Brainwashing 101

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
So with this situation socialists are the conservatives and free market adherants are the liberals.

Economic free marketism - lots has been written on this subject to say it is without principles or reason is ludicrious (unless you are making the point that any theory you disagree with is without reason).

I take this to mean that you think we have a socialist economy right now, and we need a freer market. That's not conservative in the strict definition of the word, but it is ludicrious. That kind of a free market has proven to cause depressions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Conservatism is probably an age-old inherited social behaviour... if a society is to survive, stability is required, which means a certain respect for things of the past and unquestioned ideological uniformity.

But we don't live in state of survival anymore, that's why reason has proven its worth in guiding our collective decisions, instead of emotional attachment to antiquated customs that serves a cementing purpose.

Well, the French Revolution has shown why a total overthrow of all tradition can have disasterous effects on societal survival. Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism, basically predicted the outcome of the French Revolution after it began.

So I don't think that simply saying that if you just rely on reason, you can overthrow all "antiquated customs" and society will be fine. The French Revolutionaries read their Voltaire and Descartes and other French Enlightenment thinkers. And it did seem that some tradition did have a grounding and stablizing effect and once that was gone, it was a whirlwind, and a society that the average Parisian (at least) couldn't feel that he really belonged to.

I do think traditions have their place in keeping things stable. A whole sale change based solely on reason may be idealistically good, but would ultimately result in chaos (it was why Burke suggested gradual change, by comparing ideas to traditions vindicated by historical challenges and gradually progress... allowing for societal stability and progress at the same time). I mean, can you imagine what would happen if all of a sudden gay marriage was legal in the US? The whole abortion thing is still ripping the US apart (though, maybe, time will heal this wound if compromises are allowed to take place)!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The whole abortion thing is still ripping the US apart (though, maybe, time will heal this wound if compromises are allowed to take place)!

Compromise is just what Christian fundamentalists love to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You'll always have small extremes. What you want to do is to minimize those who take to the ramparts. The abortion debate seems to have HUGE extremes in the US. I believe a good deal of this is because the debate was nipped in the bud by Roe v. Wade (already in the years before it, states were starting to legalize abortion without much trouble at all).

[Kidlicious]

But the conservatives were on the losing side of the French Revolution. That's why they opposed change, not because they wanted a more stable society. If the French Revolution would have resulted in stability the conservative still would have opposed it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But the conservatives were on the losing side of the French Revolution. That's why they opposed change, not because they wanted a more stable society. If the French Revolution would have resulted in stability the conservative still would have opposed it.

Ultimately, so were the liberals . Burke's main point is that the Revolution could NOT have resulted in a stable society because of all the massive changes they had made. So there is no 'if it would' because the whole point was that it couldn't because of what they had done. And Burke was 100% on point with that, so it is pointless to begin doing counterfactuals on that aspect.

FWIW, Burke supported the American Revolution, because he saw the rhetoric that the rebels were using appealed to the traditions of the society. That would lead to a stable government afterwards, because even though the monarchy was thrown by the wayside, there was not too much boat rocking (and as seen, the American colonies kept the common law as the underpinnings of their legal system).

Also, FWIW, Burke was a figure of the Enlightenment. He probably would have been considered a liberal of his day because he was a strong proponent of Parliament. Though, of course, that was a strong tradition of England/Britain. Modern conservatism springs from the Enlightment (hense the 'modern' part).

Your statement is like saying the liberal democracy was the on the losing side of the (October) Russian Revolution, which is why it opposed Communism. You don't have to hate a concept simply because your enemy has used it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ultimately, so were the liberals . Burke's main point is that the Revolution could NOT have resulted in a stable society because of all the massive changes they had made. So there is no 'if it would' because the whole point was that it couldn't because of what they had done. And Burke was 100% on point with that, so it is pointless to begin doing counterfactuals on that aspect.

To that effect I'm a conservative and so are a lot of other people like minded as I. But then that's not what conservatism is. That's just a bunch of BS.

[Arrian]

That's a form of conservatism. Much like communists aren't all Stalinists, not all conservatives are bible-thumpers, or bigots, or laisse-faire capitalists...

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
To that effect I'm a conservative and so are a lot of other people like minded as I. But then that's not what conservatism is. That's just a bunch of BS.

