rolling explaining conservatism

Did “government cannot be trusted with important things” exist as a conservative principle before government outlawed slavery and started enforcing civil rights laws?

just curious, at what point did the government start enforcing civil rights laws?

Thanks NV for the alternate perspective. If it wasn't already clear I am speaking in terms of American "conservatives," who tend overwhelmingly to present themselves as anti-government.

(That is, unless you're specifically referring to government actions they like, such as invading Normandy, paying old white people for being alive, and spraying black people with firehoses.)

Whoops, the snark popped out again unbidden

no wonder richard spencer had to drop out of duke

https://history.duke.edu/book/democracy-chains

seems to me that in the British tradition at least the first 150+ years of "representative" government - let's say from 1689 to the early Victorian era - were regarded by conservatives as a hedge against mob rule. "democracy" tends to be used as a pejorative and "Government" connotes with paternalism and stability.

Yeah, the Red Tory/High Tory thing, right? We still have elements of it, esp in Tory parties in the Maritimes. Afaict, even US conservatives are only anti-government when it comes to regulating corporations or paying for redistributive social programmes. They absolutely trust government with things that are important to them: aggressive military action to ensure a global order where their own government is a superpower, restricting the movement of peoples in and out of the country, severe enforcement of law and order, etc. Anyone who would give the government the power to execute its own citizens has no claim to the label "anti-government": this is a far greater exercise of state power than e.g. raising marginal tax rates.

I think there's a thread running thru most conservatisms - because obviously duh conservatism is not one ahistorical monolithic philosophy - that goes back to at least, in the modern era, Hobbes and the state of nature and the war of all against all. Humans are inherently sinful, or weak, or self-interested, and government is necessary to maintain peace and to protect individuals' natural rights. since property is a natural right, then as soon as government interferes in this natural right it's exceeding its authority. government is not an expression of morality, which can only be expressed by individuals. it exists, perhaps, to protect individual morality which may include a more or less aggressive foreign policy.

these aren't complex ideas, this is 101 or whatever they call it in the US.

Totally.

yeah i was going to say "anti-government" here is reductionist mostly for the reasons NV just gave

Did “government cannot be trusted with important things” exist as a conservative principle before government outlawed slavery and started enforcing civil rights laws?

― El Tomboto, Monday, December 18, 2017 11:07 AM (thirty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

when did they "start" enforcing civil rights laws? one could argue all of hierarchical history has been long march towards civil rights.

"gov't cannot be trusted" started at least during the Revolutionary War. the origin story of the US is a key part of conservative mythos and they love to go on about imagining themselves carrying the torch of the Founding Fathers. at the time the gov't was over-taxing and abusive, the justice system far more corrupt than it is now (and yes it is still plenty), etc. the gov't could station soldiers in your house and give them your food without any legal recourse. this country was started by people thinking the gov't cannot be trusted.

i think the thread exercise is not without its merits but there is obv a ton of posturing and performance going on too. in the end these are ideologies that are abstract generalizations and not the Objective Truth of a person's interpersonal experience and social behavior.
if they control our actions it is largely through our own consent. furthermore the symbols and the meanings are constantly shifting and being re-contextualized. as our lives change and progress we have different needs, different priorities. there is a tendency to obsess over labels but it really does't matter as they can always be changed as life is not a static system.

on a very simplistic level perhaps you could say conservatism = morality can only reside in the individual and not-conservatism = morality only exists as an expression of some sort of social structure; or even for the conservative good actions are those that allow morality to be expressed and for the non-conservative morality is conformity to The Good, but The Good is contingent and to some extent negotiable

Yeah, I really think the Dworkin piece I linked and discussed here in the summer provides the most convincing breakdown of it that I've come across.

the most simple connecting idea I can find between the conservatives I know in real life, friends, family and colleagues, is that each individual is ultimately responsible for the quality of their own life and how that life works out.

