In the United States at this time Liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.
Trilling thought that there were impulses to conservatism, even strong ones, in the population, but that these weren't articulated and so didn't challenge the liberal stranglehold on political ideas.
Why point this out? First, it helps to explain why Western society has veered so radically down a liberal path: there was no well articulated challenge to the liberal orthodoxy to hold things back.
It's also important that we remind people that the Western political establishment is and has been a liberal and not a conservative one. If things have gone wrong it is because liberals were at the helm. If conservatives have been at fault it's for not articulating a principled opposition to liberalism of both the classical (right) and social democratic (left) varieties.
There *still* is no principled opposition to liberalism that I've seen articulated. Everyone arguing against it can only make the claim that it is suicidal (which it is). Liberals might agree with this, but still claim that that doesn't nullify the fact that it is moral, and nothing else is.
ReplyDeleteThe reality of Western societies over the 20th century is that most of the population have accepted liberalism and gone along with its ideology and social manifestations because they have found it attractive. Conservativism requires focus, discipline, effort and self denial. Liberalism is self indulgence and narcissism, an easier path to follow in the short term but utterly self destructive in the long term.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason, there has been no serious and committed active resistance to liberalism and the majority of "Conservatives" are in fact right liberals who oppose singular aspects of liberalism such as immigration, but have no ideas about how to return to tradtition which in general has to be imposed upon people.
Contrast that with the behaviour of many immigrant groups in Western society. They have seized the benefits of the West but resisted its pathologies as they have seen through the propaganda and retained their own traditions.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteIn practice liberals justify their politics morally by using terms like "freedom," "equality" and "justice".
Now, it's possible to argue against liberalism by pointing out liberal hypocrisies, such as liberal support for forms of coercion rather than freedom, or for liberal practices of elitism rather than equality and so on.
But I don't think this is sufficient. It still leaves the liberal ideals intact, even if it criticises real world liberal practices.
To argue in principle against these moral claims you have to go a step further and ask what liberals mean by freedom or equality or justice.
If you do so, you then find that liberalism is a highly reductionist philosophy which defines the good largely in terms of individual autonomy.
In other words, liberals believe that we are free when we are autonomous; that we are equal when our powers to act autonomously are made the same; and that social justice is the ordering of society to achieve such "equal freedom".
How do you then criticise this liberal philosophy in a principled way?
You point out that autonomy is not the overriding moral good. That people will willingly sacrifice some measure of autonomy for other goods, such as marriage and parenthood.
Or you point out the inner, logical contradictions of making autonomy the overriding good (e.g. autonomy is supposed to involve unimpeded individual choice but the logical end result is the opposite as some of the most significant choices, those involving tradition or biology for instance, are excluded for being predetermined.)
Or you point out what is truly required in all fields to meet the demands of liberal morality. Some people might be able to accept a few liberal moral claims applied up to a certain point. But would they really accept liberalism as moral if they knew what was really involved across society over time?
Or you connect liberal moral principles to obvious signs of decline in society, particularly to those which affect people personally.
For instance, there was a generation of men who had their efforts to form families disrupted by third wave feminism. It's not difficult to persuade such men that what happened to them was a symptom of moral decline and dysfunction rather than progress to freedom and justice.
The problem in this last case, though, is that you need to expose such men to the idea that the conditions they faced were a product of a liberal political orthodoxy, rather than some exploitative plot against them by powerful men of the conservative establishment.
And that's where we are missing opportunities.
I have a definition of conservatism but no one ever wants to hear it...
ReplyDeleteConservatism = white homogeneous christian/christian-y communities
So then the argument is...well...but these people still won't have "traditional conservative values" and here is my counter-argument...
In said community you would have less welfare. Eventually the smarter ones would start to have more children thus moving the society more to the right.
All communities wax and wane, but as long as they stay the same they can eventually move forward. The key is to stay the same!
Anon @8.07 said:
ReplyDelete"I have a definition of conservatism but no one ever wants to hear it..."
That's because it is wrong.
Social Pathologist said:
ReplyDelete""I have a definition of conservatism but no one ever wants to hear it..."
That's because it is wrong."
I think its only fair that you put forward your own definition then.
I agree with Mark that questioning or undermining the moral creditentials, or pointing out the logicaly negative outcomes of liberalism is a big "stunning " blow to liberalism. However, I have to agree with Rob or Anon 8:07 that to really provide a KO you need an alternative articulated vision.
ReplyDeleteRob, what did you think of my sort of definition on the last thread?
