Brainwashing 101

[Flip McWho]

But thats exactly what every single political ideology and person does. It looks at the way things have been and offers an idea of the way it should be. Non-conservatives don't just wake up in the morning with a random idea of the way things should be.

[notyoueither]

You could have fooled me.

But seriously, no. It's not the same.

Marxians look at the past as a place that we are fleeing from. We're on the way from one social order to the next, and the sooner the better. While they are aware of the past, they are in no way enamoured with much of it.

A conservative might look to the past and see classical liberalism as something to guide us. At the same time, he or she will see our current society as something that has great value and should be preserved while nudging it towards greater allowance for individual liberty.

These are not the same views or uses of the past, at all.

[Flip McWho]

So then shouldn't conservative be used in the definition of somebody who prefers no change? A progressive is a person who prefers slow change and a radical is one who wants immediate change?

A marxist might look to the past and see capitalism and fuedalism as something to change. At the same time they would see our current society as a place that needs major change in some areas and not so much in others. Unless you're talking about radicalist philosophies who'll change everything in accordance to their own ideal.

[notyoueither]

I think you could look far and wide and not find many of your caricatures of conservatism.

The only people saying no change in this thread are people who are grasping to understand what they do not yet know, or people who are willfully ignoring what they should already know.

[notyoueither]

Another thing you have to take into account with Conservatism is that our societies are always changing even without the desire for social, economic, or political shifting.

Technology and knowledge are progressing. That impetus alone will serve to move society no matter the desires of marxians, conservatives, or mice.

Conservatism is more about how to manage change than whether or not the inevitable change will occur.

[Flip McWho]

Exactly. So its all about how [to change] and not what [to change] isn't it.

Whats it use in a political ideology then?

I think you could look far and wide and not find many of your caricatures of conservatism.

Thats my point. Most people would fit under the banner progressive. Most people want change somewhere to happen. Most people don't wanna wake up in the morning and everything having changed. Radicals on the other hand do wanna wake up having everything changed.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Liberals (in the US sense) are those who favour economic and political policies for the vast, poor, underclass. "Conservatives" is a catch-all term for those who oppose these.

As a specific example, liberals prefer Keynesian economic policies while conservatives prefer neoclassical ones.

You're telling me what U.S. political terms mean?

Your definitions are woefully inadequate (note, for instance, that you simply talk about economic policies, and ignore social policies - like gay marriage, abortion, access to birth control, etc).

Of course, I happen to think that properly defining "conservatives" and "liberals" is kinda pointless. A full definition would be ponderous and have tons of caveats in it, to the point of being hopelessly muddled.

You have to narrow things down to issues. If you take aim at "social conservative" or "fiscal conservative" for instance, you've got a shot at coming up with a decent definition. But removing the term from an issue or at least a well-defined set of issues renders it largely meaningless, IMO.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think the problem is viewing conservative as a monolithic ideology.

There are a number of points of view that can be called conservative. Some of them have very different approaches to different questions.

The mistake is to say that 'conservatives this' or 'conservatives that'. You need to define which conservatives.

This shouldn't be too hard. We do the same for different camps with socialist thought.

Then it's a pointless term.

For better or worse all American "Liberals" are devoted in one way or another to a principle of equality. "Conservatives" have no such unity, yet you all talk about yourselves as if it were a respectable political ideology.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Your definition of conservative is nothing more than a catch phrase for people who want things to happen at a slow pace. I'd class them as more progressive. They wanna progress towards something. Conservatives want to hold onto what already works. Radicals wanna change things right now. As a definition for a political ideology, the notion of a conservative here doesn't really describe what conservatives who proclaim themselves to be such really are.

If you want to call the conservative movement to be 'progressive', that's your call. People like Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, Dwight Eisenhower, all are called conservatives. All advocated slow change and not junking tradition simply because it is tradition. If you want to call Burke a progressive, fine. But he's still considered the founder of modern conservatism, and has major influences on a number of conservative thinkers, including Hayek (who named him as an inspiration).

[Fake Boris]

Agathon:

I don't agree with you... I'm sure conservatives would also tell you they're commited to equality.

Few people nowadays except avowed nazis would be open about their support for inequalities. Even people like BK take lengthy turns to postrationalize their prejudices and claim that banning gay marriage does not make homosexuals inequal.

I think you're getting it wrong when you say that

"Conservatives" have no such unity, yet you all talk about yourselves as if it were a respectable political ideology.