fwiw most liberals i know believe that as well. when it comes to other ppl they entertain structural analyses but for themselves they act as tho the choices they make have an impact on the results they produce. it's hard not to feel that way when phenomenologically we experience free choice as a real thing. it's also probably more useful for an individual to act as-if they were the sole determining factor on their results (because ceding control - even if epistemologically appropriate - leads to inaction). i think there's also a paradox here re structural critiques of society in that ultimately they lead to adornoism where you can't even fix the structure that dominates your results bc you're yourself a product of the structure etc. so even among the left a pretense of "each individual is ultimately responsible for the quality of their life," even if that responsibility is the responsibility to change the superstructure [as individuals working in concert] and thereby improve quality of life, etc.

presumably this is why you need dialectics so that you can fix the system without requiring individuals to do it. the internal contradictions of capitalism will undermine itself - it's folly to believe that free choice has anything to do w/ the kind of society we produce, etc. (i think this is folly fwiw but i understand why it's needed for coherence.)

it's hard not to feel that way when phenomenologically we experience free choice as a real thing. check your privilege. people who grow up disadvantaged would beg to differ, experiencing "free choice" more as 'coping with the invisible american class system'. "conservatives" act like dunning-kruger effect victims in their aspberger-y detachment from significant unfairness most americans endure from infancy

every human being experiences the phenomenology of free choice in the minute to minute moments of their lives. they experience making decisions and taking them. i have yet to meet someone who actually experiences life in a determinist context (as opposed to believing it). you're an idiot.

that's true, yeah. as soon as we start thinking about the social or about any structure beyond ourselves we get caught in doublings of perspective, self-contradictions.

tho i could believe that maybe you've totally shut your brain off and literally do not experience any choice at all like you just posted that but had nothing to do with it it was just generated by your participation in society.

my last post was kind of an xp but it applied across the board, the contradiction happens at the moment we think of ourselves as objects

if it wasn't clear NV my last post wasn't directed to you

no Mordy i know

i think the macro/micro spheres are fascinating and maybe insoluble: of course we act like we have free will but of course "society" however you want to define it is the product of trillions of individual acts of free will but of course we can examine societies and describe what happens in them, just like history, but these analyses come apart the further you go from the most macro possible statements

Personally I am interested in what binds the strands of (the ideology we are discussing) together.

No it's not a monolith, but in USian terms there is an easily recognized set of political positions that we call "conservative," and that set becomes self-enforcing.

Basically, why is the clustering around so many issues so pronounced? Why is "I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change" necessarily yoked with "guns are a sacred right," or with "what's the matter with a little workplace flirting?," or "can't people take a joke anymore?," or "those athletes are disrespecting the troops with their refusal to stand for the national anthem."

I have no problem admitting that Mordy has me pegged: my politics is dominated by compassion. So yeah, I have a tough time seeing other values as supervenient. But I am nonetheless interested in plumbing the mysteries of what drives others, even if I find their calculations (and the resulting policies) abhorrent.

xp

the biggest delusion might be the idea that you as an individual can affect society or history and yet

Yeah nobody in a pickup truck in Alabama is reading Adorno or contemplating free will. Yet most of them have some version of the same eight bumper stickers.

Ditto the Priuses of Berkeley.

This shit is tribal and it is tribally enforced.

Phew

Glad I forced this thread into being good and useful for a while again.

Tip of cap yall

lol mordy i'm an idiot. you're a conservative :)

Check yr drivelege

10-4 governor

Conservatism isn't an empty label for me, but the value of maintaining the moniker isn't worth doing violence to the underlying principles that give it meaning. My hope is that we'll preserve a republic that holds life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as its highest virtues. Frankly, I don't care what you call me as long as you're willing to help move our nation in that direction.

http://www.al.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/conservativism_must_stand_for.html

thank god we have eliminated the corporate jet tax, funded in part by repealing the child adoption deduction :)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ben-carson-praises-gop-tax-bill-historically-rich-cabinet-article-1.3711496

middle-income taxpayers are winners

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-republicans-win-on-taxes-is-a-loss-for-american-democracy

Basically, why is the clustering around so many issues so pronounced? Why is "I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change" necessarily yoked with "guns are a sacred right," or with "what's the matter with a little workplace flirting?," or "can't people take a joke anymore?," or "those athletes are disrespecting the troops with their refusal to stand for the national anthem."

