[rollei_list] OT: Political Labels
- From: Marc James Small <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:15:31 -0400
At 03:20 PM 4/21/05 -0700, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> I'm glad that you said this refers to Denmark and the=20
>names of political parties because I have come to the=20
>conclusion that descriptives like liberal, conservative,=20
>socialist, etc, have lost any semblance of meaning for=20
>political philosophy. I read commentaries stating something=20
>as a "conservative" or "liberal" philosophy which is=20
>completely the reverse of the way I would have classified=20
>it. I think terms like these, at least in the USA, have=20
>become more code words for being somehow loyal or disloyal.=20
Right and Left, Liberal and Conservative, are tricky terms today. =20
The Right now consists of a mixture of economic conservatives (tax cuts and
no government), social conservatives (let's do it as we did forty years
ago), philosophic conservatives (personal liberty is grand and whatever we
have to change, do so slowly), and religious conservatives (let's do it the
way our God, and take your choice, directed). =20
The Left is now a mixture of economic liberals (redistribute that wealth
and micromanage all of the factories!), social liberals (down the military!
up the dispossed classes!), philosphic liberals (Krupotkin has much to
ponder but then, what about Bakunin?), and the union movement (we don't
care if it forces the company into bankruptcy: GIVE US MORE!). (I started
to list that last as "religious liberals" as, frankly, the most obvious
mark of a liberal religious person is a dedication to all claims, however
absurd, by any labor union and, second, as adherence to labor tends, at
least in the US, to be of a religious nature.)
Thus, we really have eight groups contending for status and all are uneasy
with their neighbors. The philosophic conservatives thought it was great
that Michael Schiavo finally was allowed to do what he thought was
necessary, while the economic conservatives did.t care, the social
conservatives didn't have a position, and the religious conservatives rose
up in horror. At the same time, the Left split as well, with the
philosophic liberals adhering to the principle that whatever the government
orders must, by definition, be correct, and thus the efforts to reinsert
the feeding tube were proper. (Those who have never spoken at length with
a dedicated Bolshevik have missed much but, by God, speaking with a
dedicated Trotskyite is much more fascinating. The Third International had
a table set up outside the Yale Commons while I was there, so I often
frittered my lunch-hour away in pointless political dialogue with these
dudes. What made it better was that I speak some Russian, so I was often
able to correct their pronunciation and translations. Oy Vey!)
At the same time, the philosophic conservatives strongly supported Michael
Schiavo and dissented markedly from the attitude adopted by their occasinal
allies. (There is a letter to this effect in today's ROANOKE TIMES, but
Neal Boortz, a radio talk-show host, has probably been the strongest
proponent of the position that the government has no business in this=
matter.)
It is more than a bit confused, but there are not really any doctrinaire
"liberals" or doctrinaire "conservatives" today.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Cha robh b=E0s fir gun ghr=E0s fir!
Other related posts:
