What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#1
this just a few paragraphs of the article, the rest can be read here: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html




What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Philip E. Agre
August 2004


Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:


Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.
//1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

Before analyzing current-day conservatism's machinery of deception, let us outline the main arguments of conservatism. Although these arguments have changed little through history, they might seem unfamiliar to many people today, indeed even to people who claim to be conservatives. That unfamiliarity is a very recent phenomenon. Yet it is only through the classical arguments and their fallacies that we can begin to analyze how conservatism operates now.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#3
LOL.

If only tadou wasn't an idiot.

Conservatism isn't equated with Moderate in a political sense. Someone who takes a road least likely to cause problems, at the expense of taking a more radical approach, could be called "conservative". In this sense, a conservative is a moderate.

"Taking the conservative approach", "Taking the moderate approach" means taking the least volatile or safest route. Conservatism is only connected with moderation in non-political terms.

That's like saying "right-wing" means Republican. tadou, you purport to have some small amount of knowledge based on the way you talk, yet you have major comprehension issues such as this. Maybe you should spend a little more time in school, and come back here.
 
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
46
#6
i dont think theirs anything wrong with consertives. im liberal as fuck but as long as someone aint full blown crazy about their belifes i can deal wit them just fine, no problems.

but your ann coulters and your al frankins. are to much for me to take on any level past entertament. cause they let their belifes run so deep it clouds their ablity to look at shit objectivley.

i dont agree with the consertive movement but id disagree even more with a country where 1 party had complete control.

liberal and consertives= balance.

sometimes it shifts more in one direction than the other but if it didnt and the weight all shifted to one side wede all be fucked.

their always has to be a voice thats aginst yours or else bad shit happens.
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
40
www.Tadou.com
#8
Spitz said:
i dont agree with the consertive movement but id disagree even more with a country where 1 party had complete control.

liberal and consertives= balance.

sometimes it shifts more in one direction than the other but if it didnt and the weight all shifted to one side wede all be fucked.

their always has to be a voice thats aginst yours or else bad shit happens.
^^ Smart man

I read a good 40% of this, and this author really is a nut-job. You almost get the feeling he's doing it for a dissertation/assignment, and that he doesn't really believe everything in it.


@W.D.
You are boring.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#9
tadou,
you are wrong. What's your point?

You base your arguments on half-truths, flat-out ignorance, and stupidity. Because people on this board agree with you, they see your musings as relevant or correct, when in fact you are anchored in bullshit.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#14
tadou said:
Its already known that your raison d'etre is pushing minorities to the far left.
French and Spanish, you're quite the cosmopolitan!

And I give a fuck which way minorities get "pushed". You might have drawn up this theory after 3 hours in the war room watching Fox News and re-reading "Let Freedom Ring", I have no illusions about influencing anyone through this board. I am here for discussion and debate...no more or less.
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,856
0
0
40
www.Tadou.com
#15
raison d'etre is no more French than fiancee. Its a common phrase.


And you have to admit, it is strange for you to be on a board full of hip-hop fans, and you yourself rarely posting on any hip-hop related forums. Perhaps minority wasn't the right word....but you are definitely looking to influence hip-hop fans.
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#17
Spitz said:
i dont think theirs anything wrong with consertives. im liberal as fuck but as long as someone aint full blown crazy about their belifes i can deal wit them just fine, no problems.

but your ann coulters and your al frankins. are to much for me to take on any level past entertament. cause they let their belifes run so deep it clouds their ablity to look at shit objectivley.

i dont agree with the consertive movement but id disagree even more with a country where 1 party had complete control.

liberal and consertives= balance.

sometimes it shifts more in one direction than the other but if it didnt and the weight all shifted to one side wede all be fucked.

their always has to be a voice thats aginst yours or else bad shit happens.
hell no, what kind of balance would that be? a point where nothing gets done