next »

[pyshnov]

zharkov, you say:

Dewey [liberal position] maintained that the values of pre-industrial society are not necessarily the values that industrial society should adhere to.

and:

On my view, traditional values have more to do with living a frugal (conservative) lifestyle, not engaging in conspicuous consumption.

Comparing the liberal position with traditional position is interesting. Anyone who was ushering in the industrial society and the technological and other "progress", was liberal. And they always understood that they need to engage people in "conspicuous consumption". Why?

That's because industrial production gave product of inferior quality, comparing with the hand-made product, but in huge quantity. If it wasn't clear then, it is clear now. Striking example is paper, paper made in 18 century is much better today than one made yesterday. The old chair serves today, the aluminum one goes to the garbage after the first scratch. Not to speak of houses. Inductrial product, also, does not have cultural value. It's not that a product made on the production line can not be made good, but to make a good product there is economically impossible; by hand - is cheaper!

So, the "progress" needed huge consumption, rotating the product and rotating the money, it needed the product with short life-span. Again, if it wasn't obvious then, it's obvious now. And here is liberalism ad libitum: Don't be too shrewd, buy more, pass the buck, life is beautiful!

But something is degrading, fast and dangerously. Canadian atomic reactors build in the 60's and stopped for maintenance, could not be made working again despite a few billion dollars spent in the last few years. It's not that they can not work, but the qualified engineers are not there anymore.

[helpful]

Let's please try to work together.

First of all, "Republican" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".

Secondly, your statement above is a good starting point for a definition of liberalism. Essentially, the definition of liberalism and its practice that you articulate is antithetical to conservatives. Their definition of conservatism is about 'divide', us and them, friends and enemies.

[zharkov]

Comparing the liberal position with traditional position is interesting. Anyone who was ushering in the industrial society and the technological and other "progress", was liberal. And they always understood that they need to engage people in "conspicuous consumption". Why?

I would argue that Veblen, who coined the term conspicuous consumption, was critiquing that social practice.  He was also quite the liberal, although I doubt that he himself would describe himself that way.

[acrimone]

Yes, well, we will see what you say when your house is lapped by ocean waves as people in the maldives and in some pacific islands where their land is being overwhelmed by rising seas.

... do what?

[zharkov]

So, the "progress" needed huge consumption, rotating the product and rotating the money, it needed the product with short life-span. Again, if it wasn't obvious then, it's obvious now. And here is liberalism ad libitum: Don't be too shrewd, buy more, pass the buck, life is beautiful!

Pyshnov, Thinking of your comment called to mind a book, once widely read, called Small is Beautiful, by E. F. Schumacher.  If you have not read it, you may want to.  The funny thing is that Schumacher would be considered at least a liberal, likely a progressive or even radical, at least in the US and UK. That is, not at all conservative, at least according to the Anglo-American use of that term.

Z

[helpful]

Yes, well, we will see what you say when your house is lapped by ocean waves as people in the maldives and in some pacific islands where their land is being overwhelmed by rising seas.

... do what?

I am not clear what you are saying.

[acrimone]

We'll see what I say...

When my house is lapped by waves...

As people do what?

[navydad]

"He often cites polls showing that the most-conservative students are freshmen and the least conservative are seniors as proof that "left-wing indoctrination is working."" Perhaps this is proof that education is working.

Part of the problem with political "discourse" in the U.S. today is the simplistic and inaccurate division of people into conservative or liberal. As others here have pointed out, it is impossible to define coherently a "conservative" ideology, just as it is impossible to describe a coherent "liberal" ideology. The political establishment benefits from this illusory division. Republicans and Democrats sleep in the same imperialist bed, but it benefits all of them to divert attention away from the truly threatening issues facing humanity (religious fundamentalism, ecological damage and climate change, resource depletion, nuclear weapons, militarism, disease, hunger, overpopulation, to name a few). So the "conservatives" rant about abortion, illegal immigration, homosexuality, and Social Security, while the "liberals" push identity politics and blather on about the evils of Hummers. Are these real issues that affect people's lives? Of course they are, but fighting about them is sort of like arguing about which end of the ship will sink first.

[cpatrick]

First of all, "Republican" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".

Maybe, but it sure has been promoted that way by Republicans.  Fortunately, actions are more evident than campaign slogans and stump speeches.  Conservative might be the message, but results are anything but...

Their [conservatives] definition of conservatism is about 'divide', us and them, friends and enemies.

Sorry, but this is exactly the problem I was talking (writing) about.  Your "textbook" definition of conservatism is likely correct, but the reality of "us versus them" politics is hurting our children and many who don't have the capacity to speak out.  And many people -both liberals and conservatives - are tired of politicians, academicians, and the like making decisions based on those textbook (or Ann Coulter/Michael Moore) definitions for us.  Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

[helpful]

We'll see what I say...

