Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conservative Utopianism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Conservative Utopianism

    The standard definition of Conservatism is that it wants to conserve the present situation. This article posits that the current prevalent Conservatism wants to turn back to policies as much as 80 or 90 years in the past and that this is a form of Utopianism on the part of Conservatives.

    Utopianism is generally defined as an impracticable scheme of political or social reform. Do you all think that wanting to go back 80 years to political policies is utopian and unrealistic?

    It also proposes that Trumpism is a renouncing of utopianism.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...5599?page=show
    The American right already has a non-utopian voter base whose voters are evidently uninterested in the revolutionary projects of global free trade and wars for democracy, and far less religious than their parents and grandparents. This means reconciling Republican voters with Republican policies is simply a matter of changing the policies to what the voters want.

    It’s simple, really. The conservative movement merely needs to jettison its three utopian projects of libertarian economics, global democratic revolution and the reversal of the sexual revolution. Once this operation takes place, plenty of differences will remain to distinguish the American right from the American left and center, even if conservatives end their war on Social Security and switch from foreign nation-building to nation-building at home.
    Homo homini lupus

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    The standard definition of Conservatism is that it wants to conserve the present situation. This article posits that the current prevalent Conservatism wants to turn back to policies as much as 80 or 90 years in the past and that this is a form of Utopianism on the part of Conservatives.

    Utopianism is generally defined as an impracticable scheme of political or social reform. Do you all think that wanting to go back 80 years to political policies is utopian and unrealistic?

    It also proposes that Trumpism is a renouncing of utopianism.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...5599?page=show
    My first thought is that "conservative" also means resistance to change merely for the sake of change, so beloved by the Progressives and the Liberals. "Because you can" is not an acceptable reason to do anything.

    My second thought is that "utopia" is being entirely misconstrued - it does not merely mean to back to he past, but actually means "perfect" and no time in our history meets that standard. However, there is nothing wrong with returning to a period in American government when it actually worked as it was intended to, by representing the wishes and interests of the American people rather than those of the American politicians.

    America was in far better shape eighty years ago, and it would be in our best interests to learn why and then put that information to good use.

    Comment


    • #3
      America was in far better shape eighty years ago,
      YEA!!! RIGHT WOW!!! In the middle of the Great Depression.
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        even if conservatives end their war on Social Security and switch from foreign nation-building to nation-building at home.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nation building of any kind sounds like massive government intervention. Something conservatives, and classical liberals for that matter, would want to keep to a minimum.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #6
            Until the U.S. dominated the world with the treat of nuclear annihilation Europeans were in the habit of killing each other in huge bloody batches every few decades. To go back 80 years we would return to a world where security and freedom were measured by which year it happened to be.

            There is an evident progression in human history where what Dobbes called the Leviathan or state authority has made the probability of violent death increasingly less likely. Beyond violent death the state has also made security for the poor, the old and the sick a reality that many people 80 years ago would have thought impossible. One need only look at places such as Somalia to see what a stateless society actually looks like.

            Today to some extent it is the success of state security that is the danger. In some ways it is too much of a good thing. With the rise of political correctness and multiculturalism the state may tend to extend it's control beyond it's traditional security services.

            The end game in almost every political philosophy is a utopia. Extreme capitalism represents a form of political anarchy not that much different that the kind of anarchy that Marx's envisioned where every actor in society cooperates without coercion only possible with a highly moral population.

            It is the coercive power of the state that both provides security and threatens individual liberty. The proper balance is dependant on the morality of the majority of a Nation's population. Extreme capitalism and Marxism are differentiated primarily by competition. They both however see competition or cooperation as existing in a void of coercion.

            The main the distinction between Liberal and Conservative views seems to be around the nature of the human condition. Liberals see the world through the lens of communialism and conservatives see human nature as being a struggle for dominance. A combination of the two would capture human nature fairly well but both sides are committed to their world views in ways that make compromised difficult.

            Cooperation is the hallmark of civilization. Even in competitive sports it is the ethical standards of the players to follow the rules that makes the game rich or poor. The failure of today's conservatives to demand a market place where ethics predominate has allowed liberals to exploit a weakness in the system and impose excessive communialism through the state.

            Because of the complexity of modern society it is hard to address the issues directly. Trumpism represents a recognition of the need to impose a state of law on issues that Liberals want to address by appealing to the better angels of human nature. The tragedy of liberalism is that human nature is not as pure as supposed nor are humans blank slate onto which morality can be easily written.

