I'm so pissed off at our government, please tell me there is hope.

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by Ben *
**Since you read NR, I have to ask: have you read God and Man at Yale?

It’s the book that launched Buckley’s career. One of Buckley’s big points is that democracy is fundamentally flawed, and that all education- including that of Yale students- should be geared towards a small elite secretly deciding what people will think. Thus for Buckley, the ideal educational system would be one in which people are made to think that they are thinking for themselves, but in reality the curriculum has been cunningly designed to lead them to a foreordained conclusion. (Specifically, economic conservatism, and Christianity.)

Part of Buckley’s rationale is that he can’t actually use rational arguments to prove economic conservatism and Christianity to be correct. He concludes that reason itself is suspect- and thus that that’s all the more reason for an elite to do people’s thinking for them.

IIRC, Irving Kristol wrote a paper in college arguing the same thing. Specifically, the said that since religion is the opiate of the masses, the small elite should be atheists, but should put on public displays of piety. He’s currently a big proponent of the “Intelligent Design” (in other words, stealth creationism) movement. (Unfortunately, I don’t have a cite for this, but I’d be very pleased if anyone else could provide me with one.)

All this seems extra sinister given some recent revelations about Leo Strauss being the current popular thinker in Washington:

"Leo Strauss thought citizens needed rulers to tell them what’s good for them – and now he’s all the rage in Washington. Not surprising, somehow… "

Puts a bit of a sinister spin on Limbaugh’s lies, eh? If you’re interested in more from the liberal side of the spectrum, I suggest The Great Limbaugh Con: And Other Right-Wing Assaults on Common Sense by Charles Kelly as a must-read. **

It’s good to see that there are some non-conservatives (am i right about this, Ben?) who are familiar with this traditionalist strand of American conservative thought. Too often, at the national level at least, all we hear about conservatism is mantras like “smaller government” and “free market,” and complaints about “liberal elitism.” It behooves us to remember that American conservatism also has a very strong authoritarian, elitist, and even anti-rational strand, and that they’re not all just a bunch of thinly-disguised libertarians.

The problem is that people like Buckley and Strauss seem to want all the pre-Reformation authoritarianism, with none of the social obligations to the poor that often go along with such a hierarchical view of society. They are happy to have the wealthy benefit from rational free market economics, yet when it comes to social and cultural decision-making they deny reason and call for enlightened (by their own standards) despotism. The current obsession with Strauss among so many in power in Washington is a rather scary phenomenon. If you want a good background for all this, try reading George Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945. This book was written in the early 1970s, but is still a good introduction to both the traditionalist and libertarian strands of American conservatism.

I agree with Ben that Freidman’s work is worth reading for an understanding of free market economics, although i would also highly recommend F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. I think it’s a much more thoughtful work than Freidman’s, and is more broadly a true work of political economy.

[fishcrawford]

Yeah, I sorta figured you would, as I agreed with a good deal of what you wrote in the OP. How that test translates in to how to vote is also a dilemma. I am no great fan of the Democratic party, and consider their shirking of their duties as an opposition party recently nearly criminal. However, those members of the GOP that are currently in power literally make my skin crawl and my gut clench. I would sorely love for a viable third party to arise, but I just don’t see it happening. And so, I go into '04 with the pathetic little cheer of “Anything but the GOP!”, wishing there was something to cheer positively for.

I also wish there was a viable third party, but voting for anyone other than a democrat or republican seems like a waste of time. I realize that is a negative way to look at it, however it does seem true for the most part. I don’t think I can bring myself to vote for a democratic candidate; the tendency of the democrats to demonize firearms is very frustrating for me. Also, even though I am considered a leftist/libertarian by that quiz, I believe a country must have borders, unlike quite a bit of leftist philosophy.

[lask]

IMHO here are some authors who you might find interesting:

John Pilger
Robert Fisk
George Monbiot
Thomas Frank
Barbara Ehrenreich
Edward Said
Arianna Huffington
Greg Palast who wrote “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” which was referred to earlier.

and who could forget Bill Moyers

[Sofa_King]

*Originally posted by iampunha *
** (blue and green are NOT to be worn together;)) **

Looking down.

