rolling explaining conservatism

*don't* teach
Ugh

That and Protestantism.

Nordic countries are protestant and has some of the biggest safety nets, though. I'm guessing you think of Max Weber? It's not entirely the same thing.

Lutherans don't count

at anything

Yes fwiw Weber makes clear he is talking about Calvinists in the main. And also that America is the main arena for the Protestant ethic.

yeah my question was kind of rhetorical since it's obv a big topic i.e. Weber Protestant work ethic but it's gotta be more than that since I *think* attitudes differ in Germany Holland Denmark U.K. etc. Well actually I don't know if that's right!

who is the most True Conservative in this book

http://ebible.org/kjv/Job.htm

Protestantism is too broad a brush to use but the uniquely US strains of it are also the root of all our other idiosyncratic conservative attitudes/things/stuff

wrt to Weber it's probably best to understand his argument as being that Protestantism, due a variety of factors, prepared the way for a certain kind of subjectivity which is amendable to American style capitalism--in particular the idea of being an autonomous self tasked with discovering "signs" of salvation in inner-worldly terms. So it's not so much that Protestant lurks behind everything so much as it was the historical precedent for creating the inner life of an autonomous subject--and that being a kind of subject that looks at need *help* from outside (i.e. not the deliverance of grace) as an existential threat.

Try something more like "historical skepticism," which might be expressed as: traditions became traditions over time, through organic processes. SOMETIMES they need changing - slavery is an example - but they should do so gradually and through the same organic means. It should happen through an open and transparent process where the whole of the culture comes to understand that the change needs to take place. We should not toss aside long-held cultural traditions willy-nilly, or frivolously, or due to fashion. And we should DEFINITELY not have cultural changes thrust down our throats against our wills through aggressive Federal action. Bottom-up, not top-down.

i appreciate puffin's framing of conservatism in this way, and i don't doubt that there is a segment of conservatism that actually plays out in this way. but from my interactions with family and friends in MO, these ring more true to me:

if not, what is it that conservatism aims to conserve?

― ogmor, Friday, June 23, 2017 5:26 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Status

― El Tomboto

&

hanging in the pub with a bunch of conservative friends and as per I can assure you a lot of the motivation is prejudice and contempt

― pray for BoJo (Noodle Vague)

when it comes down to it, it's fear. fear of change, fear of people who aren't white, fear of traffic in the city, fear of losing status, fear of being on the wrong side of history.

i'm probably painting with a broad brush. but when conservatives try to describe the motivations of liberals, i don't think that "fear" would be one of the big ones, beyond the common fears that all humans share.

Xposts

in this way I've come to understand conservatism as, at bottom, the idea that the division between the saved and the damned is good and right. Some people are destined to be cast aside. And thus any social arrangement which tries to lift everyone up at once is against divine ordinance as well as a dangerous muddying of the waters wrt to salvation. No massive inequality would threaten the basis upon which I judge my own self-worth, etc. (put in secular terms).

Euler incidentally Charles Taylor's chapter on the disciplinary revolution in "A Secular Age" I thought really laid bare the bones of a certain strain of conservatism!

"Government's role is to act according to the restrictions of our Constitution or amend it accordingly. For the past 50+ years we have voted in politicians that hate our Constitution and continually expand the powers of the federal government and implement rule after rule that is not voted on by the legislature. Why even have the constitution anymore?"

"It's too hard!" "Why should I help, somebody else will do it?" "I don't wanna share." "I don't wanna be responsible." "Why should I have to take out the garbage?" "Let me get this shiny shiny machine gun to show the Russkies, I mean, the liberals!"

Non-Christian cultures also have conservative/liberal divides.

Personally, I think innate differences in cognition play a role. The conservative mindset is built up from disgust and aversion to the body, and to the different. Refs in last post. When parents, peers, and cultures support these innate predispositions, those with them are reinforced with a community.

ILXOR is a self-selecting bunch of mostly musical neophiles, so can count few conservatives, but we're outliers.

In practice, this means that there will always be resistance to social change, as the consensus can take generations to catch up with progressive thinkers. Those who want change must present in benign forms, least likely to arouse innate disgust reactions. "Will & Grace", not leather parades, etc.

