Something To Think About -- No, Really

[filkertom]

I link to this in the spirit of non-partisanship.

I'm not sure that I completely buy Kos's take on George Lakoff's new book, Don't Think Of An Elephant! But it's definitely got me thinking. Laskoff does seem to touch on something that I've had trouble wrapping my brain around, and it makes a fair amount of sense -- oversimplified, conservatives as patricians versus liberal/progressives as nurturers. Not saying one is better than the other, but saying This is what seems to be the point of conflict in their worldviews.

Thoughts?

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Have to think more about this. But my first thought was "of course. Conservatives hold to the patriarchal view of the world, with the classical feminine roles and values subservient to those of the classical male roles and values. This is just an amplification of that."

I've also seen a great deal of discussion lately on conservativism vs the so-called conservative movement in politics, distinguishing the two. David Neiwert, at Orcinus>/a> (a Must Read), has discussed this recently and just began a six-part series: The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism. Part 1: The Morphing of the Conservative Movement addresses this pretty well, but there are other sources I haven't got at hand (I'm at work), and will try to remember to look up and document. The essential difference, though, is that conservatism is about actual values, and the conservative movement is about accumulating power and sorting the world into the privileged politically and morally acceptable Us, and excluding all the other Them.

More later. Time to go home.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Oy. Just read Orcinus. It's the top entry, as this is typed. *sigh* for typos...

[jabberwokky.livejournal.com]

It depends - are you talking the neo-cons, or the more classic conservatism?

I've seen it as - If you say "they", you are a liberal. "They" should fix that, "they" should do something about that. Conservatives believe there is no magical "the government" to fix things, just a body of people called the nation and we must all individually be accountable.

Now, if you meant Democrats versus Republicans, that's a different story entirely.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I would think more classic conservatism, but the two have become welded together of late, along with evangelical radicalism. Makes it difficult to sort out who's your friend, but they all agree liberal/progressives are The Enemy.

Re: conservatives -- I'm not sure I agree completely; conservatives invoke "the nation" a lot, but do seem much more focused on "the corporation", if on any entity at all. And certainly there is an aspect of the profit motive in a lot of what the conservatives, and especially the neoconservatives, are doing and/or trying to do (you need look no further than Dick Cheney and Grover Norquist for examples).

Another pair of points, though: As you say, individual accountability -- but (a) not necessarily culpability; it sometimes seems as if evading actual resposibility is just another part of the "game". And there is a big problem, as well, with The United States being held responsible for things done by The United States. As if the U.S. only exists as a positive force, which we would all certainly like, and never does anything bad, wrong, or stupid, which a whole lot of people around the world would like to speak to us about.

And, I was deliberately avoiding Democrats vs Republicans. That's too easy to game -- "Well, what about this Repub and that Dem? They don't fit the profile etc. etc. etc." No profile is perfect, but we don't need to make it more difficult by getting stuck in the superficial details, which is to my mind one of the biggest problems with news and analysis in this country right now anyway.

[jabberwokky.livejournal.com]

Re: conservatives -- I'm not sure I agree completely; conservatives invoke "the nation" a lot, but do seem much more focused on "the corporation", if on any entity at all.

Well, that makes sense. A corporation is made up of individuals and cannot make law but is subject to the law. Note that when discussing ideals like liberal versus conservative, you wind up talking in idealistic terms. Still, I think that most conservatives think that corporations should not have any special treatment under the law, and succumb to the classic "but I'm a special case" when it is *their* corporation. That's human nature.

The other key benefit to corporations over the government is that any relations between a citizen and a corporations are voluntary. The exceptions are regulated as monopolies (old Ma Bell, Microsoft), are based on reviewed grants (PBS), or are infrastructure that the government needs (the old USPS).

Corporations are optional in my life. They compete to try to make me a consumer of their services. I can form one (and have!).

Government is mandatory in my life. It is singular and provides one service for all. I cannot form one and compete.

And certainly there is an aspect of the profit motive in a lot of what the conservatives, and especially the neoconservatives, are doing and/or trying to do (you need look no further than Dick Cheney and Grover Norquist for examples).

Ah, that's why I specifically excluded the neo-cons. They tend toward authoritarian governments, something both repugnant and quite the polar opposite of classical conservative thinking. There are classic conservatives around - the governor of California for one. But Bush's administration has darned few.

As you say, individual accountability -- but (a) not necessarily culpability; it sometimes seems as if evading actual resposibility is just another part of the "game".

That is a moral failing that seems to be coupled with the skills and desire to be a politician regardless of political beliefs.

As far as individuals go, being able to say "they should do something about this tragedy" is a liberal act. Taking the people into your home or helping them directly is a conservative act.

I'm *not* talking about compassion here; I'm talking about theory. The idea of the "government" helping people versus "us" helping people. Rotary International, various churches and other organizations run quite a few homeless shelters, have founded quite a few schools, vaccinate children and are examples of real world application of these theories. A liberal tends to look to the government to increase welfare, educate a variety of students with one big stick for everyone, and provide health care to assist people even if they can afford it themselves.

And there is a big problem, as well, with The United States being held responsible for things done by The United States. As if the U.S. only exists as a positive force, which we would all certainly like, and never does anything bad, wrong, or stupid, which a whole lot of people around the world would like to speak to us about.

Neo-cons want Empire. Conservatives want Republic. Have you read Jerry Pournelle's essays on Republic versus Empire? Incidently, he's a good example of a conservative wailing about how messed up the path is that the neo-cons have taken us down.

[cleverthylacine]

The problem is that there are many different kinds of 'conservatives'--but I see this has already been mentioned.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

On balance, I think both parties appeal more to the "fatherly" aspects of power than the "motherly." The difference is that--at this time! the parties do change--the Republicans alternate between a strict father and a brutal one, while the Democrats are more on the strict to slightly less so side. I've been reading Alice Miller, and am reminded yet again that, for many people, abuse is what they understand as "normal".

A really serious appeal to "motherly" power would be very interesting.