In my prior essay, What is a Conservative? I tried to define some universal principles that define "conservatism". I've posted this essay on several sites and most of the discussion quickly move from the theoretical to the current condition.
I guess this fits the development of the blogosphere which is mostly focused on current events. There seem to be few places willing to discuss philosophy, either economic or social. Given that we are on the cusp of some world-altering events dealing with the practical may be appropriate as well as necessary.
So, I'm going to telescope the first diary into a couple of definitions and claim that the different viewpoints that have been expressed can be reduced to semantics.
By "conservative" I mean those who use various appeals to the past, ethics or infallible authority to support their position that those on the top should stay there. I claim that this is thinly disguised authoritarianism or plutocracy. In modern, industrialized societies these people are now the wealthy whereas in prior ages they might have included royalty, the church or the army.
In the US (and to a lesser degree in the EU) there are political parties which represent these interests, but by the nature of the power groups they must attract followers who have to be led to believe that their interests coincide with the elite. A prior example would be those royalists who were to be found among the commoners. I listed some of the appeals that this elite is using currently and which they call "conservative" principles in my other essay.
In my framework the opposite of conservatism is democracy, not liberalism. To me conservatism means plutocracy. Liberalism defines the goals that a democratic society should be striving for, these can all be subsumed under "all men are created equal". From this everything else follows.
So the practical issue of the moment is how to lessen the power of the elite and transfer it to the people?
To do that we have to discover what means the elite uses to maintain power. I'll go from the extreme to the mild.
1. State terrorism - this includes Stalinism, Nazism, Maoism and a variety of military dictatorship such as now exists in Burma.
2. Legalized "super" citizens - this includes royalty and the aristocracy, preferential ethnic or religious groups and also the inverse: slaves and serfs.
3. Legalized preferential rights - this includes restrictions on who can own property, who can vote and who can enter into various legal agreements. Saudi Arabia is a current example where the rights of women are restricted by law.
4. Preferential opportunity - points 2 and 3 cover the legal aspects, but there are also the de facto mechanisms such as preferential access to select schools or hiring through the "old boy network". It also applies to housing and other social choices. Discrimination which is hidden is the underlying force operating here. Preferential immigration policies are also included in this limitation.
5. Unequal treatment before the law - crimes committed by disfavored groups are prosecuted more vigorously then others and the punishments are harsher. One can steal $100 million in the US and spend less time in jail then a low level drug dealer.
6. Propaganda - control of the media and restrictions on freedom of expression. The extreme is the closing of rival media outlets as is happening right now in Pakistan or Burma. Other approaches include continual censorship or intimidation of such enterprises; more sophisticated approaches are the control of these outlets by members of the elite. There is no need to censor what your cohorts publish. In the "liberal" west rivals are allowed to publish, thus giving the appearance of freedom of the press, but these publications have limited financial backing and reach only a tiny fraction of the population. Call it the "Hyde Park" effect - you can shout on your soapbox, but hardly anyone will hear you.
So here is what the powerful have going for them: wealth, control of the levers of political and economic power and a comprehensive propaganda operation. They use these tools to appeal to people's fears, prejudices and need to "belong". Studies have shown that the more highly educated people are, or the more they know of the world, or the more contact they have with people not like themselves, the less these techniques work.
So what I propose is for those of us who have no access to wealth or the levers of power to use the one tool that we do have - education. The most powerful force for democracy in the past 200 years was the simple phrase of Thomas Jefferson's
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This swept aside thousands of years of elitism and removed the props holding up my points 2 and 3 above. The only way these "truths" can be kept from the people is by violence or intimidation. Religion still has a grip by claiming a divine class of "super" citizens, but this also weakens with education. There is also a strong correlation between the education and worldliness of people and their unwillingness to follow organized religion in matters of public policy.
We have a new tool in the internet which the elite has not yet realized will provide a threat to their propaganda monopoly. There are steps in the US already to restrict the internet. These are taking the form of giving the service providers control of content, either explicitly or via various pricing mechanisms. There are also attempts to use copyright laws to limit comment on published material. Others are pushing into libel law as a way to suppress information. The US FCC is trying to allow broadcasters to own newspapers in the same market. This would further limit the range of information. The FCC has no legal mandate to deal with newspapers. Those worried about this particular effort in the US have only two more weeks to speak up against this change by contacting the FCC or their elected representatives.
