LAC mistake for a conservative kid?

winchester · February 24, 2009, 1:58pm

JHS, orignaloog, and others:

The first paragraph of Post 471 is all good.

But the rest of it says pretty much the same thing as orignaloog did in Post 468 and is just as wrong.

JHS claims that Democrats run on intellectual credentials, while Republicans run on simple platitudes and definitely respond with anti-intellectual sloganeering.

Oh please…

Im sorry. I try, I really try, to avoid hyperbole, but in the words of John McEnroe, You can NOT be serious! There are so many things wrong with JHSs post that its difficult to know where to begin.

First of all, its factually wrong. The following statement not true: -- for the past 30 years there has been a very strong current of anti-intellectualism on the right. In fact, the conservative current is one of anti-elitism. Theres a huge difference. If you don’t see that either you’re not paying attention or worse. More on that later.

Second of all, since your premise is wrong, your conclusion is wrong. Liberals look more intellectual than conservatives in general only to other liberals. To conservatives you look either ignorant (because you havent been paying attention), dishonest (because you have been paying attention and you choose to misrepresent anyway), or stupid (because you have been paying attention but you still dont get it.)

Third of all, your thought process is wrong. Dont you see what youre doing? Youre taking a false premise about conservatives, building a line of reasoning on that premise, coming to a false conclusion about conservatives, and then using all of it to say why conservatives are wrong. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. Wheres the intellectual rigor in that? Wheres the critical thinking? Wheres the honesty? The answer is, its not there, but you think it is, so your thought process is wrong.

To top it all off, liberals are the ones who claim the intellectual high ground. Youre absolutely convinced no, you know - that you know better. I mean, jeez, your post is a perfect example. Despite your false premises and faulty thought processes you claim your conclusion is not too hard to understand. And from that intellectual certitude of yours comes a smugness, an arrogance, a condescension, to the way you talk to and about conservatives. Its the epitome of audacity. Or, to put it another way, its elitist. And that is what the strong current on the right has been against.

geeps20 · February 24, 2009, 2:00pm

JHS…so basically you are saying republicans don’t think and don’t do act, while liberals both think and act…not too pompous are you?

I would say this thread is a good example of how different the minds work between conservatives and liberals…

SlitheyTove · February 24, 2009, 2:26pm

Indeed. geeps, did you know that most polls are indeed biased…and for heaven’s sake, don’t trust the media, fair journalism is long gone.

sptch · February 24, 2009, 2:27pm

Quite frankly, the issue here is clear - OP’s son is sick and tired of having someone who has authority to affect his future shoving his/her political philosophy down his throat. He believes one way, and knows he won’t be swayed. So be it. What ever happened to professors (both liberal and conservative) posing questions, having students research, and then coming up with their own ideas - and have them be right as long as they could support their views? Isn’t that really education? No kid, whether liberal or conservative, should ever feel that he would be out of place because of his beliefs, and any kid should be able to attend any school and feel that they could voice their opinion. It seems to me that OP’s son has been exposed to teachers, etc., who say their way is the only way, and probably lower the kid’s grades. And if you think that isn’t happening now, or never did, you are sadly mistaken. I received a lower poli sci grade from my prof bitd, because I disagreed with him on some liberal points (not all, BTW- I was liberal) but the only kids who got A’s were those who were ultra liberal. D has realized that in order to get good grades, she must parrot what the prof said, or else “she is wrong.” We are and have been doing a disservice to our students. We need to let them make their own decisions. School is not a political arena.

winchester · February 24, 2009, 3:38pm

I do not for one instant concede intellectualism to liberalism. Conservatism is not only pragmatic, it is also intellectual. In fact, conservatism is first and foremost an intellectual movement. I offer a few names:

Edmund Burke
T.S. Eliot
Robert Frost
Alexis de Tocqueville
George Santayana
William F. Buckley
Milton Friedman
Friedrich Hayek
Irving Kristol
Leo Strauss
James Madison
Winston Chruchill
Forrest McDonald
Alexander Hamilton
George Will
Ronald Reagan
Newt Gingrich
William J. Bennet
Russel Kirk
John Adams
George H. Nash

The American Revolution, for Petes sake, was a conservative movement because it sought to preserve a set of principles about the relationship between the government and the governed that had developed gradually over the previous centuries in Europe. A conservative process was used to write our Constitution because the founders studied previous governments and civilations in an effort to understand what worked and what didnt so they could apply it here and thus preserve the principles they fought for. And the Constitution itself is a conservative document because it codifies those principles into law.