Well, sheeit. Thanks for addressing one of the problems I obviously have. Think I’ll change before Beer:30.

[rowrrbazzle]

As Lissa said, read both sides. The sides criticize each other. Read the criticisms, too.

For another view of Chomsky, read “The Devil’s Accountant”, The New Yorker Mar 31, 2003, by Larissa Macfarquhar.

And for another view of the political left, read “Radical Son” by David Horowitz.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by mhendo *
**It’s good to see that there are some non-conservatives (am i right about this, Ben?) who are familiar with this traditionalist strand of American conservative thought. **

Actually, I thought I was the only one who had noticed. The last time I brought this up online (at a different forum) the local conservatives went to great lengths to excuse GAMAY as being due to some sort of excess of youthful enthusiasm on Buckley’s part.

If I might expand upon the point, bear in mind that Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy are both major conservative celebrities. How did they earn their celebritydom? By subverting democracy. Nobody would care what they have to say, had they not become conservative “heroes” by wiping their asses on the constitution.

For that matter, think of the more recent Presidential scandals:

Clinton: had oral sex outside of marriage. Goodness me, we have to impeach him- he lied to the American people.

Bush Jr.: elected in part due to his brother’s attempts to subvert democracy in Florida. Went on to lie to the American people about his connections to Enron, his insider trading, and the Niger connection. But hey, at least he’s not a serial exaggerator like Gore.

Bush Sr.: subverted the will of Congress in Iran-Contra. Lied to the American people by claiming he was “out of the loop” while bragging in his diary that he was the nerve center of the operation, by virtue of being the only person completely in the loop.

Reagan: Iran-Contra, but less in the loop than Bush, or at least less egotistical about it.

Nixon: Watergate, Cambodia… where do I begin?

Ford: Pardoned Nixon.

Carter: Nerd, wuss, had a hick brother.

LBJ: Gulf of Tonkin.

JFK: courageously overcame overwhelming physical handicaps in order to have sex with Marilyn Monroe.

Ike: no scandals that I know of (except possibly a sex scandal) and besides, I genuinely like Ike. (Mercury, cross of iron, etc.)
Not that I have a lot of respect for Clinton or Gore, but the balance seems to be favoring the Republicans as the most shameless subverters of democracy. More to the point, think of how people react to these scandals. If you read The Nation, Clinton was constantly getting a beating over his politics. LBJ was sorely criticised on Tonkin, if only in retrospect. (I haven’t read any articles from the time of the incident, and the story might not have come out until much later.) But the conservatives idolize people who blatantly disrespect American democracy.

[gex_gex]

fishcrawford, I almost cried at your post. It it so beautiful to read of such an awakening as yours. I can’t support your interest in Libertarianism, (though that is another thread) although any step away from conservatism is a start.

I would, however, as others have, recommend that you read as much as possible. A lot of leftists, or liberals, or social liberals, despite thier good intentions, speak a lot of bullshit. You’ve got to learn to discern intelligence from propaganda, and that goes for any side of political thought. But congratulations on the awakening, and I wish you luck.

And, as others have said, your best hope in any democracy is to vote. Get out their and do it. even if you’re in the safest electorate in the world, your vote gets monitored. I live in one of the safest districts for a particular party in my country, but I still vote for a third party, because I know that the larger their primary vote is, the more seriously they’re going to be taken as a threat to the two major parties. Voting always counts. You should always do it.

[fishcrawford]

fishcrawford, I almost cried at your post. It it so beautiful to read of such an awakening as yours. I can’t support your interest in Libertarianism, (though that is another thread) although any step away from conservatism is a start

Glad that it struck you in such a profound way. I am really enjoying a lot of the reading people here have recommended and plan to continue with more books and websites. Why can’t you support Libertarianism? I’m assuming you’re a democrat?

[BeatenMan]

I took the Quiz and it said i am the exact spot as a liberal democrat. The test is flawed. It places liberal democrat a little right of dead center. They are in fact more to the left.

[Stoid]

Sometimes opening a thread can just blow my whole day.

Other times…it’s as though the sun is shining right out of my computer.

Today is a good day.