Bull****! That's the same crap Aggie tried to pull and I'm not falling for it. You don't believe in gradual change and neither does Aggie. You both have some radical change you'd like to see done, no matter what effect on society (I think that both of your may like the resulting chaotic effects).

Being for gradual change and testing new ideas against the mass of tradition and progressing slowly to avoid upsetting societal stability would require you to stop, say, wanting courts to rule gay marriage has to be offered, and instead letting society deal with it through, first, civil unions and more push for change by protest means rather than forcing it on people through the courts.

From everything I've observed on these forums, the person that most fits a Burkean conservative is DanS.

I admit, I'm not a Burkean conservative on all things (or maybe most things). I do believe drugs should be legalized, for one. This would be a sudden change rather than gradual and I'd fail to fit in on that aspect. Though sometimes I do wonder if we are going too fast on gay rights that we risk an even bigger backlash that could set everything back (especially when right-winged people started grumbling about Constitutional Amendments).

FWIW, I wouldn't label many people on the far right of the Republican Party as Burkean conservatives either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Bull****! That's the same crap Aggie tried to pull and I'm not falling for it. You don't believe in gradual change and neither does Aggie. You both have some radical change you'd like to see done, no matter what effect on society (I think that both of your may like the resulting chaotic effects).

I do believe there is a difference between 'gradual' and 'radical' change. I don't oppose 'gradual' change as long as it's genuine. I do oppose 'radical' change as in mindless absolutism.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Bull****! That's the same crap Aggie tried to pull and I'm not falling for it. You don't believe in gradual change and neither does Aggie. You both have some radical change you'd like to see done, no matter what effect on society (I think that both of your may like the resulting chaotic effects).

Nope. I'm a Marxist... an unorthodox Marxist, but a Marxist nonetheless. That means I believe that politics is largely a reflection of underlying economic circumstances. If economic circumstances change, so do political systems. Whether or not I particularly want a massive revolution tomorrow is irrelevant and has almost no causal influence on what may happen. My own belief is that our current economic system is socially and evironmentally unsustainable.. if I'm consistent, that means our current political system is unsustainable. Sooner or later things will change, either rapidly or more gradually. I suspect that the change will be more rapid than most people would like, but there's no point in complaining about it.

But the fact remains that Burkean conservatism is useless as an action guiding principle.

Let's take some other examples so you can see my point more clearly:

A fundamentalist Christian subscribes to a clear set of principles that describe the political ends of that doctrine. For example: homosexuality is a sin, and sins are to be made illegal, so homosexuality is to be made illegal and gay rights are to be opposed.

A Libertarian subscribes to a (particularly) well-defined set of action guiding principles based on the fundamental principle of liberty. A Libertarian believes that private acts between consenting adults are not to be subject to any kind of law - hence a Libertarian's principles guide him to support gay rights.

I find both these political positions ludicrous, but I would never say that they weren't clear guides to action.

Conservatism on the other hand is just stupid. Let's say that "history and tradition are to be our guides". Now only a moron would argue that nothing should ever change, since change often forces itself on us whether we want it or not.

So it's reasonable of any person to ask a Conservative when it is appropriate to follow history and tradition and when it is acceptable to change it. But the principle "we ought to be guided by history and tradition" cannot on it's own tell us this. Indeed it would be absurd if someone valued stasis for its own sake - just as absurd as someone who didn't care what we did as long as we changed things as radically and quickly as possible.

So a conservative might say that they value history and tradition because it tends to improve the overall welfare of society to adhere to it. There's nothing wrong with saying that, but someone who agrees to this has made a fatal concession: they have admitted that some form of welfarist utilitarian principle has priority over history and tradition.

So when it comes to any proposed change, the so-called conservative cannot just appeal to history and tradition on its own, but has to demonstrate why adhering to it in this particular case would make everyone better off. You can no longer blindly appeal to tradition to justify a practice -- you need to give additional welfarist justifications of it, and the welfarist justification is doing all the real work.

But as we all know, Conservatives are appallingly bad at giving justifications that are independent of tradition. Their obtuse and frankly bizarre objections to consensual homosexuality are a case in point. Conservatives frequently claim that acceptance of homosexuality will harm society, but every time they claim this, they get their asses handed to them by the liberals. Or take the conservative reliance on tradition in sex education -- everyone knows it's idiotic because times have changed and trying to go back just won't work. Again they get their asses handed to them by the liberals.

