HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 10, 2006 Was the 50s a Golden Age? Many Conservatives, famous and meager, will point to that time period as “ideal”. Most of them have fond, nostalgic memories of those days – this idea agrees with one of my professors who once said that Conservatives want to turn the clock back to an idealized time in their own past. I know, I know – all college professors which have such ideas are liberal and biased [sarcasm] – that's a different article and that's not where I'm heading ;) He was an Ancient Civ prof, and he was talking about a Roman chap. This guy didn't like what was happening to society. It didn't feel right to him. So, he did what many people wish they could do, he acquired power and literally, as much as possible, turned Rome back to how he thought it should be. He also killed all of his enemies. After he was done he, amazingly, gave Rome back to the Romans in a sense, as this was the time before Rome became a dictatorship. He so successfully accomplished his goals and offed his enemies, that he lived to old age, never with body guards, never worrying about any kind of retaliation. That's quite an oversimplification, but I think it fits as an analogy. Sulla was his name and it was good for him to be king. Can we examine such things objectively? From our point of view, can we identify with the importance or correctness that he envisioned for a small slice of time from his short human life? An objective view of the 50s reveals a mixed bag. On the surface, it was more ordered, perhaps. Women identified more with traditional roles. Christianity reasserted itself in some sense. There weren't many people protesting about this or that. Crime rates were lower. But you also had abused women with far fewer options remaining in less than ideal circumstances. You had active discrimination of minorities and you had many people not directly involved turn the other cheek. People died and were crippled by nasty diseases that we've all but eliminated today. A Liberal would argue that more choices for women is a morally correct stance. Did this change society and cause some negative effects? It sure did. Ending slavery also caused negative effects, but ya know what? We adapted. We CHANGED. To me, the real underlying ideal of Conservative thought is to avoid change, to keep what we have now, or had in the past, just for the sake of NOT changing. Oh sure, this is covered over with many layers, but in my view, that is the primary back-drop of conservative thought, the one ideal which underpins that entire view. “Don't fix it if it's not broken” too often becomes, “don't change it or attempt to make it better because what we have now is what we want to keep!”. Now, human nature has certain tendencies. Conservatives would claim that laziness is all too natural, first and foremost, which is why we shouldn't give welfare to people, for example. Laziness is a mammalian trait, sure enough. But another trait is preferring one's own family or clan or group. As groups acquire power and wealth, those groups gain the resources to protect their own status. The more one has, the harder it is to give it up. If I were born a royal in the Middle Ages in Europe, I'd very much want my kids to live my life of privilege, even if I cared about the poor peasants. For me to sacrifice the future of my own kids and kind for the general good of humanity would be very bold and unique indeed. A good example might the Clintons. They support public education and what it stands for, yet sent their own kid to a fancy private school. It's human nature. If we combine that aspect of human nature with the conservative ideal of “fear change, fear change, fear change”, we have a recipe for evil, even if that evil is unintentional. Add in religion, and it all goes to hell for common folk. Religion was and remains a useful tool to keep most people in line. The notion that the reward comes in the next life is a powerful and easy way for the upper class to keep its position and dominance over the little people. It doesn't even matter if this is intentional or not, or if the upper class is itself religious – evil rises from this like some vile emergent property. There is a very real and precise connection between conservatism and just this kind of control and perpetuation by the ruling elites. The word conservative has origins which are revealing. Here are some etymologies I've found online: Conservative as a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the Fr. Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his Fr. disciples, (e.g. Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). Conservative as the name of a British political faction it first appeared in an 1830 issue of the "Quarterly Review," in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies. Extended to similar spirits in other parties from 1845. Note the irony as I attempted to point out above. Conservatives everywhere cling to what they have and know and often, this goes against the common good. In almost all cases in the modern age, when countries oppose each other, it is the conservative factions in the nations involved which are the cause of resistance to resolution. Conservatives within their subjective nostalgic domains are like solitary predators, leaving each other alone except when absolutely required or to fight. It was the Soviet hard-liners (Conservatives) which opposed the USA with such force, and it took a Soviet “Liberal” before real change was realized. Now, what about policy? Modern conservatism and its specific policy don't always follow its underlying pillars. Often, tax cuts are good, for example as well as many policies associated with that “side” of politics. There is a difference between the party associated with the Conservatives, the Republicans, and their core values. Added into the mix we have interest groups, election cycles, corporate money and, to a small degree, the voters. The same goes for the other side. I'm a liberal first, and a Democrat second. The dems just happen to champion more liberal policies than the other guys. The dems are clearly the more secular party, though clearly not the party of atheists as the Republicans attempted to paint them recently. That's in line with Liberalism in my view: it solves one aspect of these repeating historical cycles. Secularism allows anyone to practice whatever religion they want, but it prevents any of us from using our religion to influence or dominate anyone else in the public/legal square/arena. That's a damn good compromise which offers real protection. The modern notions of giving a hoot about the common man and democracy are a speck in history. The Romans had a democracy of sorts for 500 years before their society turned back into a dictatorship, and a shrinking middle class was a major reason. Ironically, the modern American religious elite would tell us little people that having gay sex is what lead to the downfall of the Roman Republic! The rich, with very few exceptions (like the French revolution), don't need protection. It's the common people, stupid! The latest tax cuts for the rich just add to this virtual economy we have now, where Japan and China hold our debt and, therefore, us by the balls, where the gap between rich and poor continues to shrink, and where the common-folk are again/increasingly lapping up religion to deal with their problems and even chanting, “tax cuts! tax cuts!” as their schools continue to fail and their bridges crumble. It's ironic and somewhat paradoxical to the above that the early American Conservatives opposed aristocracy. My take on this is that the modern notion of loving, protecting and being pawns of immensely rich corporations changed this. Don't let history repeat itself, folks. Despite being a humanist, a futurist, a transhumanist and other seemingly hopeful titles, I have little doubt that mankind will return to what we were for most of history sooner or later. I also have little doubt that it will be Conservatives which will take us there, and no doubt at all that once it happens, it will be Conservatives which keep us there. “All societies become aristocracies” -- Frank Herbert ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
