[PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative?

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Mar 29 01:51:31 UTC 2002


On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote:
> What, for example, is the "Conservative" position on the drug war?  
> Market conservatives (at least the honest ones) see government
> interfering in commerce on the basis of misguided moralism.

Right.  "Market conservatives" claim moral neutrality.  This allows them
to dismiss human rights and dignity as being irrelevant to their work even
though these people support systems that foster the destruction of both.

> Social conservatives see vice and evil and want government to act to
> put a stop to it.

Right.  "Social conservatives" are all about enacting their current value
systems as permanent regulation.

> And Liberals?  Well, who the heck knows what they think about the drug
> war...

So, did your degree only cover "conservatives"?

I think it's fairly safe to say that there are folks who self-identify as
"liberals" who believe all kinds of different things about the drug war.  
Personally, I've never met one that supported it, but that's not to say
they're not out there.  It takes all kinds.

> as far as I can tell, they're simply content to thank their personal
> higher power that it didn't get rolling until after most of them
> graduated from college.  Besides, it has nothing to do with choice,
> which is the only issue Liberals agree about anyway.

Wow, but you haven't stereotyped anyone or anything.

> While on the subject, I read an essay recently that plug-talk'ers
> might enjoy... it's a fun rant on why the three major branches of
> American political thought all suck.  
> (http://www.scalzi.com/w020322.htm).

I referenced H.G. Wells' The New Machiavelli earlier.

He gives a very good description of what he says are the three inevitable
political groups.  They're not too different from what is written here,
but he writes with a much more measured and compassionate show of deep
understanding than the above article could possibly muster.

His statement on "the liberals", for example, shows that they are weak by
design, not by a failure within their ranks.  They are necessarily the
group of the disenfranchised and the under-represented.  As soon as they
gain power, they cease to be liberal because they are no longer
disenfranchised... they are the establishment.

Wells gives a much more complete description of why these names change in
meaning every few years by showing that they don't apply to a set of
ideologies, but to a social role that is often met by folks with different
views.

If you want to see what an intelligent, unbiased view on this subject
looks like, read Wells' The New Machiavelli.

"Oh," I hear you now, "he's unbiased, is he?  Are you saying he had no
political agenda when he wrote this book?"

Absolutely not.  I'm saying that he DID have a political agenda, but the
words defined a totally different set of people a century ago and the fact
that his descriptions of the groups still apply even though the ideologies
have shifted shows that what he wrote does not depend on his own personal
views.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list