Japan is a conservative society.
ReplyDeleteChina is a conservative society, but not 'our' type of conservative society in that the people seem to enjoy the communism.
India is a conservative society but it's Hindu and has a caste system.
What do all these societies have in common? They are homogenous and have a religious core (Japan buddhism?) or some type of spiritual outlook that unites all the people.
So..."Our" type of "Conservative" society that we are trying to achieve...aka one with family values, free speech, individual freedoms, Render unto ceaser what is Ceasar's, democracy...Is a product specifically of White Christian (or Christian respecting) people.
That's all I'm saying.
Multiculturalism is obviously not working in preserving a traditional society...as defined by us.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHear, hear.
It was only a few years after Trilling's preposterously narcissistic pronouncement that the publication - and swift ascension to best-seller status - of Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind revolutionized the history of American ideas. And not just at the level of cozy academic debate either: Time magazine covered the entire Kirk phenomenon, and (mirabile dictu) Kirk could actually live off the profits of this and subsequent books.
ReplyDeleteOf course it helped that even Kirk's opponents perceived his courage. It also helped that - except for a brief flirtation with the Goldwater presidential campaign of 1964, and very occasional bits of advice to Nixon during the latter's rule - Kirk never imagined he could achieve anything through conventional politics. But what was done in Kirk's day could be done again in ours.
Anyone who reckons that principled opposition to liberalism doesn't exist just hasn't been looking hard enough at Kirk or at any of the writers whom Kirk discusses at length. (Of these, Edmund Burke and T.S. Eliot are merely the best-known.) Fortunately two periodicals which Kirk founded, Modern Age and University Bookman, continue to this hour.
Jesse7:
ReplyDeleteI think its only fair that you put forward your own definition then.
Sure, no problem.
Conservatism is a world view consistent with a metaphysical epistemology which acknowledges the existence of "truth" independent of one's perception of it.
In layman's terms, Conservatism is an ordering of life around truth.
The Conservative motto is:
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set ye free.
V. Walter,
ReplyDeleteI've read half of Kirk's book. It was very useful. I think there's more to be said on the matter though.
Social Pathologist,
I partly agree with your point but it doesn't explain why conservative societies are reluctant to change, or why like tends to attract like. If "traditional" notions of society are a formulation of societal truths then we can say that a more static vision of society is conservatism.
If "traditional" notions of society are a formulation of societal truths then we can say that a more static vision of society is conservatism.
ReplyDeleteI think the Traditionalists got a lot of things right but some things horrendously wrong. The "velocity of change" concern is grounded more in conservative prudence rather than an conservative understanding of human nature. I imagine if conservatives were to suddenly gain absolute control in society, they would be quite rapid in effecting social change towards desired norms. The rate is of change is far less important than the goal of change.
It seems to me that's really where the rubber hits the road -- is conservatism about static traditional values, or does it stand for something else that is more dynamic. I think this is kind of the debate that is taking place, to some degree, among self-styled conservatives in the US at the moment at least.
ReplyDeleteA related question is whether there are limits on what can properly be considered "conservative". In other words, is the kind of "Oakeshottian" 'conservatism' being espoused by Andrew Sullivan really any kind of conservatism at all, or is it a front for rightist liberalism?
Well if we look at a concrete example, multiculturalism, which is fair enough, do we say that we want an orderly immigration policy? Or a limited immigration policy based on the recognition that our nations are white European?
ReplyDeleteSurely if we say you can come in provided you're willing to fit in, that will still change our perception of our countries over time away form being essentially white European.
Is saying that our countries are white European too "static" a thing to say? I should hope not.
As for Sullivan I listen to him and wonder if there's any conservatism in him at all? He's for small government but this is equally a libertarian position.
"Rob,
ReplyDeleteNow, it's possible to argue against liberalism by pointing out liberal hypocrisies, ...
But I don't think this is sufficient. It still leaves the liberal ideals intact, even if it criticises real world liberal practices." - Mark
I am in full agreement with you in those passages.
"If you do so, you then find that liberalism is a highly reductionist philosophy which defines the good largely in terms of individual autonomy." Mark
I know this is your latest thinking, but I don't agree that this is Liberalism. I would say that is a definition of Humanism.
I would say the driving impulse behind Liberalism is an emotional one -- extreme compassion. (And I've never met a Liberal who didn't think compassion was the highest emotion, or that you could have too much of it.)