First, Imran is the only one doing that (with the appeal to Burke and Churchill), second, it still remains that the 'conservative' etiquette exists and can usually be applied to some without much of disagreement. Who cares if they can't have some sort of unifying principle? Why should they answer for others' opinions? just debate with them individually, point out their absence of coherent principle, and from a certain number of observations infer the properties that make it possible to call some people conservatives.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Agathon:

I don't agree with you... I'm sure conservatives would also tell you they're commited to equality.

Few people nowadays except avowed nazis would be open about their support for inequalities. Even people like BK take lengthy turns to postrationalize their prejudices and claim that banning gay marriage does not make homosexuals inequal.

And that shows how defensive they have become. If I was to mention what seems to me to be in fact the real unifying idea of Conservatism it would be the commitment to inequality. Pretty much everything they are for preserves it. If it walks like a duck...

I think you're getting it wrong when you say that

"Conservatives" have no such unity, yet you all talk about yourselves as if it were a respectable political ideology.

First, Imran is the only one doing that (with the appeal to Burke and Churchill), second, it still remains that the 'conservative' etiquette exists and can usually be applied to some without much of disagreement. Who cares if they can't have some sort of unifying principle? Why should they answer for others' opinions? just debate with them individually, point out their absence of coherent principle, and from a certain number of observations infer the properties that make it possible to call some people conservatives.

As Kidicious said before, there are people who call themselves conservatives and who seem to believe that there is some sort of coherent ideology to it all. If there is, it's certainly not the one that they claim, since that is just silly.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You've still got huge swathes of people who are 'conservative' according to your definition and are not considered conservative by themselves or their societies.

Well, of course. But I think it is hard to deny that you did indeed have Soviet conservatives in 1980s USSR.

Surely Gorby was the conservative, since he was advocating gradual change. In any case, your definition of conservatism is counter-intuitive - in a typical democratic society, it will include most (all?) liberals and most socialists, whilst excluding many self-identified conservatives.

You think that conservatism is, what, a purely defensive mechanism?

Since when? These strawmen are getting kind of wierd. Conservatism is about 'conserving' working traditions when society moves forward. There doesn't have to be a defense mechanism or attack involved.

I think that's simplistic. Like thinking that left-wingers must sit on the left side. Conservative economic policies have little to nothing to do with 'tradition'. And they don't involve standing still, either. Forget social security; what about tax breaks for the very rich? Or the global drive to do away with inheritance tax?

Reactionary politics is about going back to an earlier age or values. For example, reactionaries want to get rid of welfare, while conservatives aren't talking about ending the program, but rather preventing it from growing further.

Those reactionaries are all self-identified conservatives. You're just defining away the unsavoury elements, like the commies do.

[Fake Boris]

Sandman, Gorbatchev advocated a rather rapid change.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Surely Gorby was the conservative, since he was advocating gradual change. In any case, your definition of conservatism is counter-intuitive - in a typical democratic society, it will include most (all?) liberals and most socialists, whilst excluding many self-identified conservatives.

Aroo? Glasnost and Perestroika were very radical changes in Soviet policy.

And I think that most liberals and socialists do not fit into the notion of conserving working traditions when society moves forward. Especially not socialists. There are some defined liberals that are indeed 'conservative' on some issues (Sen. Joe Libermann of the US is one.. if you wish to call him a liberal).

Conservative economic policies have little to nothing to do with 'tradition'.

Traditional free market theory. Recall that free market economics (aka, classic liberalism) was quite liberal when it came out. 200 years later and it has become a tradional way to look at the economy in some societies.

Though, I do agree, that some self-described 'conservatives' who are ultra free market types aren't really conservatives, but far more libertarian.

Those reactionaries are all self-identified conservatives. You're just defining away the unsavoury elements, like the commies do.

Every reactionary is a self-described conservative. If you are going to go by what people describe themselves as, then you'll find that almost every country on Earth is a democracy or republic. There have to be reactionaries somewhere, but no one is going to describe themselves as being such.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

To the original posting,we have of course the latest news of Harvards ousting of their President essentially for views unbecoming/incompatible with others. One does wonder why these views are met with such vehement anger in the circle of acedemia wherein views are supposed to be open for discussion.

Article by dissenting Faculty member 'gainst the FAS party line calling for Larry Summers resignation

Coup d'Ecole
Harvard professors oust Larry Summers. Now they must face their students.

