things.

I’m also stuck on the “these advances and good things should be protected.” I’m not quite getting what you are referring to with the word “advances”. Does it mean recognizing that society is an evolving entity? Or something else?

Yes. Society is evolving.

OK - I think I understand your position here. A key term is “dramatic”, right? Would it be safe to assume that conservatives would be comfortable with “slow” or “undramatic” change within society (I make this assumption based on my reading of your definition of society as an evolving entity)?

Of course. We are not against change. We are nervous and careful because we recognize we are dealing with tremendous forces.

When snow moved a wall of my barn into a dangerous position. Change was called for. I had to fix it and deal with it. I was very nervous about LUC in terms of my efforts might make the roof fall on me or the wall collapse.

The wall was in a precipitous position. Yet, at the time, it was in balance. I needed to make sure that as I fixed it, I first did no harm.

Another key term is “government activism”. Would conservatives be opposed to all government activism, or just those that effect dramatic changes within society? A clarification here would be helpful.

It’s not a matter of opposition, but a matter of justifiable fear. The more we allow the government to do for us, the less we do for ourselves.

Government activism is a necessary evil.

Again, I need clarification here. Are you referring to “one” on an individual level, a group level, or a societal level?

All of the abouve.

Again, it would help here to elaborate/clarify a bit, particularly with respect to “preserve and protect the status quo?” My understanding of “status quo” would preclude one from recognizing the evolving nature of society. It might help if you restate “preserve and protect the status quo” in the context of society as an evolving entity. Note: I think you have, but I want to be sure I’m not misunderstanding you.

I’ll go back to my previous example. My barn had four walls and a roof. That was the status quo I needed to preserve as I addressed a dangerous problem.

OK - this helps a bit with some of my previous comments. I think a sticking point might be is “where necessary”. An elaboration would be helpful.

Yes it would. And, it’s a toughie. Deciding what is and isn’t necessary needs to apply to specific examples.

**Hmmm…Ok, now I’m confused. Above you stated that conservatives recognize the need for government and activism where necessary. Here you state that the government does not work for making fine adjustments. So, are conservatives for or against government activism where necessary? To me, “where necessary” would work with “making fine adjustments”. Again, clarification would be most helpful. **

Abolishing slavery was not a fine adjustment. Fixing my wall was not a fine adjustment.

Managing you home life and cleaning your kitchen is a fine adjustment. Government shouldn’t really help you those though. I assume you should be handling them yourself.

Again, I’ll go back to the wall. As I applied tremendous forces to pull the wall back into place, I was very very careful. I realized that while what I was doing was necessary, I needed to do it in a minimalist fashion, so that the potential for disaster was minimalized.

I suppose that I could have rammed the wall with a truck, and that might have worked. The potential for unintended consequences would have been very high. So, I tried to be minimalist and be specific in my application to avoid them.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by lissener *
**

Nonetheless, I knew someone (deep down, I hoped it would be you, Scylla, darling) would jerk their knee at me, and anticipated a splattering. **

I know. There’s a word for this.

[Fear_Itself]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
I don’t think Scylla could possibly respond to all those posts. That said, i can see that some people obviously do have an irrational hatred of Conservativism without actually understanding it. Oh well. **Let them hate us so long as they fear us. **

You are aware to whom that quote is most widely associated, aren’t you sb? The irony of a conservative invoking his image in a thread seeking to disprove charges of selfishness is palpable.

[lissener]

Sneaky and dishonest to the last: make the accusation or shut the fuck up. This is the second time you’ve accused me of trolling, through a sneaky enough loophole that you think you’ve maintained deniability.

You know damn well that I meant, above, that no matter HOW carefully I framed it, someone would squeak; and not that I was intentionally trolling.

[MEBuckner]

Moderator’s Note: This forum is for Great Debates; it is not for personal wrangling between two individual members. The forum for that is the BBQ Pit; or better yet, e-mail. Since Great Debates isn’t about “calling out” one particular person, I’m going to change the title of this thread.

I will also say right now that if this thread doesn’t settle down, it will not be moved anywhere, it will be closed.

[Dogface]

A fundamental difference between a bigot and a reasonable human being is that a bigot is incapable of seeing how somebody else could ever possibly disagree with his reasonable conclusions.

[lissener]

So “bigotry” is based on inability to understand, and not on unwillingness to understand? I’d have to disagree.

[smiling_bandit]

You are aware to whom that quote is most widely associated, aren’t you sb? The irony of a conservative invoking his image in a thread seeking to disprove charges of selfishness is palpable.

I am aware. I was joking. The humor was that this position is sometimes attributed to Conservatives by Liberals, and sometimes by COnservatives to themselves. And its not really true, since we do care what people think about us, just not that we think it makes us wrong.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
It was commented that Conservatives ignore the unintended consequences of the free market. This is not so; we recognize and acknowledge those failings. However, those failings are the failures of individuals, or groups of individuals. A corporation has no existence aside from the people who invest and lead it and work in it.

So, what’s the point? A society is a group of individuals, a government is a group of individuals. I don’t see how that has any bearing on anything. Does River X cease to be polluted because it is polluted by a corporation?