Liberalism can, and has been, intellectualized, however. It is complete rejection of the concept of "the other". It is a god impulse. Completely adopted, it is negation of the self (or at least, not viewing the self any differently than you view anything else). Of course, this is a very hard philosophy to follow, both mentally, and actually, and most Liberals are something less than fully actualized. However, this is the core belief of Liberalism.
We mustn't confuse Liberals with the objects of their compassion. Most Dems are Dems because they benefit from the redistributionist policies of the elite Liberals who run society. Most Dems are victims, not Liberals.
Now, those who have read the above will be objecting, thinking of all the cases where Liberals don't follow the philosophy that they espouse (as Mark said they're hypocrites). That is just because to be fully Liberal is impossible without destroying yourself. Thus, in actual practice, Liberals are constantly making "unprincipled exceptions (thank you Lawrence Auster)" for themselves.
Just because they can't stick to the philosophy of Liberalism, however, doesn't mean that such a god-like philosophy is open to criticism (on moral grounds). It isn't.
Jesse_7
ReplyDeleteWas this your definition of Conservatism?
"Conservatism taps directly into the human desire to feel connected to society, and also more importantly I would argue to the cosmos. Order, stability, growth, connection, these are fundamental rules of nature, (I’d be happy to debate this with anyone who doubts it). Radical change, reinvention, atomistic division, these are the rules of mechanical engineering and though they are based to a degree on scientific views of nature do not actually feel to humans, when applied to society, as if they're "natural" or often appropriate for us rather than machines. Alternatively ideas of graspingness, the endless "me", or excessive rights based arguments, whilst based upon human desires and wishes, also do on reflection feel wrong, as they imperil our relations with others."
I'm not sure what to make of that. I *do* know some Conservatives for whom conservatism is just a disposition. I do not describe myself as a conservative, but rather a "right winger". Just as I see Liberalism as a philosophy of sheltered elites. (I'm not speaking of what I call victims here -- as I said, those aren't Liberals.) And to me, a right-winger is an anti-Liberalism. A right-winger is a hard-edged individual who understands that life is hard and we can't adopt the (ultimately) suicidal policies that Liberals want, without terrible results.
A right-winger is also not a social conservative, but believes social conservatism is necessary to keep society running smoothly.
I haven't read Kirk, but I maintain that there can *be* no principled objection to Liberalism. How can you argue, on moral grounds, that we should not all behave as if we were god?
ReplyDeleteAll objections to Liberalism must necessarily be on practical grounds.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteAre you confusing liberalism (classical liberalism) with the current definition in common use in the US which really refers to quasi socialism? I'm not sure compassion is the highest good of liberalism because it is very self centered and self actualising, although it might be argued that it is the case with socialism.
I must admit I personally feel much more comfortable with the tag conservative rather than right winger. It would be interesting looking at the difference between the two terms, which you have to a degree.
"How can you argue, on moral grounds, that we should not all behave as if we were god?
All objections to Liberalism must necessarily be on practical grounds."
This is interesting. If you think though that you are the only really real thing in the universe, everything else being totally other, distanced, and quasi unreal, it makes perfect sense to act like a God. You "created" yourself, (intellectually or emotionally), you direct yourself, you and only you are responsible for yourself and everything you've achieved is because of you, "man, how in apprehension like a god" etc.
If on the other hand you see yourself as a part of something larger then clearly you're not a god.
The problem with practical arguments is that as another poster said earlier, it can always be said, "sure we might have stuffed this up but at least our intentions were good", ie we'll get it right next time or there were special circumstances or some such thing. There's always the possibility that next time they will get it right and ultimate denial can also be resorted to in the meantime. Do you really want to wait till they totally screw things up before you can say, "See I told you so"?
Look at the Communists. The most degenerate, incompetent, asshole of a world destroying bunch, if ever there were any, and they were backed to the hilt by the majority of our intelligentsia until the stink of the gulags was stuck under their noses. No thank you I'm not interested in going back to another 50 year war with half of our side rooting for the enemy.
Rob (11;59),
ReplyDeleteIf "we" were god it would be, I suppose, impossible to argue against the claim on moral grounds, since "we" ourselves would be the ground of morals. You can't, for instance, challenge my authority with an appeal to my authority.
But since we are not god, the claim can be challenged on the moral ground that it is false, and it is immoral to act on or propagate falsehoods.
Saying a claim that we are god is false does not require some other theistic claims. "We" simply lack any of the properties that are said to characterize god (e.g. omnipotence, or at the very least superhuman powers).