Fuck that though, if one person sees footage of a leather parade and realizes "there is a place and time where I can be MYSELF" then everyone wins imo

Also: psychology is in the midst of a replicability crisis, wouldn't count too much on any of the papers you linked

Also also: even if the notional arc of the moral universe bends toward justice eventually, what do conservatives have to say to people suffering right now?

(A: suck it up and die quietly)

"conservatives" aren't 'resistant to change' so much as bootlickers of the powers that be in the status quo. they're the ghouls staring around outside the gates of hell dante didn't think deserved entry even to the inferno. they're the suck-ups on the playground who don't do a thing, or worse, laugh, when the bully picks up and beats up the nerd. american culture enables this spinelessness so that fred koch's boys and their ilk can keep themselves in yachts and helicopters

Tombot may be on to something here:

teach every student from 6 and up that a government is a thing you violently overthrow when it taxes your stuff too much

But for this:

what do conservatives have to say to people suffering right now?

Feel like I've read enough conservative thought (both chin-strokish and spewy) to know that at least some conservatives understand that they are simultaneously on the wrong side of history and, that this is the right place for them to be (standing athwart it yelling stop).

They are often aware that there are people suffering. But they feel that left-liberal "cures" - statism, socialism, and communism - would be worse than the disease.

The solutions they favor for the plight of the downtrodden are local and voluntary as opposed to national and mandatory. Mainly familial, communitarian, and religious charity. It's hooey, of course, but this is an attitude that is widely expressed and, one presumes, sincerely held.

It is sincerely held, and shared by tons of folks who aren't conservative at all. The evidence that institutional philanthropy is insufficient at best and a total scam at worst is all there, it just doesn't have enough megaphones yet and it's dicey to distinguish the argument from "all yr religious charity drives are bullshit"

I've read enough conservative thought

I think what you write (see also: burkean/skeptical defense of organic tradition, above) is a good account of conservative thought, but I can't express too strongly that conservatism as practiced by Americans who call themselves "conservatives" has almost nothing to do with conservative thought as expressed in e.g. the National Review or the writings of Antonin Scalia.

XP

Because a charity drive with clear objectives is a great thing, it makes the donors feel better and such actions can absolutely improve lives of people in need, but giant NGOs with boards full of elites, chief executives who bring home annual compensation in the high-mid six figures or more, and use your milk money to do further fundraising need to end.

To explain to conservative men and women of a certain age that the Boston Tea Party happened because colonists thought the were taxed too little instead of, as the story goes, too much is to watch Virginian learn that Santa Claus is a myth.

I think what you write (see also: burkean/skeptical defense of organic tradition, above) is a good account of conservative thought, but I can't express too strongly that conservatism as practiced by Americans who call themselves "conservatives" has almost nothing to do with conservative thought as expressed in e.g. the National Review or the writings of Antonin Scalia.

Not as different as you think! Conservatism works to preserve hierarchies, and Burke loved'em.

Here's a good summary of Robin's thought:

Conservatism, he says, is a reactionary ideology. It is a defense of hierarchy against emancipatory movements from below. It’s not a disposition or an attitude; it’s not a philosophy of liberty or even of limited government. (It supports the idea of limited government, Goldman says, but that’s a consequence, not a premise, of the theory.) It is first and foremost a coherent set of ideas about inequality that gets forged in the crucible of revolution.

I think what you write (see also: burkean/skeptical defense of organic tradition, above) is a good account of conservative thought, but I can't express too strongly that conservatism as practiced by Americans who call themselves "conservatives" has almost nothing to do with conservative thought as expressed in e.g. the National Review or the writings of Antonin Scalia.

Quite agree! However, I am still trying to respond (however deludedly) to mordy's charge that liberals like us "can't even model" a viewpoint that is simultaneously conservative, and motivated by something other than hate.

I am interested in this question, partly because I keep seeing shit like that American Enterprise piece that says Cons understand Libs better than vice versa. But as I've said, I don't care if there are good intentions behind horrible policies. If you support those policies, you're morally on the hook for their consequences.

cons pick on libs. libs try to understand cons. and cons laugh even more

that's the problem. you can't even model a person who has empathy for others and comes to conservative conclusions about how best to express that empathy

THIS is what I'm trying to refute. I know full well that not every Red Hat Teabagger has read Burke, or even Ayn Rand; they just don't like that they can't tell the fag joke anymore and they think their jobs are gone because of brown people.