BY RUTH R. WISSE
Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The resignation of Lawrence Summers as president of Harvard turns the spotlight on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), which has consecrated more time and energy to his ouster than to any other project of the past five years. Until now, all blame has been leveled at the president: "Fear and manipulation have been used to govern maliciously," charged one professor, who has since been awarded with a deanship. But now that these cowering professors have successfully unseated their president, scrutiny will quite rightly be leveled at them. What do they gain from their victory, and what does the rest of the university stand to lose?

The movement to unseat Mr. Summers remains a mystery to most people outside Harvard. In the early days of his presidency, he challenged several tenured professors to account for the direction of their research and teaching. After some faculty had signed a petition urging divestment from Israel, he warned against the recurrence of anti-Semitism in a new guise. At an academic conference on the under-representation of women in science, he speculated on the implications of the differences between male and female test scores. At convocation ceremonies he congratulated Harvard students who served in the ROTC, which had been banned from the campus since the days of the Vietnam War.

Each of these actions offended one faculty interest group or another, and jointly they signaled a bold style of leadership in a direction broadly perceived as "conservative"--though it was in the service of once-liberal ideals.

Since most Americans think it appropriate for a president to thus demonstrate his stewardship and leadership, they could not understand why such actions should have triggered faculty revolt. Even members of the media had trouble understanding what the fuss was about: incredulous, for example, that academics would protest against any expressed opinion. The governing body that appointed Mr. Summers and gave him a mandate for change, the Harvard Corporation, seemed for its part to welcome the energy he brought to the job. Several neglected campus units, such as the Law School and the School of Education, flourished as a result of his interventions. Mr. Summers strongly supported new investments in science and technology, areas where Harvard had been falling behind.

Harvard students frankly blossomed under the special attention he paid them. No university president in my experience had ever taken such a warm personal interest in undergraduate education. Not surprisingly, the students return his affection, polling three to one in favor of his staying on. The day he announced his resignation, they were out in force in Harvard Yard, chanting "Five More Years!"

The student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, has been outspoken in its criticism of the faculty that demanded the president's ouster. "No Confidence in 'No Confidence' " ran the headline of an editorial demonstrating the spuriousness of the charges being brought against the president, and reminding faculty to stay focused on the educational process that ought to be its main concern.

Hence, supporters of the president are right to be dismayed by the corporation's decision to seek or to accept Mr. Summers's resignation. My colleague Alan Dershowitz calls it an "academic coup d'état by . . . the die-hard left of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences." A second colleague, Steven Pinker, thinks that the president may have lost the fight himself a year ago when he apologized to antagonists for his political incorrectness instead of holding his intellectual ground. For the moment, the attackers have won the day, asserting their right to dictate to the rest of the university the accommodations they favor.

But student response to the ouster suggests another long-term outcome. Although the activists of yesteryear may have found a temporary stronghold in the universities, a new generation of students has had its fill of radicalism. Sobered by the heavy financial burdens most of their families have to bear for their schooling, they want an education solid enough to warrant the investment. Chastened by the fall-out of the sexual revolution and the breakdown of the family, they are wary of human experiments that destabilize society even further. Alert to the war that is being waged against America, they feel responsible for its defense even when they may not agree with the policies of the current administration. If the students I have come to know at Harvard are at all representative, a new moral seriousness prevails on campus, one that has yet to affect the faculty members because it does not yet know how to marshal its powers.

As long as FAS went about its business as usual, no one may have noticed its skewed priorities, but its political victory sets its actions and inaction in bolder relief. The same professors who fought so hard to oust their president did not once since the events of 9/11 consider whether they owed any responsibilities to a country at war.

FAS continued to ban ROTC from campus on the excuse that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy discriminates against homosexuals. Many students realize that this is tantamount to letting others do the fighting while advertising their moral superiority. Several years ago, the Undergraduate Council voted to give ROTC its approval. Although the faculty ignored this vote and simply waited for that cohort to graduate, other students will sooner or later stand up for their contemporaries who want to serve their country.

"Harvard's greatness has always come from its ability to evolve as the world and its demands change--to educate and draw forth the energy of each successive generation in new and creative ways." These words by Mr. Summers as he announced his resignation may yet prove true, although he would not be the one to put them into effect. It is inconceivable that the currently entrenched culture of grievance should be allowed to continue to sour the university. Perhaps the corporation ought to have put FAS into receivership before giving up on its president. Since it has given in for the moment, we will have to wait a little longer for this new student generation to teach us courage.

Ms. Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and professor of comparative literature at Harvard.