Posts Tagged ‘conservatives’

March 6, 2016

MSNBC

It Is Very Dangerous to Control the Conversation

 About Donald Trump.  Plainly, a large portion of the electorate want a different conversation than is currently offered, and this matter would seem to ‘Trump’ all other considerations in their selection of a political candidate.  Do they care that Trump swaggers with braggadocio, insults candidates and citizens?  Apparently not.  Do they care that he makes outrageous claims?  “I will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.”  Apparently not.  Do they care that he seems to have done little or no homework regarding the job he is applying for?  “I will cut the Medicare budget by 300 billion.”  (When the Medicare budget is only 78 billion?)  Apparently not.  His approval numbers just keep climbing.  What is going on?

The people I’ve seen voicing support for Trump seem intelligent enough, look to be running their own lives successfully, and give no signs of mental instability… aside from polarizing a conversation very rapidly.

It seems a large portion of Trump’s support has materialized out of a disparate electorate as if precipitating from a clear American solution.  Or at least from the clear solution as it has been presented to us by the dominant media and cultural outlets: a Progressive rainbow coalition of answers which are relayed to us as having no serious contenders – that are not ‘beyond the pale’ of accepted thinking.  And yet, all of a sudden, all this collective animus?

Conservative thought would seem to have made no inroads in breaking the Progressive grasp of our politics and culture.  The universities are increasing learning institutions devoid of Republicans, as are the Arts.  The press is near wholly in the grip of the Democratic Party.  The few bastions of vocal resistance, like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh’s Talk Radio, are more demonic Id dominated doppelgangers of a Leftist psychological condition than original entities.  Small periodicals, think tanks, editorial boards in the fly-over states and the Wall Street Journal still produce reasoned, considered and temperate conservative argument.  But they garner little traction in the national conversation.  And the Church, possibly the most conservative of all institutions, is on its heels from attacks on all sides.  Sometimes I wonder if the Church itself doesn’t wonder if God hasn’t “left the building”.  Current conservative reasonableness has been given the brush off in the media so many times that it has the traction, in the public’s mental landscape, of a fly.

It’s been said that Donald Trump represents the current American Id.  I’d say that’s a fair assessment.  Trumps platform wants what it wants when it wants it and that may change on a moment’s notice which makes no difference if Donald says so…  I would take that to be a reasonable assessment of the basic Trump position.

The overweening objective among political strategists in these post-modern times has been to “control the conversation”.  The Left has been extremely successful at this.  And I would hazard that this is a very dangerous thing to do.  When you deny reasonable disagreement at the table, what you reap is unreasonable disagreement from off the table.  The Left is very good at summoning creatures like Trump, whose outrageous nature is to make the Left look like the reasonable party.  Getting these summoned demons back into the box can be a lot harder.  And when they appear, they injure us all.

My advice.  Pull back from these extremes.  We need a Conservative/Liberal coalition which will restore reason to the national conversation.  Conservatives and Liberals are like man and wife.  When behaving properly they can become the best friend they will ever have, and more productive than either alone.

When politicians demonstrate great respect for their opponents’ positions, personas such as Donald Trump will dissipate like the smoky huffing apparitions they are.

Ad2

Advertisements

From the Editor’s Perch…

September 2, 2014

Teenager3

Question Rebellion

 

It has been found that when blind-from-birth persons have had their sight restored by operative means, they don’t automatically ‘see’ like you or I.  These newly sighted people have to learn what the various colors and shades of light coming in through their eyes mean.  They must walk around and explore the world in order to recognize what a ‘chair’ is, for example.  Then, they can understand what a chair ‘looks like’.  It seems experience of the world is necessary before we can understand what the perceptions we have mean.

 

It has been widely recognized that as people age, they generally become more conservative.  It has also been noted, in this recent article “Why Won’t They Listen?” by William Saletan in the New York Times, (which is a review of the book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt), that “Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it.”  Minds are like eyes.  They must ‘learn’ to ‘think’.  They must learn to ‘see’ what is there.

 

Saletan goes on to note that whereas Conservatives tend to base their convictions on 6 moral foundations (including faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order), Liberals “focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression” (my italics).  Because of this, he goes on to note, Conservatives most often can understand what Liberals are arguing (because of their wider moral stance), but Liberals often cannot make sense of Conservatives (because of their narrower moral stance).

Teenager1

In my own world I’ve often heard liberals scorn the ‘hypocrisy of Conservatives’.   They would do better to scorn the hypocrisy of thought – or of reality in toto.  A true evaluation usually contains a dark side.  Nearly any effort suffers ‘unintended consequences’.  Liberals seem especially poor at discerning this.  They are like actors who cannot grasp the subtext.  They seem to prefer living in a world where if there is a problem hole, filling the hole will solve the problem.   In the real world something caused the hole, and will cause there to be a hole again.  This is what Conservatives would like to discuss with them.  But a Liberal will say, “You say you hate holes, but here you are, refusing to fill them.”  To which a Conservative might answer, “Filling the hole will not make it go away.”  This dumbfounds the Liberal.  ‘How can filling a hole NOT make it go away?  A child could understand this!’
Teenager2

Exactly.