All of those things have one in common which is The Way Things Used to Be When I Was a Kid, or maybe, "when my parents were growing up". As we age, it's typical to take note of how things are now versus how they were when we were learning about the world. In my personal experience, those who feel very negatively about how much things have changed swing to the rightconservative proportionate to how negatively they feel about it. Lately, I've noticed one or two acquaintances roughly my age who are those types of people, who feel that Trump and the alt-right are the undesirable change that has happened, which to me reinforces that the modern Republican party aren't actually conservatives at all and gives me a bit of hope for 2020.

The writing is on the wall. Just like Franken was done the day that photo came out. They're going to find out that this investigation has been based on the Steele dossier which was Russian disinformation paid for by Hillary and co. That was the basis for spying on the opposition's presidential campaign and all the unmasking BS...

It's all gonna come out, and some heads are gonna roll and the left will be even more unhappy than they were last November.

It will actually be quite glorious except for the violence that will come from the left.

Time to investigate high ranking Obama government officials who might have colluded to prevent the election of @realDonaldTrump! This could be WORSE than Watergate!

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 21, 2017

by keeping the investigation into russian collusion secret during the 2016 presidential campaign, but making a big deal about hillary's emails, the FBI was longterm framing mr. trump under obama's and susan rice's and eric holder's and loretta lynch's orders :(

that Rand Paul tweet actually surprised me, I must have been doing such a good job tuning shit out that I've become a lightweight

Who is that first quote from, qualmsley?

advanced level conservative troll on another message board, a step ahead of the talking points

there's not an equality problem, there's a mobility problem

sub inequality for equality

the IRS and the FBI are more dangerous than former KGB officers

i'd trust former KGB agents before i'd trust a former MI6 agent

it's not that you don't deserve to go to harvard. it's that his dad donated $2.5 million

Here was an elemental divide: between Trump and career government employees. He could understand politicians, but he was finding it hard to get a handle on these bureaucrat types, their temperament and motives. He couldn't grasp what they wanted. Why would they, or anyone, be a permanent government employee? "They max out at what? 200 grand? Tops," he said, expressing something like wonder.

Here was a key Trump White House rationale: expertise, that liberal virtue, was overrated. After all, so often people who had worked hard to know what they knew made the wrong decisions. So maybe the gut was as good, or maybe better, at getting to the heart of the matter than the wonkish and data-driven inability to see the forest for the trees that often seemed to plague U.S. policy making. Maybe. Hopefully.

Of course, nobody really believed that, except the president himself.

Still, here was the basic faith, overriding his impetuousness and eccentricities and limited knowledge base: nobody became the president of the United States -- that camel-through-the-eye-of-the-needle accomplishment - without unique astuteness and cunning. Right? In the early days of the White House, this was the fundamental hypothesis of the senior staff, shared by Walsh and everyone else: Trump must know what he is doing, his intuition must be profound.

it shouldn't matter where the hillary emails came from, even if stolen by Russian hackers; the important thing was the information about hillary's tactics

however

we should ignore the steele dossier and anything the fbi discovered while looking into these leads because hillary paid for, well, not the dossier itself, but for continued oppo research by fusion

these updates are some of the lamest shit on an ilx wallowing in it

whoa! six guns blazing!!

1) GOP goes on fishing expedition with GPS Fusion and fails hard
2) GOP pretends Fusion has something shady going on
3) Fusion: release transcripts, we have nothing to hid.
4) GOP: we can't release transcripts because of reasons and such as
5) Feinstein: fuck it, here it is
6) Transcript shows how panicked and desperate the GOP is in trying to deflect from Trump's crimes

just post on the US politics thread man

nah

Trump got the big stuff right while his perma-critics were left to complain about his low approval ratings, his "risky" style, his strongman vibe, his Twitter habits, and maybe some kind of sketchy Russia connection -- that sort of thing.

Keep an eye out for the new-CEO move at your workplace, and sometimes in government. When you see it executed right, optimism is warranted. Even if the critics miss the show.