The strong moral argument against liberalism is that it is a false doctrine. This of course makes it an imprudent doctrine to follow, but our absolute moral obligation to embrace truth is clearly greater than our relative moral obligation to pursue prudence.
I mean Liberalism is about a personal striving for god-like impartiality.
ReplyDeleteOf *course* none of the Liberal elite can live up to such a high morality. In fact, studies have shown that people like that behave *less* morally at the personal level than us mean, selfish Right Wingers. The inconsistency comes about because they are largely driven by emotion, and always find a way to excuse themselves for their non-Liberal behavior.
Anonymous (4:19),
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean, and like what you say about impartiality as a liberal conceit. This is one aspect of the larger (and more annoying) liberal conceit that they are not themselves a tradition, but rather a sort of umpire or playground monitor who makes sure that all the "traditional" cultures play fair. A sure mark of the liberal, in my experience, is that within five minutes of your religion, say, he will be explaining your beliefs to you. This is equally true when it comes to politics. I propose this as an infallible test.
Sorry, the last anonymous posting was by me.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel as though many of you want to solve the problem. I think many people prefer to talk in big words about complicated concepts.
ReplyDeleteThe truth thing is great if your Mulder and Scully on the X-Files "The Truth is Out There" but really how does that translate into an effective government policy?
I also think that some of you have a fear of Christianity. Deal with your issues men.
In the U.S., people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck talk an awful lot about liberalism but they never manage to solve anything. Why? They would lose their income streams overnight if they defeated liberalism.
Anonymous (5:24),
ReplyDeleteYou're right. We conservatives too often mope about complaining about "gnosticism," "nihilism," "transcendentals," and other such abstractions. Meanwhile our enemies are busy adding a few more clauses to the Campus Speech Code. Since you raise the question of Christianity, we might draw some practical lessons from its doctrine and experience. Christianity spread (at least in the early centuries) largely because Pagans saw that Christians were good people, and that Christian communities were good things to be part of. Many Pagans were a mess, as was Pagan society. Our situation is similar. Lives lived according to liberal principles are very often a mess (as this blog has so often reported), and so, increasingly, are societies founded on liberal principles. Traditional conservatives (and I expect many will be Christian) need to exemplify an appealing alternative to liberal disorder. People will ask you questions when they begin to wonder why your family is intact, why your community is clean and safe. Then you can tell them about gnosticism and transcendentals. Just an idea.
Off topic, sorry but you might be interested to comment on this artivle:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1266367/At-19-Sarah-abortion-Now-38-childless-email-babys-father-question-life.html
A 38 year old woman who had an aboriton as a teen now reflects on her life as a childless, single middle aged woman with no prospects for a family that she badly wants. She never makes the connection that the "you can do anything you want with no consequences and boo to those that try to stop you from exercising autonomy" lead her to mistakenly believe she could abort her baby and never feel grief for her decision.
Novaseeker
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that's really where the rubber hits the road -- is conservatism about static traditional values, or does it stand for something else that is more dynamic.
One of the commentators on my blog sent me this wonderful Chesterton quote:
"The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
By Conservative, Chesterton meant traditionalists. Implicit in this quote was the notion that there were real problems in society but that the Left was providing the wrong solution. The Trads had no solution and what was left open was a "Third Way" through which a right solution could be formed. Thinking conservatism apprehends this Third Way. A classic example of this is the Freiberg school of economics, which did not reject capitalism but realised it needed limits placed on it to promote human flourishing. What it gave birth to was the Social Market economy.
Well if we look at a concrete example, multiculturalism, which is fair enough, do we say that we want an orderly immigration policy? Or a limited immigration policy based on the recognition that our nations are white European?
I think the debate needs to start first principles though. Why do we want a monocultural society? What are its pros? Show me a multicultural society that functions well under stress? What sort of identity does a person have in a multicultural society?
My objection to multiculturalism is that pursued to its logical conclusion it leads to monoculturalism. Everywhere becomes the same, and diversity of the world's cultures is destroyed. Is this a good thing? No. The world seemed richer culturally previously than it is now.
I would say the driving impulse behind Liberalism is an emotional one -- extreme compassion.
I think there is a lot of truth to this statement, which essentially boils down to the fact that Liberals want to be nice, conservatives good.
Social Pathologist...
ReplyDeleteHere's the reality of Multiculturalism.
A 15 year old white girl got gang raped by 20 black and hispanics at a local highschool a few months ago.
I don't even care about these arguments anymore or debating them. It's bullshit.
The thing is as you guys "debate" all these arguments shit like this is going on to real people.