"So we understand what you guys want to do, you essentially want to give a very substantial tax-cut, in your case, you don’t want the tax payers in your district to fund Medicaid. Rolling that back making it unlawful for your taxpayers in your district to fund Medicaid, cut overall the cost of Medicaid, it gets less money, and then give individual people tax credits — that’s the plan.”

“That’s the fundamental essence of what we are trying to do. Empower people rather than expanding government to a point where it’s not sustainable. American taxpayers can’t foot this bill endlessly and without a limitation because they are tapped out.”

what do conservatives have to say to people suffering right now?

My brother-in-law: "There have to be winners and losers in life. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "

that's the core of it, imo. Inequality is Good and Just.

God has always wanted an arbitrary percentage of human families to die horribly with nothing to their name - that's why he made the world the way it is. Also, did any of you do the reading? Judges! Revelation! Get with the program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1tj2zJ2Wvg

I'm not sure if this is a more British phenomenon but there is also the more wistful 'bicycling vicars' strain of conservative which despite its charm nonetheless hides its own reactionary malice. Really brought home by reading a series of books by John Moore recently- fictionalised memoirs of life in Tewkesbury between the wars - written just after and apparently hugely popular. Full of pleasant barwick green infused vignettes of playing c I let and alcoholic eccentrics, seeing off the urbanites etc.

All through though there is this rich vein of guff about the nobility of the rural poor - they may be poor but at least they could trade their sweated labour for a crust of bread and a jug of cider or poach a rabbit before going back to their slum hovel.

This a strong foundational myth in British and Aussie conservatism and, I guess, is as old as time. If only we could regress to a simpler time everyone would be happy and orderly - in their proper place. It doesn't really chime with neo-liberal economics and is almost in opposition to it - good capital is feudatory and bad capital is mercantile.

social conservativism doesn't really fit in at all with the creative destruction of neoliberal capitalism. i feel like some conservatives understand this but think that government "social engineering" is worse because it creates a dependency class and weakens private organizations like churches

Conservatism, he says, is a reactionary ideology. It is a defense of hierarchy against emancipatory movements from below. It’s not a disposition or an attitude; it’s not a philosophy of liberty or even of limited government. (It supports the idea of limited government, Goldman says, but that’s a consequence, not a premise, of the theory.) It is first and foremost a coherent set of ideas about inequality that gets forged in the crucible of revolution.

i think this is completely wrong. the idea of government as a limiting force on the natural violent state of man (hobbesian gov) is v. conservative imo

i think corey is a good example of the modeling problem

Mordy, you're correct in the narrow sense that no one sits down in his armchair and says to himself "how can I defend the hierarchy against these emancipatory movements from below?" But because that is the end result of basically every policy action of basically every conservative person, the distinction is only minimally interesting.

no one sits down in his armchair and says to himself "how can I defend the hierarchy against these emancipatory movements from below?"

I ... think a lot of conservatives do (give or take the word "emancipatory")?

I am also sceptical that most conservatives can model liberal or leftist thought better than Corey Robin can model conservative thought, btw.

I agree, Sund4r; "liberals are just pandering to poors in order to grab power/$ for themselves and their cronies" is comparable to "conservatives are all just hate-filled greedbags."

Peter Hitchens to thread: he thinks the law is too soft on cannabis and our current Tory party is full of godless nihilists and classic liberals. He has some very strange and exacting standards on conservatism. He also thinks Blair's Labour were Marxists.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/pro-trump-porn-stars-are-scared-silent-the-industry-is-biased-and-no-one-will-admit-it

take it to "rolling explaining conservative porn stars"

He also thinks Blair's Labour were Marxists.

Well he used to be one so you'd think he'd know better.

Talking of batshit UK right wingers, here's Simon Heffer, not that you can read the article, not that you'd want to, but the accompanying photograph will give our American cousins some idea of what Young Conservatives look like in the UK...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/24/tories-must-convince-young-moral-case-conservatism/

What's the conservative version of this?

http://www.northernsun.com/images/imagelarge/5381.jpg

Cuckold-porn stars find out that is truly they who have been cucked.

#blackmirror

xxp "A rising tide lifts all boats," but they consider supply-side to be the rising tide, which 40 years of experience has shown it isn't. My reply whenever a conservative friend has used it in earnest is, "Yeah, but if you don't have a boat, you just get drowned."