Access to information is also controlled by election rules. While ostensibly restricting the power of special interests to influence elections, the rules do the opposite. The well funded can buy advertising while the populists cannot afford this. In Europe limited time for campaigning also gives an edge to those with the biggest megaphone. New ideas take longer to develop and explain. A shortened campaign is not conducive to this.
While we have our small megaphone of the internet we need to use it diligently. This means that all cases of propaganda and special dealing need to be exposed and countered. Efforts to make the workings of congress, for example, more visible have been resisted. Laws are passed after only being available for inspection for as little as a day even by the representatives. Open government efforts must be supported. Especially important is the exposure of special deals for individual groups or regions and the paybacks to the politicians promoting them.
We do not yet have those who are willing (or able) to spend time reading legislation in progress or new proposed regulations. The lobbyists do this and are funded by their sources, the public needs its own representatives. Perhaps a formal investigative organization funded by concerned citizens might be needed. The limited amount of investigative reporting these days is done by print publications and, as I said above, the independent ones have few financial resources with which to support these activities.
There are various good government groups, but they are uncoordinated and their funding is haphazard. An internet funded group might be worth a try.
To summarize, the power of the people resides in information. Gathering it and disseminating it needs to be the focus of those of us who are already familiar with the new information landscape.
In my framework the opposite of conservatism is democracy, not liberalism. To me conservatism means plutocracy. Liberalism defines the goals that a democratic society should be striving for, these can all be subsumed under "all men are created equal". From this everything else follows.
All well and good, Robert, but until you give a clear idea of how you are using the term "democracy" I don't see how to approach your argument without even more rhetoric than you found following your first post on your other thread.
I offer you the term: "polyarchic democracy," as a form of democracy that fits within the term "liberal democracy," and which I would argue, in my exploration of this topic -- especially with regards to the spreading of democracies by democracies as the US is proclaimed to be -- can do little to undermine a tendency towards what you call "plutocracy." I suggest that's probably the dominant form of what is being called democracies going these days. If so, then it would seem the first problem to address is the form of governing itself, not the attitudes in the minds of the people about whether they think in those conservative or liberal frames.
As long as "power" groups are in the position to offer the only likely options in the representative marketplace, what difference does the attitudes of the people voting actually make? We still are likely to end up with the competition to cast our votes for Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The rest is a way of keeping us entertained.
If you don't have a sense for what I'm talking about I'll be happy to expand on it if requested.
Meanwhile, some links in case anyone is interested in how this term, "polyarchic democracies" is being used:
I don't see the value of adding a term that people are not familiar with to the easily understood "democracy".
Notice that the first thing you needed to do was explain it, not discuss my proposed course of action.
People know that democracy means: the selection of the government by the people and the ability to replace this government from time to time by means of elections.
If you want to argue that present democracies, as found in many places, are imperfect I don't think you will find much disagreement. My suggestions for improving imperfect democracies have to do with education and the free flow of information.
By "conservative" I mean those who use various appeals to the past, ethics or infallible authority to support their position that those on the top should stay there. I claim that this is thinly disguised authoritarianism or plutocracy. In modern, industrialized societies these people are now the wealthy whereas in prior ages they might have included royalty, the church or the army.
Why does everything you write start with a strawman?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Notice that I asked you if you want me to explain polyarchic democracy. I take it the answer is no, so I will not bother further on that front. Personally I think it offers a better way to understand what you refer to as plutocracy.
My main concern is what you mean by democracy, Robert.
quote:
People know that democracy means: the selection of the government by the people and the ability to replace this government from time to time by means of elections.
If you want to argue that present democracies, as found in many places, are imperfect I don't think you will find much disagreement. My suggestions for improving imperfect democracies have to do with education and the free flow of information.
Well, I'd say people know a lot of hazy ideas about the term "democracy," and I find in my explorations that it's used rather generally and sloppily; sometimes the word socialism and fascism gets thrown into the mix when an elected government gets used in order to satisfy populist needs rather than those of the elite. That's just a general off the cuff observation from someone who probably needs a lot more education and a better flow of information.