ReplyDeleteHere in the U.S. we have run out of time. But it's not too late for you guys in Australia.
This is my Real Life...not theoretical life...Real Life...and these are not isolated incidents or rare occurrences...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/27/california.gang.rape.investigation/
Anonymous (6:56),
ReplyDeleteYou may be right; discussion may be pointless. It didn't do that poor girl any good. That's why it may be that the only thing to do is construct alternative communities and wait for people to notice the difference and make a choice. Where was the high school?
here's a blog post on 'niceness versus goodness' from VA and christianity for anyone interested
ReplyDeletehttp://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2008/08/whats-opposite-of-goodness.html
You know constructing alternative communities was how I thought for a long time....but the state is preventing that...For example, in my neighborhood they just added a ton of apartments and government subsidized low income housing. So we all know what comes next. People don't have the money to move and then they get trapped.
ReplyDeleteLiesel, I read that article you linked to.
ReplyDeleteThe story goes like this. Attractive young woman meets young man, gets pregnant, has an abortion, rejects young man's offer of marriage as she "doesn't want to be tied down", spends her 20s "meeting men" and "enjoying her well-paid career", suddenly finds herself in her 30s with biological clock ticking, realises she doesn't have as much time as she thought she did, and now at age 38 is starting to regret giving up her chance to have a child and to marry the man who loved her.
She's now at age 38 going out with a "kind and caring man" and hoping for miracles - that the man will have her and that she'll be able to have a child. She's now regretting the life path she chose as a young woman.
It's frustrating reading these articles. It raises the question again of what such women have been "liberated" for - to avoid commitments in their 20s that are best made in one's 20s.
It's possible to contribute both to debate and active work. I'm doing both at the moment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you have to understand the current limitations on active work. Until you get a critical mass in a certain location, it's difficult to get things happening.
The danger is that someone really wants to get things happening, makes a call to action, doesn't get sufficient response and then drops out.
What we really need instead are people who are willing to stick around for a longer period of time, so that a critical mass of support can build up, or so that particular political opportunities can be capitalised on.
I completely understand Marc. And yes having these debates are important. In fact, having these debates is what made me turn into a conservative! It's blogs like these that 'woke me up.' VanishingAmerican was my OzConservative.
ReplyDeleteBut I have three thoughts in my head...
- The government of the Confederacy was ideologically fractured during the Civil War. The Vice President and President and congress or whatnot couldn't agree on what their ideological core was. As a result, they waffled, and lost.
- Barack Obama does not bother with people who disagree with him. He does not debate his ideas and try to 'change' you. He just makes a list of who his friends are and then they all take over.
So that's how I feel. I'm taking a slash and burn technique to the world. At least for today and on this particular blog post :) Here is the goal, your either on board with the goal or not. Aye or Nay.
But then again this is a blog :) and the point of a blog is discussion :) Whoops...Yeah I forgot that....
Social Pathologist said,
ReplyDelete"Why do we want a monocultural society? What are its pros? Show me a multicultural society that functions well under stress? What sort of identity does a person have in a multicultural society?"
I think we want a monocultural society because that's what we've been. I'm told that arguments that appeal to "tradition", ie its traditional to this or that so don't change it, are fallacious, I don't agree. Also, because people always have organized themselves along monocultural lines.
You have to look fairly hard to find multicultural societies that have worked over the long run. The history of strongly multicultural states is usually that of civil disorder. We are working on a model today that has few successful historical precedents. The one advantage we have today is that we're more materially prosperous, which can alleviate, distract and buy off concerns.
The identity of a person in a multicultural society is also pretty weak. We can say, oh we're all equal in this society, but its not the case. Some people have more influence than others, this groups of people tend to revolve around ethnic lines (or perhaps class), so you get this group or "mafia" running this, this group running that, and the result is internal distrust. Is it a coincidence that over 90% of black people voted for Obama? And also traditionally vote Democrat?
So what are you then as an individual in a multicultural society? Not an American, but an Indian American or an African American or whatever. Which means an Indian or African living in America? How much are they influenced by the new culture, how much by the old? In such confused circumstances it can become tempting to embrace "international" concepts of humanity. Such as communism, we're all brothers here comrade. Communism or its equivalents are no better than predominantly homogenous societies and generally require extensive indoctrination or force to prop them up. Alternatively we can try to do away with culture entirely and live more material lifestyles.
Ok first principles are done. Can we have a predominantly white European monocultural society now?
