Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Hancock · 05-07-2003, 10:18 AM

The super right radicals presently in our goverment are conserving us backward this is the first president since Hoover to post negative job growth. Since they are unwilling to share and constantly wish to benifit at the cost of others are Goverment is receeding from democratic princibals. They are jeopardizing both our country and the future of mankind. Now I'll be critized for expressing an interest in the fate of mankind by who else conservatives.

Martin

Joe6Pack · 05-07-2003, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
I like these types of mischaracterizations.

Conservatism generally holds individual rights to be of the utmost importance. With that in mind, you're damned right that people want to keep what belongs to them and not be forced by a group of people to give it away for some so called "higher purpose".

To me, there is nothing of greater importance than MINE.

My family.
My job.
My home.
My health.
My financial security.
My comfort.

Everything else comes in a distant 2nd, 3rd, and 156th.
I don't steal from anyone else to pay my bills, feed my family, or engage in leisure activities. I am not responsible for anyone else's lot in life but my own and those I am obligated to. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't help out a friend in need-I have done so before. But I wouldn't hurt my wife and kids lifestyle to do it.

Someone on this board once asked me, "didn't your mom teach you to share as a child?" My answer is this; yes she did but she also didn't give my toys to the kid I was playing with when he had to go home at the end of the day either.

Selfish? If you wish to call it that if it makes you feel better about whatever it is you need to feel better about then have at it. But the way I see the word used here is better interpreted as "you have more than other people and you don't want to part with it. That makes you immoral." Or "you have no right to what you consider 'yours'. If you weren't so rotten you'd realize that". Whatever the case may be, the philisophy is one of intimidation and theft.

I'm not a Republican and more and more I think they lose sight of the sanctity of the individual due to religious influence. And using Dubbya as some sort of example of thoughtful conservatism is like using----nevermind, I'm crappy with metaphors. But it's inaccurate.

Well said. I work my ass off for the lifestyle I want. That does not mean I don't help the community. My wife recently got offered a job that paid better than the one she has now, after doing the math it turned out that it would have bumped us up a bracket tax wise and been of no benefit. That really sucks:banghead:

Optional · 05-07-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs
George Lakoff is a liberal who wondered why conservatives have done so well in recent elections, and tried to analyze and compare liberal and conservative outlooks. As one who once considered myself a conservative, but now label myself as a liberal, yet one who has not forgotten that there is some real value to conservative values (some of them, anyway), I think he has an interesting thesis and does a pretty good job of it. He webbed up a summary of his thoughts on Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust, if anyone is interested.

This was very, very interesting, and I think it may be vital for liberals to read and understand... The basic idea (if whoever's reading this hasn't read it) is that both conservative and liberal viewpoints spring from deep metaphors about just what a family is and how it should work, and how that relates to basic morality.

The point, I think, being that conservatives are very aware of where their values arise, thus explaining the huge emphasis on 'family values', and ALSO explaining how and why conservatives are able to attain such unity of thought. Liberals, on the other hand, are NOT aware of the tie, and have simply abandoned the 'family values' field to the conservatives, when this is PRECISELY where we should be ATTACKING! Our ignorance of our basic unity has also led to the relatively fractured world of liberalism, where you can never get more than two people ever agreeing just what 'liberalism' actually IS.

Very, very cool article... Thanks, Hobbs.

-me

Jane Bovary · 05-07-2003, 05:57 PM

Reading your response Lamma and then that article I can see truths in it...its food for thought.

To sum up, the conservative world-view and the constellation of conservative positions is best explained by the Strict Father model of the family, the moral system it induces, and the common Nation-as-Family metaphor that imposes a family-based morality on politics.

People can identify with this...it seems safe and secure, if judgemental and moralistic, like a strict but dependable father. Conservatives are successful in the electorate because they they play upon notions of *moral strength* and offer straightforward, familiar moral answers to complex problems. This makes conservatism accessible and easy.

Not only is there no unified liberal political structure, but there is no overall effective liberal rhetoric to counter the carefully constructed conservative rhetoric

This is true. Conservatives have mastered the language of their own politics. Like the best Ad men they constantly reinforce their message with simple but powerful catchphrases that underpin the moral metaphor of the Strict Father family.

"punishment"..."protection"..."good and bad" ..."reward" ...et cetera.

Liberals need to unify, sort out their metaphors and rhetoric and edge their Nurturant Parent model into peoples pysche.

dcwolf · 05-07-2003, 05:58 PM

Lamma,

Conservatives typically have no consideration of the affect of their environmental values. For me, Galbraith's statement applies in part to the disregard for the habitats and lives of the earth's creatures, and the state of the environment in future decades.

Ultron · 05-07-2003, 10:32 PM

I'm a Conservative and I recycle, don't use styrofoam (still) and conserve electricity and water. I don't litter. I don't smoke. I drive an economy car. Until solar-powered/electric cars are cheaper and better than gas-powered cars and come to a budget that I can afford I'll still rely on my current one. I don't think this has anything to do with being a Conservative or Liberal, really.

Joe6Pack · 05-08-2003, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dcwolf
Lamma,

Conservatives typically have no consideration of the affect of their environmental values. For me, Galbraith's statement applies in part to the disregard for the habitats and lives of the earth's creatures, and the state of the environment in future decades.

