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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.