The government of the Confederacy was ideologically fractured during the Civil War. The Vice President and President and congress or whatnot couldn't agree on what their ideological core was. As a result, they waffled, and lost.
ReplyDeleteThey could have been ideologically perfectly unified from the outset and they still would have lost. They didn't lose because of ideology. They lost on the battlefield; the correlation of forces was fundamentally unfavorable.
Can we have a predominantly white European monocultural society now?
ReplyDeleteNorth America, Europe, Australia and NZ are predominantly white and monocultural (for all they pretend to be multicultural). But that one culture is liberalism.
"But that one culture is liberalism."
ReplyDeleteMaybe so but its still liberalism with a predominatly white/European face.
"They lost on the battlefield; the correlation of forces was fundamentally unfavorable."
ReplyDeleteIdeology still mattered. The North nearly gave up the war in '64.
The problem is that Christianity is fundamentally un-conservative, precisely because it posits an overriding notion of the Good, one that resides in the future. A true conservatism can only focus on the good as it exists, which is not one good but a different Good as dictated by time and place. Good here is not good there. Good now is not good then.
ReplyDeleteTo be conservative you have to reject Christianity.
What rubbish.
ReplyDeleteSecond that.
ReplyDeleteIdeology still mattered. The North nearly gave up the war in '64.
ReplyDeleteWe were talking about the South, not the North - but the North, for that matter, was not ideologically unified either.
The North nearly gave up the war not because they didn't seem to be winning on the battlefield! They were just as far from Richmond in 1864 as they were in 1862. Taking Atlanta restored their morale.
In short, the battlefield, not ideology, was decisive.
@Jesse,
ReplyDeleteAs for Sullivan I listen to him and wonder if there's any conservatism in him at all?
I wonder the same about you.
I must admit I personally feel much more comfortable with the tag conservative rather than right winger.
Neither one applies to you.
"In short, the battlefield, not ideology, was decisive."
ReplyDeleteRead your Claustwitz, the will to win, affected in part by ideology, is half of what it takes to win a war. This is something that every anti war left wing protester knows.
"I wonder the same about you."
Oh ouch. Of course at any time we can say that only the ideology of the Montana militia is conservatism. Or alternatively that only Nazism, which was staked out in the previous post, is conservatism. The Nazis were famously anti-Christian. But of course that would be wrong wouldn't it.
I'll admit that I was dismissive in reply to the other post but I'd rather not have to debate the pros's and cons of Nazism. Of course if you'd like to do that we can.
If you're anti-God you're anti-Conservative.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but you certainly can be a Right-Winger and be an atheist or agnostic.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but you certainly can be a Right-Winger and be an atheist or agnostic.
ReplyDeleteNo you're not. You're a Left winger who sees the sense in authority and order.
LOL
ReplyDeleteThat's probably the only time in my life I'll be called a Left Winger!
I think there are many right wing atheists and agnostics. There's even a website for them, although it is too left wing for me to hang out there:
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?page_id=2
WHy would you think you have to believe in a revealed god, or even be spiritual at all, to qualify as right wing?
That's probably the only time in my life I'll be called a Left Winger!
ReplyDeletePeople get huffy and puffy when you remind them that the Nazi's were National sociliasts. Their nationalism was interpreted through a left wing ideology. (I'm not suggesting that you're a Nazi). The Right wing of the French assembly(from when the term came) was composed of the the traditional aristocracy and clergy. In more common terms the group of people who supported God, King and country. When one rejects a the possibility of the existence of a deity, one breaks with the classical mind.
I don't want to be a pain but I just thought I'd throw my two cents in.
ReplyDeleteRob said:
"I think there are many right wing atheists and agnostics. There's even a website for them, although it is too left wing for me to hang out there"
Isn't the fact that these guys lean left evidence that secular right wing/conservatism is on somewhat weak intellectual ground?
You mentioned a few definitions of right wing attitudes previously which I think were generally accurate. My Dad says right wingers are "hard minded" left wingers are "soft minded". Is this what it comes down to?
Novaseeker said,
ReplyDelete"The Right wing of the French assembly(from when the term came)"
I didn't know that.
There have always been a certain percentage of people who are non-spiritual. You can find references to them (usually the author), as far back as the Hellenistic period.
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be too far off to say that the Nazis and Fascists were progressive movements, but they certainly don't qualify as Liberal in today's meaning of the term.
As for the soft-minded versus hard-minded distinction, that holds only if you break the Left down into Liberals and their victims. Certainly those on the left who are victims are as tough-minded as anyone.