Can you explain how better education can be achieved, and once achieved, how the freeing up the flow of information will serve to improve the general, sloppy, poorly understood form of governments lumped into the category "democracy"? What are the mechanisms of improvement once people become better educated? What would that look like? I honestly don't have a clue without some sense of the actual structure of what's being improved. How is information not free flowing now? If you can identify that in a way with which people can agree, which I doubt, then it would seem there may be ways you or someone could suggest improvements and how those could come about.
By "conservative" I mean those who use various appeals to the past, ethics or infallible authority to support their position that those on the top should stay there.
Specifically, this is the strawman. Conservative philosophy has nothing to do with who "stays on top". Conservative philosophy strives to insure that government provides the tools to success and doesn't provide disincentives to success. Conservatives believe that everyone should be able to build the lives for themselves that they want, and the best way to insure they can, is to let each person who works be able to keep as much of what they work for to improve the lives of themselves and their families. Conservatives believe that strong individuals make strong communities. Conservatives believe that it's not "generosity" or "compassion" if you force us to give our money to charity at the point of your gun. Conservatives hope everyone can reach the "top".
Liberals want to share their misery. Hows that for a strawman?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Conservatives believe that everyone should be able to build the lives for themselves that they want, and the best way to insure they can, is to let each person who works be able to keep as much of what they work for to improve the lives of themselves and their families.
funnily they dont seem to care if along the way they have to start a war or two , or exploit some workers
Posts: 62 | Location: A Buggy | Registered: 06 November 2007
While we have our small megaphone of the internet we need to use it diligently. This means that all cases of propaganda and special dealing need to be exposed and countered. Efforts to make the workings of congress, for example, more visible have been resisted. Laws are passed after only being available for inspection for as little as a day even by the representatives. Open government efforts must be supported. Especially important is the exposure of special deals for individual groups or regions and the paybacks to the politicians promoting them.
That was what I said above, why isn't that an explanation? Do you want me to detail which members of congress to lobby for specific changes to the law?
I did also point out the specific, pending, changes that the FCC chairman wants to put into effect and how people can respond if they disagree.
On my web site I spend a great deal of time explaining just what I think needs to be done to overcome the power of vested interests. I do this for each proposal I made as "goals for the 21st Century" as well as a general discussion of the difficulties of effecting change.
Even if I wished I can't come up with every good idea, that's why we have forums so others can add their suggestions.
While we have our small megaphone of the internet we need to use it diligently. This means that all cases of propaganda and special dealing need to be exposed and countered. Efforts to make the workings of congress, for example, more visible have been resisted. Laws are passed after only being available for inspection for as little as a day even by the representatives. Open government efforts must be supported. Especially important is the exposure of special deals for individual groups or regions and the paybacks to the politicians promoting them.
That was what I said above, why isn't that an explanation? Do you want me to detail which members of congress to lobby for specific changes to the law?
I did also point out the specific, pending, changes that the FCC chairman wants to put into effect and how people can respond if they disagree.
On my web site I spend a great deal of time explaining just what I think needs to be done to overcome the power of vested interests. I do this for each proposal I made as "goals for the 21st Century" as well as a general discussion of the difficulties of effecting change.
Even if I wished I can't come up with every good idea, that's why we have forums so others can add their suggestions.
Why isn't that an answer? I think the answer to your megaphone is self defined by your saying it's a megaphone. It's not a megaphone, nor do I see how it can be. How do we go about exposing "all cases of propaganda and special dealing" any differently than the current internet process already allows, given its anarchistic nature?
Do you know what actually goes on, on this site alone? What is being introduced and talked about on the forum: Cracking the Code?
You spend a lot of time on your website explaining, I spend a lot of time on mine. Great, so do lots of other people. How does all that get sorted out, checked for sanity, veracity, and all the other problems that are probably even potentially worse than our corporate directed media, which is horrible, and then put together in some formulaic way to counter the well organized, extremely efficient, hierarchically ordered, thus top down directed, corporate information system speaking through a real megaphone, radio and television, with far more powers of persuasive manipulation to attract attention and transform thinking into a pattern that suits the reality people find when they travel to work, back home, and live in their suburban worlds?
Some people think adding suggestions is a matter of throwing data up against a wall and looking for patterns "together" as it drips down the wall; I won't name names. But that is a problem the forum concept runs into as far as making sense of anything.
quote:
Do you want me to detail which members of congress to lobby for specific changes to the law?