 

In lieu of gathered wisdom, Liberals often dismiss Conservatism as representing a particularly nasty side of humanity.  Rarely a day goes by that I do not hear the grumbling of some Liberal that they are just giving up on talking to any more idiotic, brutal, blind, closed-minded, and greedy, Neanderthal Conservatives.   And if I am lucky enough, within the same day, to meet with a fellow Conservative, I’m mostly likely to see a shake of the head, whenever they speak of Liberals with chagrin, and a response somewhat of the retort, “They are like children!”.

 

Living as a ‘declared’ Conservative can be lonely, isolating and quite trying experience, rather like a beleaguered parent.   You feel like a piece of hanging meat being pestered by flies.

 

 

And trying to get on in a world where there are people, who would fashion themselves as Progressives  – shopping for their politics at the only the best stores – this is the Conservatives burden.  ‘Progressive’  is a name brand which declares its own infallibility.  Progressives walk around in designer thoughts, bemoaning all of the unwashed; while swearing at the odd Conservative as if stubbing their toe on a chair they cannot comprehend and spilling their Kool Aid.  They don’t care that you don’t agree with what they think – or drink.  What offends them is that you can’t recognize extremely fine fashion when you see it.

 

But we Conservatives DO recognize fashion.  We just feel that life requires practical, tested measures.

 

A Conservative might hope Liberals would take advice from their own ecological laments and realize culture is a profoundly complex thing best left to grow organically; that culture is an accretion of collected individual wisdom best tended within a wisely structured environment of what lawyers call ‘natural law’, and is not something to be corrected and rearranged at intellectual whim.  That you can kill things this way; completely destroy a habitat.  (As Ronald Reagan noted, civilization is fragile as an eggshell.)  But they don’t.  They keep importing their intellectual kudzu and disseminating it as far as able.  As Saletan points out in his article, they destroy ‘moral capital’.

 

After a day of trying to get through to these modern day knuckleheads, a Conservative can be sorely tempted to wander off by themselves for awhile, sit on a rock and pray.

Pictures taken from Google Images

 

 

 

 

 

From the Editor’s Perch…

March 7, 2014

anarchism2

Anarchists:  You Probably Are One

           

            Rush Limbaugh, (to start right out on a polarizing note), used to gleefully point out that even the most successful liberals were more than likely 95% conservative in the matter of their own affairs.  They were conservative in their business dealings, in their financial matters, in how they raised their families, and in matters of education, where they lived, how they worshipped, how they comported themselves, and generally in how they managed their day to day affairs 24/7.  And this was because conservatism ‘worked’.  Conservatism worked because it bore the collected wisdom of countless generations of human beings when dealing with much the same matters we deal with today in different guises.  In his combative way, this was actually Rush Limbaugh ‘reaching out’.  He was saying, “Conservative thought is not your enemy.  And if you consider your own lives for a moment, you’ll agree.”

Now think of all the moments of your day when you are not being coerced, nor coercing someone else.  This includes all those periods when you are exhibiting self-discipline; when you are meeting an obligation; when you are conducting yourself as you would prefer.  This can include family time, work time, recreational time, …just about any time.  These times of the day, are those times when you are living as an anarchist.  They are not without structure.  They are not without pleasure.  They are not without effort.  But they are rewarding, and comprise those moments which give meaning to a life.  And these are the periods and moments of your day when you are living as an anarchist.  So I would say to you, “Anarchism is not your enemy.  And if you consider the wealth of your own life, you’ll agree.”

 

Oftentimes, a main objection to anarchism is the question: “Well, how would it work?”

My answer would be: “Well, how does your day work?”

Anarchism is already successful.  Anarchism is already popular.

But what most people might say to this answer is, “Yes.  But how would an anarchist government work?”

And the answer would be:  “Only coercive entities can describe to you how something will be; how something WILL work.   Anarchists are against coercion.”

“Well then,” the response might be.  “I don’t see how an anarchist government could do the things a government has to do in order to sustain law and order.”

And I would point out to you that the anarchism we already practice in our daily lives sustains law and order – much more so, than there is in the power of our government to do so.   In fact, it is widely held that if just 10% of the populace refuses to obey a law, then the law is unenforceable.  10% is the effective power of coercion.  More than 90% is the effective power of natural (anarchistic) living practices.

 

About here, most people will lose patience and say, “This is ridiculous.  We just can’t do away with the government lock, stock and barrel, and expect anything but chaos to ensue.”

To which I would heartily agree.  The only thing which can be done overnight is daylight.  An anarchic society must be created brick by brick.  To kick away government safeguards overnight would be catastrophic.  But what the anarchist can say to the government ‘statists’ on a day to day basis is, “I would rather do that activity myself.”

Take the U S Postal Service for a prominent example.  Every time a citizen uses Fedex, or UPS, or e mail, or faxes something, or goes on Facebook, or the Web, or handles his financial matters or purchasing online – he is in effect saying to the government, “No thank you.  I would rather attend to this myself.”  RIP Postal Service.  The government shrinks.  Liberty expands.

And this is just one example.  There are hundreds of examples of anarchists (whether they know so or not) at work each and every day, telling the government in one form or another, “No thank you.  I would rather attend to this myself.”  This is how anarchism gradually replaces government.

 

Image from Google Images


%d bloggers like this: