[PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative?

Steve Jorgensen jorgens at coho.net
Fri Mar 29 10:24:40 UTC 2002


On Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:52 PM, Jeme A Brelin [SMTP:jeme at brelin.net] 
wrote:
>
> 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.

I was going to say...

"As I stated previously, I am a former "Liberal".  As such, I take great 
amusement in the accurate representation of "Liberals" is sanctimonious 
hypocrites.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but you took a post and an 
article that really poked equal fun at all political biases in different 
ways, and responded to it as a specific attack on liberalism.  In a way, 
you are demonstrating the point, that we "Liberals" must learn to lighten 
up a bit."

On thorough reading, though, I see that you did say much more of deep 
substance - I'll definitely have to follow up on your H.G. Wells 
references.




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list