Are you aware that the EPA was founded by a republican president? While conservatives are often seen as enemies of the enviroment, I think that most people on both sides care very much.

HaysooChreesto! · 05-08-2003, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dcwolf
Lamma,

Conservatives typically have no consideration of the affect of their environmental values. For me, Galbraith's statement applies in part to the disregard for the habitats and lives of the earth's creatures, and the state of the environment in future decades.

I think your first sentence is inaccurate. If it were then pollution would be getting worse and worse here in America. The fact is that it's getting better and has been for some time. Conservatives care about the environment but I'll admit that they needed some pushing from the left to get them started. I think that the word conservative describes a very sound way to approach environmental policies.
Such policies should and are approached by conservatives with the idea in mind that the health, wealth, and comfort of human beings are paramount. Humanity must come first and everything else a distant "next" when assessing enviromental policy.

It's human beings who appreciate the "earths's creatures". It's humanity that assigns value to the environment and the animals that live in it. Without us, the earth has no value. Therefore it's imperative that humans exploit the earth to the utmost in order to advance humanity. This doesn't mean the wholesale slaughter of all animal species or any other enviro-nightmare scenario. Obviously poisoning our own water and air is detrimental to us so we need and have regulations to govern such matters. Some regulations are too weak and some are too draconian, but most fit in the context in which they were created.

Future decades? Look back just 30 years and think about how far we have come in terms of environmental awareness and action.
The worst pollution is long behind us and I think I'm safe in saying that conservative are glad for that.

Loren Pechtel · 05-08-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe6Pack
Are you aware that the EPA was founded by a republican president? While conservatives are often seen as enemies of the enviroment, I think that most people on both sides care very much.

The Republicans of the past aren't the Republicans of the present. They share little more than the name.

Dr. Retard · 05-08-2003, 11:30 AM

About that article, I agree that political positions often stem from metaphorical thinking more than from consistent principles. However, this...

Quote:

It is important to understand that conservative opposition to abortion is not just an overriding respect for all life. If it were, conservatives would not favor the death penalty. Nor is it a matter of protecting the lives of innocent children waiting to be born. If it were, conservatives would be working to lower the infant mortality rate by supporting prenatal care programs. The fact the conservatives oppose such programs means that they are not simply in favor of the right-to-life for all the unborn. Instead, there is a deep and abiding, but usually unacknowledged, reason why conservatives oppose abortion, namely, that it is inconsistent with Strict Father morality.

...is stretching it. The standard reason conservatives oppose abortion might still be: they think the state is obliged to protect all innocent people from being deliberately killed. Criminals don't count, they're not innocent. Prenatal care programs are beside the point, since no one but Mother Nature is aiming to kill those fetuses. Conservatives think the state should be concerned with the deliberate killing of innocents, not with deliberate killing in general, not with innocents dying due to rotten luck.

Now, maybe the metaphorical thinking is the root cause of holding this principle. Or maybe people aren't really holding the principle, but instead buying into the metaphor. But there's no need to resort to such epicycles when there's a plain principle out there, one that pro-lifers are at pains to highlight. Hell, I'm pro-choice and I know the principle!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2003, 10:18 AM	#31
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	The super right radicals presently in our goverment are conserving us backward this is the first president since Hoover to post negative job growth. Since they are unwilling to share and constantly wish to benifit at the cost of others are Goverment is receeding from democratic princibals. They are jeopardizing both our country and the future of mankind. Now I'll be critized for expressing an interest in the fate of mankind by who else conservatives. Martin

05-07-2003, 05:57 PM	#34
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	Reading your response Lamma and then that article I can see truths in it...its food for thought. To sum up, the conservative world-view and the constellation of conservative positions is best explained by the Strict Father model of the family, the moral system it induces, and the common Nation-as-Family metaphor that imposes a family-based morality on politics. People can identify with this...it seems safe and secure, if judgemental and moralistic, like a strict but dependable father. Conservatives are successful in the electorate because they they play upon notions of moral strength and offer straightforward, familiar moral answers to complex problems. This makes conservatism accessible and easy. Not only is there no unified liberal political structure, but there is no overall effective liberal rhetoric to counter the carefully constructed conservative rhetoric This is true. Conservatives have mastered the language of their own politics. Like the best Ad men they constantly reinforce their message with simple but powerful catchphrases that underpin the moral metaphor of the Strict Father family. "punishment"..."protection"..."good and bad" ..."reward" ...et cetera. Liberals need to unify, sort out their metaphors and rhetoric and edge their Nurturant Parent model into peoples pysche.

05-07-2003, 05:58 PM	#35
dcwolf Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 1,869	Lamma, Conservatives typically have no consideration of the affect of their environmental values. For me, Galbraith's statement applies in part to the disregard for the habitats and lives of the earth's creatures, and the state of the environment in future decades.

05-07-2003, 10:32 PM	#36
Ultron Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: here Posts: 738	I'm a Conservative and I recycle, don't use styrofoam (still) and conserve electricity and water. I don't litter. I don't smoke. I drive an economy car. Until solar-powered/electric cars are cheaper and better than gas-powered cars and come to a budget that I can afford I'll still rely on my current one. I don't think this has anything to do with being a Conservative or Liberal, really.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.