[Grim_Beaker]

Am I a Conservative? I don’t really know. I’ve always thought of myself as one. However I find myself being unable to agree with either Scylla or Lissener.

My personal study has convinced me that a society which does not change is doomed to failure. End of story. Organizations with adaptability are organizations with the potential for long life. The law of unintended consequences (hereafter the LOUC) is a great cautionary principle and is, for me, the single greatest factor which caused hesitation over my opinion on the war in Iraq. However IMO the LOUC is more about making changes in a deliberate, reasoned and methodical manner which includes the possibility for failure and reform than a mandate for inaction. The LOUC does not IMO presume that the status quo is necessarily good because “things are the way they are for a good reason”. Now, I’m not sure that that’s the position that you hold Scylla. If it’s not I’m sure you’ll correct me.

Lissener, I can empathize with you to a degree. Politics, in addition to being about compromise, negotiation and the distribution of power must also necessarily involve competing interests. You, as a gay man, have undoubtedly experienced opposition to things you hold dear by conservatives. However, having said that, I must disagree with your characterization of conservatives. I must agree with PolyCarp that generalizations, generally speaking , are a bad thing. The conservatives I know best are some of the most giving and generous people I know. They regularly donate time, money, and effort to bettering the community. Your broad condemnation of all conservatives as deluded, dishonest and selfish is a grave disservice to them. In addition, your broad condemnation of conservative thought is a disservice to you. Though many liberals jokingly call themselves “the loyal opposition” I think there is a lot to be said for it. I’ve learned a lot from both liberals and conservatives on this board. If I close my mind due to prejudice on my part the only one being hurt is me.

[lissener]

My mind is not closed; I read as many conservative columnists, for example, as liberal. (I tend to agree more with Molly Ivins, but she’s annoying to read.)

I have read the PJORourke piece Scylla linked to, and though I remain a liberal after this experience, he makes some interesting points. Perhaps I’ll have time this weekend to prepare a response to what I see as his unconvincing arguments; and to what I still see as his thinly veiled, self-interested hidden agenda.

And if one more person says that “generalizations are (generally) bad” or “there’s an exception to every rule”–or words to those affects–I’m gonna rip my own eyelids off. These are givens in any rational debate, and do not need to be explicitly announced in the opening sentence of every paragraph.

You can take it as read that I know this, and that when I make a generalization I make it advisedly, and I expect the generalization itself to be explicitly addressed, and not simply dismissed by pointing out that it’s a generalization. By and large I strive to avoid generalizations, so if I make one, I do so knowing that A) it’s an exception to the rule, and B) there are exceptions to my generalization. So quit repeating this as if it’s a trump to the discussion; it’s not, and I’ve already taken it into consideration.

[Ptahlis]

Principles? Philosophies? The plain truth from where I sit is that both liberals’ and conservatives’ camps are far, far too big to have anything remotely approaching unity of either amongst its members. If you limit the discussion to liberals vs. conservatives then at* best* both sides have very loose guidelines that are applied willy nilly depending on the issue and actors at hand, and everyone I’ve ever met crosses the divide on some issue or other.

I was particularly struck by this paragraph in lissener’s post:

Conservatives (so my thinking goes) have more motive to be dishonest: all their rationalizations and justifications are self motivated. You might call it a conflict of interest: the chief beneficiary of a conservative’s politics is himself. While a liberal’s energies seem, to my understanding, to be focused outward, on the community. A liberal’s philosophy is, “Work toward making the community a better place to live, and it follows necessarily that the individuals who make up that community will all mutually benefit from that happiness.” A conservative, to my mind, wants to skip the first step; “Screw the community, make ME fat and happy and—trust me on this—the rest will follow.”

I fall more often than not on the left side of a given argument, but the attitude expressed above is the liberal analog to Rush Limbaugh. Sound bite summations of “my side vs. your side” like the one above are not only gross mischaracterizations of both, but they do nothing but polarize people. Every “we’re good- you’re bad” argument is flawed at the outset, and it’s the cause of a lot of bitter division between posters on this board and in our society.

Here’s a clue for everyone: The Other Side is not evil, subhuman, dishonest, self-serving, hypocritical, unprincipled, or benighted. At least, no more so than the folks on your side. They may value different things than you do, or interpret the same set of circumstances differently, but that’s about as deep as the differences go.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**A couple of quick points:

[
Scylla, I respect the law of unforeseen consequences. But MHO is that there are some faults so blatant that most consequences of making the change would be lesser evils. The abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage (and women’s liberation in the strict sense – freeing them to make the same life choices that men can) are two past radical changes that were worth the consequences that were unforeseen but did result. (And I’ll bet any Black poster who sees this thread would agree that the black civil rights struggle as it played out 1867-1968, complete with diehard segregationists, is infinitely preferable to another hundred years of slavery.)

**

The LUC is not a call or an excuse to inaction. It is something that needs to be carefully considered while contemplating action.

Every mechanic or surgeon who’s worthy of the name keeps this law firmly in mind as they work. I think it’s logical that in order to be responsibly and reasonably committed to action one needs to act with respect to this law.