Specific changes? What changes? How can this somewhat anarchistic environment be organized to get to some point where everyone can come together and agree on a change? We can't even have an orderly discussion on a thread within a single, relatively small board like this one. I like the EuroTrib board, but I don't see that even much smaller environment with fairly tight agreement amongst its member as being in a much better position.
No one has to participate. No one has to listen and debate. So how would it take place?
Conservatism/Liberalism are terms currently used to pretty much define a different frame of patchwork to maintain the same basic social structure. The disagreements are usually revolved around how to best do that.
Each blames the other for the shortcomings and failures that occur within the societal structure rather than taking a bird's-eye view of the structure itself.
I've found that those on the "conservative" side of the spectrum are less likely to pull-back from their views and actually take a look at how things function than liberals are. It's just a matter of degree.
There are a lot of illusions floating around on both sides of the aisle. When one is immersed in a culture, in "how the way things work" by consensus, its very difficult to pull outside of that and see how things actually do work.
Perhaps having lived within a monastic community has allowed some of that pull-back for myself. A lot of givens....aren't. I've lived in a mini-culture that shouldn't even be able to function at all according to all of the givens...yet it does, and functions in many ways in a manner far superior to the larger culture outside of monastic bounds.
Even the world's economic systems, east and west, past and present covering all spectrums of economic thought have operated basicially within the same realms of societal structures with ideological colorings.
Differing views from free marketers to fascism, to communism to social democracies have all maintained similar social/economic structures...just a different ideological view on how to best maintain them...and a differing political and ownership elite to do that. Some rely on absolute tyranny to maintain the similar social structure, in others that maintenance is less overt...and the structures thrmselves are not open to challenge without crises. They become "the way things are".
A societal structure that actually functions for everyone consistent with the resources of the planet has yet to be devised. Where does one begin?
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
By "conservative" I mean those who use various appeals to the past, ethics or infallible authority to support their position that those on the top should stay there. I claim that this is thinly disguised authoritarianism or plutocracy. In modern, industrialized societies these people are now the wealthy whereas in prior ages they might have included royalty, the church or the army.
How convenient. You start your essay with a false premise. And then lament over how no one will agree to stay within the confines of your discussion points.
Here, I'll save you the time of looking it up: "A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. It is important to note, however, that the validity (in the technical, rather than popular sense) of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises."
I will certainly acquiesce on one point. There seems to be little agreement on how to define what a conservative or liberal is. I will supply my definition and you will see why we are worlds apart. Liberalism and conservatism define political strategy and philosophy, not a power structure.
My definitions are based on the French Estates General seating traditions where people were arranged from left to right according to their political leanings. On the left (of the speaker's chair) were the commoners from the Third Estate, on the right were the landowners from the Noble Estate. On the far left was found a strong believe in socialism, communism, and other "share the wealth" philosophies. On the far right was found the laissez faire anarchist as in "The only thing we need from government is to be left alone."
The terms left and right still exist in our modern day politics with the left being occupied by liberals and the right being occupied by conservatives. Since American culture does not exist with nobility and commoner estates we are left with the "no government" and "all encompassing government" extremes.
Therefore, if one were to start in the middle they could look both ways and find philosophies that are appealing to them. One can lean both ways, but once both feet are on one side or the other you are a liberal or conservative.
I realize this is a little more complicated than your liberal = good and conservative = bad mantra, and maybe not even right, but at least it is based on historical context and not a false premise.
Posts: 9 | Location: Maryland | Registered: 16 November 2007
By "conservative" I mean those who use various appeals to the past, ethics or infallible authority to support their position that those on the top should stay there. I claim that this is thinly disguised authoritarianism or plutocracy. In modern, industrialized societies these people are now the wealthy whereas in prior ages they might have included royalty, the church or the army.
------------------------------- QUOTE PALEO_CON How convenient. You start your essay with a false premise. And then lament over how no one will agree to stay within the confines of your discussion points.
I will certainly acquiesce on one point. There seems to be little agreement on how to define what a conservative or liberal is. I will supply my definition and you will see why we are worlds apart. Liberalism and conservatism define political strategy and philosophy, not a power structure.
