Hmmm. Not sure I agree with the central premise here - "conservatism is founded on discrimination, liberalism isn't". Would like to write more but this isn't the forum. All I'll say is that I'm the sort of small c conservative (certainly NOT a Tory, these days, anyway; used to be, but that's a whole different story) whose beliefs in large part derive from analysis of and respect for history, but which in many aspects are indistinguishable from so-called social democracy.
The proximate target of the article is the American far right (i.e. the incumbent party).
"Respect for history" would fall inside the broader target, though, if it meant arguing that a way of organizing society was good because of, say, its historical standing or traditional nature rather than because (for instance) it actually worked well for its members in some way.
I think it's definately describing a thing that's out there and is a worthwhile article, but I'm not sure I really like things that say "X is this" which aren't more academically arranged and aimed at balance, or else explicitly personal.
Build a lovely straw man and then see how well it burns.
(Oh and I'm hardly a conservative with either a small or a large c.)
He confuses historical and modern terms to create ambiguity (For example his use of aristocracy is suspect, as is conservatism itself) to show how bad things are.
I agree. The essay is disorganised, with a lot of statements that are not backed up. At the end the article tails off rapidly, as if he got fed up or ran out of time. While I was reading it I thought it was a high school politics student's essay, and was surprised to find the guy is actually a published academic.
On the contrary, he uses historical terms to draw attention to relevant properties of modern phenomena. If you don't think the Bush family and their associates are acting like an aristocracy then I don't think you can have been paying attention for the last few years.
Arguing 'conservatism' is even weaker; it's like the person who dislikes the word 'feminism' on the grounds of its superficial gender bias despite the typical definitions of people who self-identify as such being gender neutral ("belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" sort of thing). Objecting to change on principle is one thing; objecting to political change in a society where power is concentrated in minority hands is something quite different, and you shouldn't confuse the two because the same word is used for both by different people.
I've not read more than the first few paragraphs, but he's barking up completely the wrong tree, isn't he?
While most of the things he describes are bad, they're not conservatism. He may be getting confused because of what is done in the USA by some of the people who say they're conservatives. Perhaps they are, but their espousal of those views has nothing to do with their conservatism.
Conservatism in the most absolute sense is a desire that nothing should change. That's only tantamount to preserving aristocratic or élitist privilege if those happen to be the status quo.
But conservatism doesn't have to be an absolute; it can be a tendency. I have conservative leanings, and feel they're both thoroughly defensible and independent of my other political beliefs. I hold that while change is necessary, it should be conducted cautiously and gradually wherever possible. Political rhetoric such as "an example to the world", "in the forefront of progress", "quantum leap" (ugh!) and "radical new initiative" worries rather than excites me. I'm with the peer who commented on Lord Addington's government "Well, thank God, at least we have got a ministry without one of those men of genius in it."
I am an anti-revolutionary, no matter what the objectives of the revolution might be. I'm a conservative liberal. This is not a contradiction: the opposite of conservative is radical/revolutionary, and the opposite of liberal is authoritarian/fascist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 06:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 06:35 am (UTC)The proximate target of the article is the American far right (i.e. the incumbent party).
"Respect for history" would fall inside the broader target, though, if it meant arguing that a way of organizing society was good because of, say, its historical standing or traditional nature rather than because (for instance) it actually worked well for its members in some way.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 07:12 am (UTC)I understood that.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 06:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 06:55 am (UTC){Is there a way of editing comments?)
{Is there a way of editing comments?)
Date: 2004-08-16 07:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 08:33 am (UTC)Build a lovely straw man and then see how well it burns.
(Oh and I'm hardly a conservative with either a small or a large c.)
He confuses historical and modern terms to create ambiguity (For example his use of aristocracy is suspect, as is conservatism itself) to show how bad things are.
TBH not sure why this guy has a following...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 08:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 09:45 am (UTC)Me neither, I saw who wrote it and saw how long it was and decided I couldn't be bothered reading.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 03:17 pm (UTC)On the contrary, he uses historical terms to draw attention to relevant properties of modern phenomena. If you don't think the Bush family and their associates are acting like an aristocracy then I don't think you can have been paying attention for the last few years.
Arguing 'conservatism' is even weaker; it's like the person who dislikes the word 'feminism' on the grounds of its superficial gender bias despite the typical definitions of people who self-identify as such being gender neutral ("belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" sort of thing). Objecting to change on principle is one thing; objecting to political change in a society where power is concentrated in minority hands is something quite different, and you shouldn't confuse the two because the same word is used for both by different people.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-16 02:45 pm (UTC)While most of the things he describes are bad, they're not conservatism. He may be getting confused because of what is done in the USA by some of the people who say they're conservatives. Perhaps they are, but their espousal of those views has nothing to do with their conservatism.
Conservatism in the most absolute sense is a desire that nothing should change. That's only tantamount to preserving aristocratic or élitist privilege if those happen to be the status quo.
But conservatism doesn't have to be an absolute; it can be a tendency. I have conservative leanings, and feel they're both thoroughly defensible and independent of my other political beliefs. I hold that while change is necessary, it should be conducted cautiously and gradually wherever possible. Political rhetoric such as "an example to the world", "in the forefront of progress", "quantum leap" (ugh!) and "radical new initiative" worries rather than excites me. I'm with the peer who commented on Lord Addington's government "Well, thank God, at least we have got a ministry without one of those men of genius in it."
I am an anti-revolutionary, no matter what the objectives of the revolution might be. I'm a conservative liberal. This is not a contradiction: the opposite of conservative is radical/revolutionary, and the opposite of liberal is authoritarian/fascist.