Seriously, what this country needs is a mandatory series of courses, or at least topics within the current courses, that traces the origins of and the rationale for the ideas within the Constitution and upon which it was built. With that, much of this debate would just go away because itd be moot.

The rest is just me, and some ideas I’ve stolen from others (and given credit accordingly):

Conservatism, at its root, is experience. Thats it. When faced with a problem to solve one looks first at those whove come before who have faced similar problems and asks: What did they do? What worked? What didnt work? Then one takes the parts that worked and applies them to the present situation.

In principle its not too different from the ideas behind ISO 9000 or Total Quality Management or any number of other initiatives within the corporate world that are designed to preserve and improve the performance of a company.

As time goes on and make mistakes are made within a company, or opportunities to improve the process are perceived, the company does so by using the same process it used initially. In this way the process represents the sum total of the experiences of all the peoples whove ever worked in the company from its inception to the current time.

If the company has been around long enough and enough people have worked for it, then the collected wisdom that the companys process represents is far greater than the latest great idea by any individual or group of individuals who may come along, no matter how passionately they believe in their cause. It is now, and always will be, in the best interest of the company to follow the process. First, foremost, and always, respect the process. Try new ideas in small, isolated situations until they can be proved successful before incorporating them into the larger process.

Now, take that principle, and apply it to civilization in general, and governments in particular, as experienced by millions of people over thousands of years, and again, ask yourself what worked and what didnt, and write it down, and you get the Constitution of the United States.

Conservatives understand these things almost innately, intuitively. They have a deep and profound understanding of, and respect for, the notion that

…a nation’s institutions were the fruit of its experience,
that they had taken shape slowly as the result, and were in themselves the
record, of a thousand adjustments to the needs of circumstance, each one
of which, if it had been found by trial and error to answer recurrent needs,
had been preserved in the usages and established rules of the nation concerned.
He also held that political knowledge was the fruit of experience and
that reason in this field had nothing to operate on except experience; from
which it followed that, since the knowledge of an individual or a generation
of individuals was limited by the amount of experience on which it was based,
there was always a case for the view that the reason of the living, though it
might clearly enough discern the disadvantages, might not fully perceive the
advantages of existing and ancient institutions, for these might contain the
fruits of more experience than was available to living individuals as the sum
of their personal or reported experience of the world. It also followed that
since the wisdom embodied in institutions was based on experience and
nothing but experience, it could not be completely rationalized, that is,
reduced to first principles which might be clearly enunciated, shown to be
the cause of the institutions’ first being set up, or employed to criticize their
subsequent workings. There was, in short, always more in laws and institutions
than met the eye of critical reason, always a case for them undiminished
by anything that could be said against them.

<ul>
<li>The Historical Journal, in, 2 (i960), pp. 125-143
Printed in Great Britain
II. BURKE AND THE ANCIENT CONSTITUTION
A PROBLEM IN THE HISTORY OF IDEAS
By J. G. A. POCOCK
University of Canterbury, New Zealand</li>
</ul>

And what, specifically, were some of the lessons that history taught the founders of this country? That governments based on individual freedom and self determination are the ones that work best; that provide the highest standard of living (though that phrase hadnt het been coined in 1787.). They understood that individual freedom and self determination means is that a person has dominion over themselves, their actions, and their property to the maximum extent possible; that governments govern best that govern least; that each step further away from those principles that we take is a step further away from freedom and our own well being. The founders also understood, and went to great lengths to guard against, what they called the violence of faction, or the tyranny of the majority. Which are in my view, in a nutshell, one in the same with what we call political correctness today.

The principles of Conservatism, and the principles upon which this country was founded are one in the same. Conservatives, by nature, respect the past, respect history, respect traditions, because they know that in those things lies the surest path to continued success and well being. Conservatives, therefore, are very wary of the next big idea; of good intentions, no matter how passionately they are held, and by how many people. Conservatives understand, as Alexander Fraser Tytler did, over 200 years ago, that
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence; from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage.”

