How the Iranian Elections Make Me Feel

June 13, 2009 at 11:51 pm (By Amba) (, , )

Stupid World

(from the great Raccoon Story . . . last strip on this page)

5 Comments

  1. Donna B. said,

    June 14, 2009 at 1:46 am

    I’ve lost my login… but I wanted to post about what it is to be a conservative.

    I don’t think Rush, Gingrich, Huckabee, and numerous other Republican “big names” define what I consider my own conservatism.

    So… I’m sorry if I’m hijacking this thread — but what do the commenters here have to say about these 10 conservative principles:

    http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

  2. Jason (the commenter) said,

    June 14, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Donna B., I deny the author’s claim that Conservatism as he described it is anything but an ideology and I think his definition of Conservatism tries too hard to mesh political and Christian ideas. For me, the entire article was a mess and I wish the author had spent more time writing clearly defined statements than vague ones which confounded one another. If Jeremy Bentham still lived he would have an easy time picking this apart.

    I disagree with what I felt was an unstated argument of the author: that Conservatism has a greater claim to a historical legacy than other ideologies. Also, I found the author’s attack on coffee-house philosophers to be strangely anti-intellectual.

  3. Ennui said,

    June 15, 2009 at 9:25 am

    I’ve never been in on a hijacking before, but here goes …

    I wish the author had spent more time writing clearly defined statements than vague ones which confounded one another. If Jeremy Bentham still lived he would have an easy time picking this apart.

    I think you’re missing the point. Conservativism cannot be reduced to clearly defined statements. Conservatives of Kirk’s flavor (that is to say, conservatives) believe that society has evolved organs and practices that are necessary or good even if no single human being can comprehend or trace out their every effect. The French Revolution had a consistent, brief Declaration of the Rights of Man. England had, well, the English Constitution, a hodgepodge of Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Common Law, Parliamentary statutes, time tested practices and traditions. According to Burke, it couldn’t be boiled down or even fully understood. The individual is foolish but the species is wise.

    Think about this is the context of gay marriage. It doesn’t seem like it will do any harm. But it does appear to involve an essential (and, as far as I know, unprecedented) change in the meaning of marriage. What effects will this have? It will make some gays very happy. What other effects will it have over the long term? It’s impossible to say. One has to wait to find out. It’s like taking the latest, greatest anti-depressant. The immediate effects may be good but the long term effects are, by definition, unknown (because it hasn’t been around long enough for anyone to have tried it over the long term). All you know for certain is that it alters brain chemistry in a noticeable way.

    I disagree with what I felt was an unstated argument of the author: that Conservatism has a greater claim to a historical legacy than other ideologies.

    Once again, a central theme of conservatism, as it developed in reaction against the French Revolution, was that we, as citizens, have duties not only to our fellow citizens and to our posterity but also to those who came before. Grok that. It is a political community existing across tiime where Washington and Jefferson have a vote, too, so to speak. Draw a circle on a flat piece of paper in your mind. Within that circle is every living citizen. Lay the piece of paper on a desk and imagine extending it up and down into a cylinder (like the trunk of a tree) where up is the future and down is the past. For conservatives like Kirk, that extended body is the political community – comprised of living, those not yet born and those passed away. Conservatives try to balance the votes of the dead with the votes of those not yet born and both of those against their own votes.

  4. amba12 said,

    June 15, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Conservatives try to balance the votes of the dead with the votes of those not yet born and both of those against their own votes.

    I believe there is a famous Chesterton quote about that . . . but I’m going to refrain from Googling. Work to do.

  5. Jason (the commenter) said,

    June 15, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    Ennui , thanks I’m getting a better understanding of their ideology from you than Kirk.

    According to Burke, it couldn’t be boiled down or even fully understood.

    Sounds like they wold have a hard time telling someone who was following their brand of Conservatism from someone who was making things up.

    we, as citizens, have duties not only to our fellow citizens and to our posterity but also to those who came before.

    One of my problems with this brand of Conservatism would be that it’s proponents have appointed themselves arbiters of who is allowed to vote. They want to maintain current conditions, so they pick the dead people who voted for the current conditions as ‘extra voters’. Of course the dead can’t change their minds, which is even better.

    Unfortunately, people follow a government as long as it is useful. The dead aren’t going to revolt, but the living will. Ignore them at your own peril.

    I can see why this brand of Conservatism isn’t very popular.

Leave a comment