People who appeal to tradition are just being stupid. Nobody could reasonably support everything which has been held as a tradition in even one society in any case. Tradition on its own cannot guide action without some other justification which renders it irrelevant in decision making.

It's just moronic.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's a form of conservatism. Much like communists aren't all Stalinists, not all conservatives are bible-thumpers, or bigots, or laisse-faire capitalists...

-Arrian

This isn't about particular political beliefs, which are debatable on their own merits, but about the absurd idea that some general commitment to resisting change or to tradition is of any use in deciding what we ought to do.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I think its a misconception that conservatism is simply an "ideology" about preserving the status quo and resisting change. That makes no sense. Especially when the status quo is largely socialist and/or Keynesian.

So with this situation socialists are the conservatives and free market adherants are the liberals.

Liberal doesn't contrast with conservative, but with authoritarian. What you want here is "progressive" (or possibly "reactionary").

Plus as has been mentioned "conservative" covers many different ideological movements and theories, all of which I believe have a good amount of thought behind them.

Economic free marketism - lots has been written on this subject to say it is without principles or reason is ludicrious (unless you are making the point that any theory you disagree with is without reason).

This is hardly an argument in favour of conservatives thinking, since they stole the free market idea whole cloth from the liberals.

Neo-conservatism - plenty has been written about having a hawkish foreign policy.

I don't think a few books by Rumsfeld's pals count as "plenty".

Religious social conservatism - plenty has been written about morals and the desire to have a moral society. Much more has been written about faith and religion as well.

Plenty ink, little content.

I generally see those three elements as all making up what we typically see as "conservative" if I've left something you feel free to nitpick, but I think all three of those ideas have plenty of deep thought behind them. Which you may disagree with, but you can't say their theories don't exist.

I'll have my surprise that you think neocon foreign policy is part of a typical conservative profile noted.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Bull****! That's the same crap Aggie tried to pull and I'm not falling for it. You don't believe in gradual change and neither does Aggie. You both have some radical change you'd like to see done, no matter what effect on society (I think that both of your may like the resulting chaotic effects).

Nope. I'm a Marxist... an unorthodox Marxist, but a Marxist nonetheless. That means I believe that politics is largely a reflection of underlying economic circumstances. If economic circumstances change, so do political systems. Whether or not I particularly want a massive revolution tomorrow is irrelevant and has almost no causal influence on what may happen. My own belief is that our current economic system is socially and evironmentally unsustainable.. if I'm consistent, that means our current political system is unsustainable. Sooner or later things will change, either rapidly or more gradually. I suspect that the change will be more rapid than most people would like, but there's no point in complaining about it.

This is true. Marxists are realists like this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's nothing wrong with saying that, but someone who agrees to this has made a fatal concession: they have admitted that some form of welfarist utilitarian principle has priority over history and tradition.

How is that fatal?! Adherance to tradition is because they consider it better for society. The argument is what is best for society is relative stability which is found in tradition, the filtered wisdom of history. If there is something better, it should take the place of traditional notions (remember Burke was not a Tory, but a Whig), but too much, too quick change may alienate people and cause strife. You will, of course, note that there are many strains of conservatism, indicating different goals held by each strain, but the tie that binds is a belief in gradual change towards that goal, because of a belief that stablility is an important goal for society itself.

So go ahead... think religious reactions to homosexuality are wrong and bullheaded and get rid of any barriers. I wonder if you'll be shocked when the masses turn around and speak of Constitutional amendments to ban what you've just liberated. Slow, sustained change is far better and results in much less strife

You are a philosophy professor, but you still have absolutely no idea of what a philosophy that a great number of people around the world believe in (including a majority of your country's voting public) is about at all.

I have to agree with Ozzy with respect to fact that I can't possibly imagine you acting anywhere near unbiased to students with this view of yours. Thankfully you teach the ancients and not modern philosophy (and yes in our modern political philosophy classes, we read and discussed Burke... and the prof was a Marxist but never showed disdain for the viewpoints as you do).

edit: clarification