[lit-ideas] Re: The Heil Heidegger Effect
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:42:49 +0000 (GMT)
> Eric
> asks, “. .
> . why is this syndrome more
> characteristic of liberal zealots than conservative zealots?
> If you disagree with a conservative zealot, you
> are ‘stupid and
> wrong.’ But if you
> disagree with a liberal zealot, you are ‘evil.’ Why this
> tendency?
>
> Suggested answer:
>
> Conservatives, at least American Conservatives,
> hark back to the idea that all power
> belongs to the individual
> citizen. The power government has is
> delegated to it by the citizenry.
> Individuals have certain rights, such as free speech, that
> cannot be taken away by government.
Another suggestion: lack of manners (and being steeped in a tradition of
manners; e.g. "Mama said if you can't say anything good, say nothing at all").
Another suggestion: lack of tolerance (and being steeped in a tradition of
tolerance) - leftists' see progressive advances as being achieved through power
struggles, through political demands backed by force [even voting or striking,
which derive their efficacy from contests of force and are forms of force],
rather than by rational persuasion.
Another suggestion: Leftists are sometimes people who use finger-pointing at
the world as a way of puffing themselves up and of avoiding having to take a
good look at themselves in the mirror; the bigger the finger-wag, the bigger
the avoidance, the more important they are - on the principle "If I can get
people to shut up and listen to me, then there can't be anything wrong with me,
and I must be important and valuable" or "I must be important and valuable, so
shut up and listen to me". [A variant of this principle motivates some people
to criticise and to insist they be taken v. seriously]. [see my posts for
working examples, et passim].
Another suggestion: Leftist [tacit] belief in some form of the doctrine of
manifest truth (which is, for example, hidden by the malign interests of
capitalism, the unenlightened etc). Those who disagree are thus not merely
possibly but manifestly wrong, whether through dishonesty or stupidity, and it
is right to use force/the state to suppress their errors.
Another suggestion: actually neither left nor right have a monopoly of attitude
problems. The Leftist willingness to ban or proscribe has a right-wing
counterpart. Both wingnuts have their liberal factions also. Rudeness,
self-righteous finger-wagging, emotional incontinence, intellectual immodesty -
these cross party lines; as do rationality, openness, modesty and politeness.
The bigger battle is less left-right than between these contrasting attitudes.
Donal
Conscientious objector to the class war
Again, as with the idea of wanting H banned, I of course jest:-
politically England is ruled by the middle-classes and is among the most
classbound of Western societies, and H should not be banned but annually dug up
and hung, drawn and quartered
Scoring this post a perfect ten, even if its truth is all-too-obvious
Noting also, "If Hitler had won, we'd all be speaking German now", reflects
undue optimism about the English capacity for foreign languages
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
