Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Factors
Posts
The Fans
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(123)
-
▼
November
(19)
- Follow the globe-trotting box
- Who's *not* going to get bailed out?
- Soft Money Suit
- Nebraska's Camel
- More conservatism
- Signs the the rhetorical cold war has only just st...
- Bothered but listening
- The whole video
- Why should this not bother me?
- Conservative
- Amusing
- Overstated cases
- By What Standard Does the President Govern?
- My Republic
- Why McCain Supports Should Be Hopeful
- An exit-poll...
- Transition
- The Thin End Of the Wedge
- A quick thought on "the right to vote"
-
▼
November
(19)
3 comments:
Thanks for the "bump". I was thinking of re-posting in next week since I'm hoping to hear from some more people...
No problem. I think it's a worthwhile discussion.
For what it's worth, I think Denny nailed it in his comment. I think politically, his list of "-ists" nailed what Republicanism used to represent and I think his definition (sorry, I don't have it in front of me so I'm paraphrasing) that conservatism is basically resistance to change is also correct.
Think about what the far right, or as I see it, the radical right is for:
a) Resistance to the changing face of America from white to multi-racial.
b) Resistance to multi-lingual, multi-cultural ideas and a general fear (resulting in belligerence toward) "the other."
c) Strict adherence to a Judeo-Christian mindset and definition of America, despite the existance of numerous other belief systems
d) An almost moral outrage for any kind of redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor while holding to a steadfast insistence it is our duty to spend our money, thereby redistributing it to the corporate interests that already hold so much wealth
e) A steadfast resistance to almost any kind of social change, a position most often defended on real or (more often) imagined moral ground
And while I have assigned this behavior to the "right," we actually saw ample evidence of similar beliefs and actions from the core of the Democratic party who, when faced with the possibility that their complicity with warrantless wiretapping might become public knowledge, decided their best course of action was to back Republicans who wanted to ensure that no one ever got to hear what was really going on. Therefore, they gladly supported immunizing the telecoms against any legal action for their illegal actions.
I hate to sound Marxist (because I loathe the political systems he has spawned), but the axis that generates the most torque in our political world (and perhaps, arguably in life) is the axis of "have and have not." Those who have are prone to advocating the status quo, and those who have not are prone to advocate change.
That is the axis upon which revolution spins. The greatness of our form of government is that it allows for us to spin without killing one another.
A thought that is just forming in my head is that this is the reason why adhering to the principles of the Constitution is probably more important for peace than any other set of principles because only when you hold the concepts of individual liberty and the equality of all humans at the fore of your decision-making can you peacefully accept the fact that you won't always get your way, but that you will always get a chance to change the status quo without need to resort to force.
I don't know if that idea will stand up to scrutiny. It was merely a flash of insight and one that got interrupted by another conversation.
Post a Comment