[Terry</a> Paulson : Democracies Die When Liberty Gives Way to Dependence - Townhall.com](<a href=“http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryPaulson/2008/11/02/democracies_die_when_liberty_gives_way_to_dependence?page=full&comments=true]Terry”>http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryPaulson/2008/11/02/democracies_die_when_liberty_gives_way_to_dependence?page=full&comments=true)

winchester · February 24, 2009, 4:02pm

I dare say, that liberalism would be better served to learn about conservatism from conservatives than to parrot what they hear from other liberals, as JHS tends to do.

For example, one of the institutions that conservatives respect is marriage. That institution has been understood by pretty much the entire human race for going on, oh, three thousand years or so now, to be between a man and a woman. Period. It’s part of the fabric of being human.

Then, very recently from a historical perspective, a very vocal “faction” decides, to hell with that definition, we want to change it. And they’re stunned and insulted when their cause is resisted.

Go figure.

And, when that resistance takes the form of a proposed Constitutional Amendment, I’ve heard accuse conservatives of trying to “cram your way of life down our throats.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Look, I’m actually in favor of any two people having the right to declare each other partners in the eyes of the law, and thus be able to do things like visit each other in the hospital as “family” and other such things. Whether those two people, in my opinion, are romantically involved, is immaterial. I know not all conservatives share that view, but I think many do.

I think problems arise when liberals try to call that “marriage” when it is between two men or two women. That’s just an insult to those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage. It shows a lack of respect for those people.

So, you know? You don’t do your cause much good, liberals, when you start off by insulting the people you’re asking to change.

With a better understanding of the nature of conservatism, liberals might, for example, try to get some small innocuous sounding law passed, that takes a furtive step toward their ultimate goal, all done with due respect to current laws and traditions. And then lo and behold when the world actually does not end, and everybody - conservatives and liberals alike - seems to be adjusting well to this new way of operating, try the next step.

But no, they can’t get out of their own way. They insist that conservatives “don’t get it,” they resort to personal insults, and they avoid, and even snicker at “flyover country.” And then they’re genuinely stunned when the rest of society doesn’t have a V8 moment, smack themselves on the forehead, and say “by golly you’re right!” when the liberals next great idea comes along.

Heaven forbid that a college campus might actually, genuinely, solicit and encourage intellectual diversity. Instead what we have is college guide books filled with quotes like the following “Pretty much everyone is accepted here, as long as they’re not Republican.”

owlice · February 24, 2009, 4:08pm

I love this. Liberals resort to personal insults, you say? Kind of like the ones you’re leveling at all liberals in your post?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, man, cut it out! You’re killing me here!!!

winchester · February 24, 2009, 4:08pm

Sorry about not directly answering the OP with my last two posts. But it seemed to me that a certain amount of backup for one’s positions is required. My hope is that with such backup, or at least explanation, some of my other comments might be easier to understand.

Maybe I’m just rationalizing my own posts, but it seems to me that without some sort of foundation or justification for my positions; without some sense of “where I’m coming from,” the rest seems too much like conservatives and liberals hurling the same tired platitudes back and forth at each other.

What I wanted all of you to know is that my views are deeply thought out and honestly arrived at.

winchester · February 24, 2009, 4:11pm

re: owlice’s post #487. QED.

morandi · February 24, 2009, 4:18pm

is that really in a college guide book? which college is it?

caramelkisses06 · February 24, 2009, 4:22pm

winchester,
You said: “For example, one of the institutions that conservatives respect is marriage. That institution has been understood by pretty much the entire human race for going on, oh, three thousand years or so now, to be between a man and a woman.”

Actually, during those three thousand years or so, marriage was defined at different times as being between a man and however many wives he wanted to take, a man and a teenage girl, and a man and a woman who (as his inferior) was considered his property and obligated to obey him. Acting as if the definition of marriage hasn’t evolved at all is intellectually dishonest.

And further, you said that attempting to call gay marriage “marriage” is insulting to people in heterosexual unions, and that because of that “insult” liberals shouldn’t be surprised when conservatives oppose it. So let me understand this … the fact that the term “gay marriage” hurts straight conservatives’ feelings is justification for denying an entire segment of the population equal rights? Got it.

Apart from this grave “insult” to married people, how else does two consenting gay adults choosing to share their lives affect them directly?

Cardinal_Fang · February 24, 2009, 4:25pm

“For example, one of the institutions that conservatives respect is marriage. That institution has been understood by pretty much the entire human race for going on, oh, three thousand years or so now, to be between a man and a woman. Period.”