            While it is easy to imagine a utopian future where laws are no longer needed because people will cooperate and play the game of life by the rules both capitalism and socialism needs to recognize that the kind of morality this requires is in the very distant future.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
              YEA!!! RIGHT WOW!!! In the middle of the Great Depression.
              It's not nice to make fun of the chronologically challenged...

              Comment


              • #8
                In my (pretty primitive) understanding a conservative is the one who strictly opposes communalism. Possession and responsibility should be personal, not common.
                One of the most attractive traits of conservatism (in my opinion) is the principle to let people work and earn. No oversized taxes and other social payments (that can make profitability of one's daily occupation rather questionable) to feed hordes of freeloaders.

                I hope you'll excuse my somewhat unworldly approach.
                "Keep Calm. Use Less X's"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Funny thing is I thought liberals were much more inclined to believe in some utopian society. Conservatives as a rule I feel are more practical and always want to know how the utopian ideal society is going to be paid for. I think liberals want to portray themselves as moving forward to a better world, while conservatives think liberals are full of crap and want to preserve what they see as the best parts of the past...in other words roll back any changes liberals have succeeded in inflicting on us and go back to the way it used to be.

                  Obviously, before someone says conservatives want to go back to slavery etc that's not what I mean...I mean go back to government that more closely followed what the founding fathers intended. And, liberals, no need to sneer with disdain at the term founding fathers...it's just a phrase not a literal description.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From a UK point of view (and as one who once was treasurer of a Conservative Association) to me it mean one who wishes to conserve the best principles of of one's heritage but remain adaptive and innovative to the demands of the future - not "its a shame we came down out of the trees, stopped eating dinner whilst it was still wriggling and discovered fire" attitude of some posters.
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                      From a UK point of view (and as one who once was treasurer of a Conservative Association) to me it mean one who wishes to conserve the best principles of of one's heritage but remain adaptive and innovative to the demands of the future - not "its a shame we came down out of the trees, stopped eating dinner whilst it was still wriggling and discovered fire" attitude of some posters.
                      Agree...in the US liberals almost universally believe that the native people of North America were living in some paradise before Europeans came along. They all got along with each other, worshiped nature, had babies and lived lives of prosperity and harmony. The reality was they lived in nomadic tribal situations for the most part, killed each other when possible, enslaved people of other tribes, crawled with fleas and ticks, spent all their free time trying to catch dinner, didn't have any idea how to dress like a proper gentleman until the English dandies came along and showed them all their lace and finery. For that type of stuff liberals are way more conservative, ironically, because they believe that whole thing should have been preserved and I suppose allowed to live alongside the modern world with all it's normal people.

                      By now we've all seen 'Naked and Afraid', we know how the whole native people utopia thing goes. Badly.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        Until the U.S. dominated the world with the treat of nuclear annihilation Europeans were in the habit of killing each other in huge bloody batches every few decades. To go back 80 years we would return to a world where security and freedom were measured by which year it happened to be.

                        There is an evident progression in human history where what Dobbes called the Leviathan or state authority has made the probability of violent death increasingly less likely. Beyond violent death the state has also made security for the poor, the old and the sick a reality that many people 80 years ago would have thought impossible. One need only look at places such as Somalia to see what a stateless society actually looks like.

                        Today to some extent it is the success of state security that is the danger. In some ways it is too much of a good thing. With the rise of political correctness and multiculturalism the state may tend to extend it's control beyond it's traditional security services.

                        The end game in almost every political philosophy is a utopia. Extreme capitalism represents a form of political anarchy not that much different that the kind of anarchy that Marx's envisioned where every actor in society cooperates without coercion only possible with a highly moral population.

                        It is the coercive power of the state that both provides security and threatens individual liberty. The proper balance is dependant on the morality of the majority of a Nation's population. Extreme capitalism and Marxism are differentiated primarily by competition. They both however see competition or cooperation as existing in a void of coercion.

                        The main the distinction between Liberal and Conservative views seems to be around the nature of the human condition. Liberals see the world through the lens of communialism and conservatives see human nature as being a struggle for dominance. A combination of the two would capture human nature fairly well but both sides are committed to their world views in ways that make compromised difficult.

                        Cooperation is the hallmark of civilization. Even in competitive sports it is the ethical standards of the players to follow the rules that makes the game rich or poor. The failure of today's conservatives to demand a market place where ethics predominate has allowed liberals to exploit a weakness in the system and impose excessive communialism through the state.

                        Because of the complexity of modern society it is hard to address the issues directly. Trumpism represents a recognition of the need to impose a state of law on issues that Liberals want to address by appealing to the better angels of human nature. The tragedy of liberalism is that human nature is not as pure as supposed nor are humans blank slate onto which morality can be easily written.