I would note that there is also, in the proverbial phrase, no limit to how softly you can swing a big hammer. Government is capable of careful tweakings as well as massive adjustments, when used carefully.

I suppose that somewhere there is a gifted individual who can repair wristwatches with a hammer. This hardly recommends the tool for the purpose.

**Finally, many liberals take issue with the unbridled use of self-reliance and personal accountability, simply because human greed and human fallibility make it impossible for many people to be completely self-accountable. I can run through a shopping list of examples where circumstances make it impossible for an individual to deal with the world completely on his/her own if you insist.

**

Of course. This is why government activism is a necessary evil.

**And if you instend this thread to be anything constructive, may I suggest we ship that term “bigot” over to the Pit where it can play happily with some of its fellow pejoratives, and deal honestly with differing points of view resulting in different conclusions? **

That’s a tough one Poly. If you were told that Christians were not worthy of respect because they are dishonest and selfish, would you consider that a differing point of view to be dealt with honestly or would you consider it to be a deliberate attack?

No matter though. The Mods agree with you, so I will fully comply.

[lissener]

*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
. . . The Other Side is not evil, subhuman, dishonest, self-serving, hypocritical, unprincipled, or benighted. . . .

This is a generalization.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Scylla, given the popularity of the thread, you may have missed my list of positions on the previous page that are normally described as conservative, but which do not (I think) map easily to a “the default is the status quo” philosophy. If you get a chance, could you elaborate?

Daniel

[Grim_Beaker]

lissener,

So quit repeating this as if it’s a trump to the discussion; it’s not, and I’ve already taken it into consideration.

I’m sorry if my post struck a raw nerve. Quite a few posts popped up between when I first read the contents of this thread and when I posted.

My mind is not closed; I read as many conservative columnists, for example, as liberal. (I tend to agree more with Molly Ivins, but she’s annoying to read.)

I have read the PJORourke piece Scylla linked to, and though I remain a liberal after this experience, he makes some interesting points. Perhaps I’ll have time this weekend to prepare a response to what I see as his unconvincing arguments; and to what I still see as his thinly veiled, self-interested hidden agenda.

Well, I disagree here. The fact that you read conservative columnists is not necessarily evidence of an open mind. Earlier you said:

“In addition, I have never been convinced by any conservative argument I have ever heard: each one seems more full of holes than the last one, and the holes are so freakin obvious, that the only way (my thinking goes) that someone can NOT see the holes is to REFUSE to see the holes, which of course is a form of dishonesty.”

Not convinced by a single conservative argument ever heard? Ever? That doesn’t sound like an open mind to me. That sounds like a mind that has ossified into a particular world view. No one is right 100% of the time. No one. To me, this indicates an unwillingness to consider other views in the same way that a creationist refuses to rationally examine evidence regarding the earth’s history or evolution. Yes, the creationist may read Talk Origins, but only in order to try and discredit it, not because they are seriously and impartially considering the evidence presented to them. Now, I’m not trying to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty nor am I trying to compare you unfavorably to creationists. What I am saying is that from my vantage, and on this particular issue, your mind is closed.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

lissener:
By and large I strive to avoid generalizations, so if I make one, I do so knowing that A) it’s an exception to the rule, and B) there are exceptions to my generalization.

Is this always true, or just generally? Because I’m willing to bet there are exceptions.

jshore:
So, what’s the point? A society is a group of individuals, a government is a group of individuals. I don’t see how that has any bearing on anything. Does River X cease to be polluted because it is polluted by a corporation?

I don’t mean to speak for smiling bandit, who seems more than capable of speaking for himself, but I understood him to mean that there are ways of changing corporate (and individual) behavior other than government regulation. The individuals running a corporation could decide to keep accurate accounting records because it will increase the company’s stock price, or because they want to avoid the adverse consequences of a scandal, or because they want to build trust with the market, or because it’s the right thing to do. And when they don’t keep accurate accounting records, the culprit isn’t the lack of market regulation, but the failure of those individuals running the company to do the right thing.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**I have a question, then, Scylla. If we should pay close attention to the law of unintended consequences, how do we get to the point where we wage war on the other side of the globe based on speculative information? I’m not asking for your justification of the war, but why we may sidestep the LUC.

Thanks. **

Good question. I’ll go back to my barn analogy. When the barn wall slipped out of true, and the barn was on the verge of collapse.

The lUC cut both ways.

Doing nothing had unintended yet forseen dire consequences even though it would have temporarily preserved the status quo.

Action had all kinds of possible unintended consequences, and indeed the worst case scenario was worse than if I did nothing (the barn collapses on me while I try to fix it)

So, I weighed things and made a decision seeking to avert disaster by taking risk.

It could be argued (and I would tend to agree) that the international situation with respect to terrorism was much like my barn.

We’ve had it demonstrated that doing nothing carries it’s own risks and consequences. So, like my barn, a short term greater risk is justified to mitigate long term risks.

Again, the LUC is not a call to inaction.

But, I think the LUC could be used properly to criticise the way we prosecuted the war in Iraq. I think we have left ourselves open to consequences that could have been avoided or minimized had we been more prudent in our methods.

On the other hand, it’s a tough situation, and some problems are sledgehammer problems.