When my house is lapped by waves...

As people do what?

As people buy gas guzzling vehicles and waste non renewable resources.

[helpful]

First of all, "Republican" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".

Maybe, but it sure has been promoted that way by Republicans.  Fortunately, actions are more evident than campaign slogans and stump speeches.  Conservative might be the message, but results are anything but...

Their [conservatives] definition of conservatism is about 'divide', us and them, friends and enemies.

Sorry, but this is exactly the problem I was talking (writing) about.  Your "textbook" definition of conservatism is likely correct, but the reality of "us versus them" politics is hurting our children and many who don't have the capacity to speak out.  And many people -both liberals and conservatives - are tired of politicians, academicians, and the like making decisions based on those textbook (or Ann Coulter/Michael Moore) definitions for us.  Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

We are agreeing with each other. I find it ironic that you say the above but at the same time imply that I don't agree with you!

[cpatrick]

First of all, "Republican" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".

Maybe, but it sure has been promoted that way by Republicans.  Fortunately, actions are more evident than campaign slogans and stump speeches.  Conservative might be the message, but results are anything but...

Their [conservatives] definition of conservatism is about 'divide', us and them, friends and enemies.

Sorry, but this is exactly the problem I was talking (writing) about.  Your "textbook" definition of conservatism is likely correct, but the reality of "us versus them" politics is hurting our children and many who don't have the capacity to speak out.  And many people -both liberals and conservatives - are tired of politicians, academicians, and the like making decisions based on those textbook (or Ann Coulter/Michael Moore) definitions for us.  Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

We are agreeing with each other. I find it ironic that you say the above but at the same time imply that I don't agree with you!

I see your point.  I have strong opinions about this topic (can you tell?) so it is sometimes hard for me to get my point across clearly.... it's that forest/trees thing.  I think we agree more that disagree.  Yes?

[dark_globe]

"He often cites polls showing that the most-conservative students are freshmen and the least conservative are seniors as proof that "left-wing indoctrination is working."" Perhaps this is proof that education is working.

Part of the problem with political "discourse" in the U.S. today is the simplistic and inaccurate division of people into conservative or liberal. As others here have pointed out, it is impossible to define coherently a "conservative" ideology, just as it is impossible to describe a coherent "liberal" ideology. The political establishment benefits from this illusory division. Republicans and Democrats sleep in the same imperialist bed, but it benefits all of them to divert attention away from the truly threatening issues facing humanity (religious fundamentalism, ecological damage and climate change, resource depletion, nuclear weapons, militarism, disease, hunger, overpopulation, to name a few). So the "conservatives" rant about abortion, illegal immigration, homosexuality, and Social Security, while the "liberals" push identity politics and blather on about the evils of Hummers. Are these real issues that affect people's lives? Of course they are, but fighting about them is sort of like arguing about which end of the ship will sink first.

Wow. Somebody who thinks like me.

[dark_globe]

First of all, "Republican" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".

Maybe, but it sure has been promoted that way by Republicans.  Fortunately, actions are more evident than campaign slogans and stump speeches.  Conservative might be the message, but results are anything but...

Their [conservatives] definition of conservatism is about 'divide', us and them, friends and enemies.

Sorry, but this is exactly the problem I was talking (writing) about.  Your "textbook" definition of conservatism is likely correct, but the reality of "us versus them" politics is hurting our children and many who don't have the capacity to speak out.  And many people -both liberals and conservatives - are tired of politicians, academicians, and the like making decisions based on those textbook (or Ann Coulter/Michael Moore) definitions for us.  Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

It will never happen. Coulter, Moore, O'Reilly, Limbaugh et al. make far too much money for there to be any change in attitudes. Hate Talk radio fills people's minds with lies and half-truths to instigate more animosity for the same reason: there's good money in it.

[zharkov]

Our CHILDREN, many ELDERLY, the POOR, and the ENVIRONMENT of this country and world are suffering because of these narrow-minded characterizations.  Please let's have some common respect for each other, get past the "hate the others" diatribe, and fix some of the real problems.

I'd frame the issue quite differently, cpatrick, and say that there are many people who either don't believe these are serious problems or that they are problems that are owing to individual responsilbility, and thus not appropriate for social or collective action.

Let's take these people washing SUVs for free.  They are either making a statement that says "we don't have environmental problems" or "maybe we have environmental problems, but don't expect me to participate in the solution."

At the risk of oversimplifying, liberals tend to be the ones who want to "fix" the problems you listed, and conservatives are the ones who either deny the problems exist or who believe that a government "fix" is not appropriate.  Or may even make matters worse. The conservatives, again to oversimplify, will claim that free markets and individual responsibility are the way to address such problems.