                        While it is easy to imagine a utopian future where laws are no longer needed because people will cooperate and play the game of life by the rules both capitalism and socialism needs to recognize that the kind of morality this requires is in the very distant future.
                        I have never figured out the conflict in the Christian churches between communalism and individual responsibility. To me Christian communalism would seem to be the ideal utopia, but that would mean going back 2000 years!
                        Acts 2:44-45 reads: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common.
                        And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

                        But there are some who argue that a Christian communalism is not the same as a state forced sharing of all things. So truthfully, in that event, we cannot call ourselves a “Christian nation.” I think if we are going to legislate on sexual morality to be more Christian as a nation, we should legislate to force communalistic sharing as a Christian obligation to our “Christian nation” to truly follow scripture.

                        However, since we are getting more and more non-believers in the US, I would imagine that Christian communalism, i.e., liberal communalism will be becoming more and more rare.
                        Homo homini lupus

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          Until the U.S. dominated the world with the treat of nuclear annihilation Europeans were in the habit of killing each other in huge bloody batches every few decades. To go back 80 years we would return to a world where security and freedom were measured by which year it happened to be.

                          There is an evident progression in human history where what Dobbes called the Leviathan or state authority has made the probability of violent death increasingly less likely. Beyond violent death the state has also made security for the poor, the old and the sick a reality that many people 80 years ago would have thought impossible. One need only look at places such as Somalia to see what a stateless society actually looks like.

                          Today to some extent it is the success of state security that is the danger. In some ways it is too much of a good thing. With the rise of political correctness and multiculturalism the state may tend to extend it's control beyond it's traditional security services.

                          The end game in almost every political philosophy is a utopia. Extreme capitalism represents a form of political anarchy not that much different that the kind of anarchy that Marx's envisioned where every actor in society cooperates without coercion only possible with a highly moral population.

                          It is the coercive power of the state that both provides security and threatens individual liberty. The proper balance is dependant on the morality of the majority of a Nation's population. Extreme capitalism and Marxism are differentiated primarily by competition. They both however see competition or cooperation as existing in a void of coercion.

                          The main the distinction between Liberal and Conservative views seems to be around the nature of the human condition. Liberals see the world through the lens of communialism and conservatives see human nature as being a struggle for dominance. A combination of the two would capture human nature fairly well but both sides are committed to their world views in ways that make compromised difficult.

                          Cooperation is the hallmark of civilization. Even in competitive sports it is the ethical standards of the players to follow the rules that makes the game rich or poor. The failure of today's conservatives to demand a market place where ethics predominate has allowed liberals to exploit a weakness in the system and impose excessive communialism through the state.

                          Because of the complexity of modern society it is hard to address the issues directly. Trumpism represents a recognition of the need to impose a state of law on issues that Liberals want to address by appealing to the better angels of human nature. The tragedy of liberalism is that human nature is not as pure as supposed nor are humans blank slate onto which morality can be easily written.

                          While it is easy to imagine a utopian future where laws are no longer needed because people will cooperate and play the game of life by the rules both capitalism and socialism needs to recognize that the kind of morality this requires is in the very distant future.
                          Now you're speaking of conditions in Europe. had America remained aloof from the constant wars in Europe, we would be much richer and much better off.

                          "Capitalism", BTW, came from Europe, not America.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Now you're speaking of conditions in Europe. had America remained aloof from the constant wars in Europe, we would be much richer and much better off.

                            "Capitalism", BTW, came from Europe, not America.
                            Except that you'd have had no one to trade with and the great Wall Street crash would have come even sooner. Get back up into the trees
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My 2cents on American Cuckservatism:

                              Being Cuckservative in current definition means agreeing to DEM's position just a few years later, due the facts that the Cuckservative and the DEM come from the same social circle.

                              Cuckservative voters are also undermined by the Financial Casino/Globalists and buy completely into the Low Tax-Free Trade-Mantra.

                              Cuckservative voters are hyper-focused on non important issues like abortion etc. They continued get f* over by "pro-life" candidate on much more important issues like immigration.

                              American Cuckservative often hate Russia rabbidly, ignoring the fact that Russia shares the same Greek-Roman cultural heritage and Judeo-Christian value-set. Meanwhile they suck up Somali cultural enrichment and smile while their daughters bleed...


                              The Western Estabishment hates Trump, Orban, AfD, Le Pen, Syriza, UKIP and co, because the voter-cattle is slowly abandoning them and turns to Nationalism.
                              Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying culture. Aristotle

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X