My definitions are based on the French Estates General seating traditions where people were arranged from left to right according to their political leanings. On the left (of the speaker's chair) were the commoners from the Third Estate, on the right were the landowners from the Noble Estate. On the far left was found a strong believe in socialism, communism, and other "share the wealth" philosophies. On the far right was found the laissez faire anarchist as in "The only thing we need from government is to be left alone."
The terms left and right still exist in our modern day politics with the left being occupied by liberals and the right being occupied by conservatives. Since American culture does not exist with nobility and commoner estates we are left with the "no government" and "all encompassing government" extremes.
Therefore, if one were to start in the middle they could look both ways and find philosophies that are appealing to them. One can lean both ways, but once both feet are on one side or the other you are a liberal or conservative.
I realize this is a little more complicated than your liberal = good and conservative = bad mantra, and maybe not even right, but at least it is based on historical context and not a false premise.
I agree with the origins of the terms. They are accurate. What those terms mean?????? Economically, going back to French seating, those on the left tended to represent workers, peasants, un-propertied. In other words, the majority. Those on the right represented the merchants, propertied, and the wealthy. The elite of the society. That's basically the same debate going on today. Those representing the majority and those representing the elite.
All politics ultimately comes down to dividing the national economic pie. The debate is always, after all the "hot issues", who gets what, not on how large or how small the government will be to determine that.
Our current government represents the right...and look at its size! And look at where economic power and political power lay. Laws of the right tend to increase the economic and political power of the right and its constituency, and diminish the economic and political power of the left and its constituency.
Wealth distribution has been upward for those at the top. Downward for those at the bottom. Stagnant or in slow decline for those in the middle. Right/left has a lot do with power of wealth distribution. Conservatives tend to want to ignore that and make distractions about abortion and other such side issues.
Neither liberals nor conservatives really solve anything. They are too busy blaming one another for societal failures when they are equally to blame. They attempt maintenance of what is, and how to make it most beneficial for their own constituencies. They ought to be looking for what currently isn't. For what might actually work for all constituencies.
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007
Originally posted by Paleo-con: [QUOTE]Originally posted by robertdfeinman:
By "conservative" I mean those who use various appeals to the past, ethics or infallible authority to support their position that those on the top should stay there...
------------------------------- QUOTE PALEO_CON How convenient. You start your essay with a false premise. And then lament over how no one will agree to stay within the confines of your discussion points.
I will certainly acquiesce on one point. There seems to be little agreement on how to define what a conservative or liberal is. I will supply my definition and you will see why we are worlds apart. Liberalism and conservatism define political strategy and philosophy, not a power structure.
My definitions are based on the French Estates General seating traditions where people were arranged from left to right according to their political leanings. On the left (of the speaker's chair) were the commoners from the Third Estate, on the right were the landowners from the Noble Estate. On the far left was found a strong believe in socialism, communism, and other "share the wealth" philosophies. On the far right was found the laissez faire anarchist as in "The only thing we need from government is to be left alone."
"All politics ultimately comes down to dividing the national economic pie."
Hi, Polycarp. This seems to be the sad ending to every political drama, humanity acts out. Sd you have ably done, I attempted to twist classic economic theory this way and that, over and over. But what IS an economic pie, politically? Are we force-eating that pie, when we cannot (even)define it meaningfully-in terms of changing resources, new products, and new demands (for new goods); maybe Columbus had his heart set upon a trinkets shop, while aiming for a star, but look what OTHER great things America has produced, since!
"The debate is always, after all the "hot issues", who gets what, not on how large or how small the government will be to determine that."
Doesn't THAT boil down to some transitory petty, micro-(harvest)debate, if we presume equality, and fairness?
"Our current government represents the right...and look at its size! And look at where economic power and political power lay."
Isn't one issue of Thom's Program a discussion of how economics ever came to assume the right hand seat at the throne of politics, or for that matter, religion?? Democrats originally were men and women in pursuit of happiness, and strongly bonded in friendship. Republicans progressively debated issues such as effectivness, and efficiency.
"Neither liberals nor conservatives really solve anything. They are too busy blaming one another for societal failures when they are equally to blame. They attempt maintenance of what is, and how to make it most beneficial for their own constituencies. They ought to be looking for what currently isn't. For what might actually work for all constituencies."
Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease"
Posts: 582 | Location: New York City | Registered: 13 February 2007
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