Conservatives make this risible claim all the time, but a moment’s thought reveals that it is completely untrue. All over the world, for the last three thousand years, people have been practicing polygamy. Polygamy was only outlawed in China in 1953; it is still legal and practiced in various Arab countries as well as various African countries. In these countries, marriage is or was between one man and one or more women.

Historically, in Europe, marriage in rich families was often between one man and one child. Sometimes it was between one little boy and one little girl.

Throughout human history, marriage customs have been changing and evolving. In the lifetime of many reading this, it was illegal in some parts of the US for a black man and a white woman, or a white man and a black woman, to marry. Thankfully, that’s a part of the past. Soon, bans on same-sex marriage will also be a part of the past.

morandi · February 24, 2009, 4:33pm

winchester. . . i appreciate the vigor with which you explain your point. i will actually read your posts several times b/c there is a lot to digest. the case would be even better made if the subtle (what i read as subtle) attacks on liberals were left out. then one can argue the points on their merit in a more academic way. i’m not a fan of labels. . .(there are many ‘conservatives’ who are not clear thinkers, just as there are many ‘liberals’ who are not clear thinkers). one hopes in a college class room one can explore the ideas w/o them being forced down one’s throat, or without feeling one is being attacked for wanting to follow an idea to it’s conclusion . . . or suggest an alternative point of view during the discussion. certainly, if a grade is dependent on one’s ability to ‘parrot’ a professor in a class were there are several possible (and legitimate) points of view, that professor is not doing a good job. they do exist, no one is perfect, but one hopes they are weeded out or there are enough good professors to make the problematic ones less troublesome to one’s education.

winchester · February 24, 2009, 4:37pm

morandi

The Insider’s Guide to the Colleges, 2009: Students on Campus Tell You What You Really Want to Know, 35th Edition by Yale Daily News Staff (Paperback - Jun 24, 2008)

Page 433

Macalester

Exact quote: “People look and dress and act however they want and it’s all OK. As long as you’re not a Republican.”

winchester · February 24, 2009, 4:43pm

morandi

“the case would be even better made if the subtle (what i read as subtle) attacks on liberals were left out.”

Point taken. And you’re right. I can’t say that I’m completely academic at all times. That can hurt my cause.

Sometimes, too, it’s a bit of a shorthand, or a way to point out unclear thinking.

I still see all of this as being among friends, you know? I try to listen for the message that another might be trying to send rather than get too caught up in how it is said. I hope/trust that others are doing the same with me, as you clearly have. So thanks, and sorry if I don’t always live up to that ideal.

But anyway, I concede that I sometimes lapse into the usual rhetoric myself.

And thanks, by the way, for the way you pointed that out. Well done.

morandi · February 24, 2009, 4:54pm

winchester–thank you.

morandi · February 24, 2009, 4:56pm

i hope the macalaster quote was somewhat tongue in check. . .but i guess other schools also brag about their embracing of the traditional. . .i’m thinking of washington and lee. . .perhaps they are trying to market their strengths–or something–i dunno

winchester · February 24, 2009, 4:59pm

But i stand by the marriage thing, despite the fact that Cardinal Fang and possibly caramelkisses06 might be better informed on that topic than I (but i won’t concede that either, just yet. I suspect that you both point to exceptions as if they disprove the rule, which, if they are exceptions, then they don’t).

To caramelkisses06, who asks “Apart from this grave “insult” to married people, how else does two consenting gay adults choosing to share their lives affect them directly?” My answer is probably little, if at all.

You may also recall from my note that I support the legal remedy that supporters of gay marriage seek.

But to ask that question is to miss my larger point, which is: If you understood your opponent better you’d have a better chance of defeating him. And to that end, I offered the liberals here a rather detailed explanation of where many conservatives are “coming from.”

lotsofquests · February 24, 2009, 5:15pm

Does anyone else here remember the saying that was around a few years ago “If you are under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart, and if you are over 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain”?

morandi · February 24, 2009, 5:24pm

how about instead of ‘if you understood your opponent better you’d have a better chance of defeating him’ we work to understand our opponent better so we have a better chance of co-exsiting with them? well, maybe this is just all a big sport–a game–if not, we need to move forward in positive ways with folks who may think differently or whose thinking may be muddled and, at times, confused.

LAC mistake for a conservative kid?

CONNECT WITH US