Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)
Stream of Consciousness Saturday
by Rick Moran
A lot of things have happened this week that have entered the airy cavity sitting atop my neck and floated around waiting to be recognized as conscious thought.
I can imagine all these little snippets of inner dialogue waiting patiently in line, bitching about how slow a goose I am at moving them from the dark of my subconscious where they effect my thinking in mysterious ways, to the light of consciousness where I can examine them, caress them, milk them for their illuminating properties.
It’s easy to allow emotion to crowd out valuable insights that appear from time to time. At best, we recognize through reflection that perhaps we shouldn’t have written this, or said that, or made a mistake in judgment when analyzing something else. You end up wishing you hadn’t snapped back at your spouse, or yelled at your kid, or dismissed a co-worker’s attempt to be friendly.
I could start a blog and fill it with such reflections without any trouble – as could most of you, I’m sure. Learning from our mistakes is the essence of being human – probably the major factor in the rise of Homo Sapiens. Don’t get too close to that mammoth or you won’t come home from the hunt. Going after a Saber Tooth cat alone is not a good idea if you want to pass your genes on to the next generation. Trial and error not only advanced human evolution, it forms the basis of modern science and has led to the astonishing outpouring of creative thought we see today in everything from computers to razor blades.
Some venues do not allow for such errors. Political blogging is one of them. As ideology is set in stone and cannot be changed or challenged on either the right and the left, variance with the established themes and theses is not only frowned upon but punished severely. Here, “getting it wrong” does not mean that you are necessarily “incorrect,” only that you are in disagreement with the vast majority who march in ideological lock step. Deviate from the shining path and you are cast out as an apostate.
No matter. I came to the conclusion years ago that I could try to be honest with myself and my beliefs, incurring the wrath and disapprobation of those who consider themselves guardians of the Ya-Ya Conservativehood by challenging the underlying assumptions of their excessive and blindered ideology; or toe the line, betray my true beliefs, and enjoy the warmth of fellowship found in their ever narrowing definition of the “true conservative” path.
Lest some believe I am nailing myself to a cross by wallowing in self pity and whining about conservatives – most anyway – not taking me seriously, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I celebrate my freedom from conformity every fu**ing day. I will lord it over those who, when confronted with a new issue, a new attack, feel lost and alone until they are told by others how they must think, be it Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, or other “movement” leaders.
To be fair, most conservatives don’t really need to wait for the word coming down from on high. All they have to do is unthinkingly, uncritically, hold a mirror up to whatever the left is saying about an issue and simply reverse the image. That’s what the Limbaughs of the world do anyway. There’s no reason or rationale to it. That comes later – at least the rationale – as the right congratulates those whose “insights” are the most vitriolic and hateful.
The ideological screen through which most opinion on the right is washed has become internalized so that favorite themes regarding the left – unpatriotic, hate America, socialists, communists, liars, traitors – can be pulled off the shelf and slapped on to any “analysis” to make it conform to the “right thinking” brigades of hysterical paranoids who believe themselves guardians of Reagan’s legacy or, in extreme cases of delusional thinking, of conservatism itself.
(I hasten to add that there are exceptions to be found in the writings of some conservatives like Ed Morrissey, Allahpundit, Victor Davis Hanson, and several other independent thinkers on the right. But as a general rule, I believe my analysis stands.)
In this way, ideology at the expense of rational thought is celebrated and rewarded.
And yes, we find the exact same kind of irrational, nonsensical paranoia on the left. There is no difference. One is not worse than the other, except perhaps there is a bigger responsibility generally recognized throughout history for the majority to treat the minority with respect. But this hasn’t been true in American politics for decades so why bother discussing it?
Barack Obama, to his credit, said yesterday that opposition to his policies is not based on race, but on the fear of change:
In a number of interviews that will air in fuller form Sunday morning, the president also addressed the tone of a heated summer debate over health-care, and the contention of one former president that much of the criticism Obama faces is because he is black.
Some of the most heated opposition to the president’s initiatives are not racially motivated, Obama suggested in response to comments that former President Jimmy Carter had made earlier this week, but rather reflective of the turmoil that is common “when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.”
“Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? – I’m sure there are,” Obama told CNN’s John King. “That’s not the overriding issue here.”
Instead, Obama maintained, it is concern about sweeping government change that has fueled much of the “passion.”
“It’s an argument that’s gone on for the history of this republic,” Obama told NBC News’ David Gregory. “What’s the role of government?… This is not a new argument, and it always invokes passions.”
He is absolutely correct, of course. Not sure that “fear” is exactly the right word to describe what conservatives are feeling. Anyway, I am very glad he said this. But we must demand he go much farther in condemning the wild, out of control explosion of charges being made by his supporters that tar opposition to his policies as motivated solely by race. I realize this is very difficult for him to do because he benefits politically by this ridiculous, false, and hateful rhetoric coming from the left. But as long as his allies continue to deliberately, knowingly, and smugly raise the issue of race and use it as a political club, he will be seen as giving such deceitful arguments credence by the wink and the nudge.
In response to a comment from my brother Jim on my Mary Travers remembrance post, I tried to make the point that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to engage in political combat, and they all boil down to this:
I joke about lefty folkies, of course – more playing to stereotype than reality. But we are of a generation that perhaps learned valuable lessons about civic disagreements and how they can truly lead to bloodshed unless we all remember that we are Americans who love our country and wish only the best for it. If only we could all start from that premise, I think a lot of the ugliness in our politics would be muted and we could get down to the business of truly addressing some of the problems facing the country today.
Does believing this make me any less passionate in my opposition to what I see are the wrongheaded, dangerous polices and politics of Barack Obama? Does not calling the president a Communist or Marxist disqualify my opinions because they are not hateful enough?
To some, yes. And those who cannot see what this kind of rigid, uncritical, self-defeating thinking is doing to our country – both right and left – may live to see the day where useful dialogue and reasoned debate become an impossibility and our country dissolves into weak, divided, quarreling bunch of ideologues who prevent us from facing vital challenges both at home and abroad.
Rick Moran is Associate Editor of The American Thinker and Chicago Editor of Pajamas Media. His personal blog is Right Wing Nuthouse.
30 Responses to “Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice)”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stefano Martinelli and Elizabeth Powers. Elizabeth Powers said: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice): … the dark of my subconscious where they effect my thinking in.. http://bit.ly/Oc5rY [...]
[...] more from the original source: Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice) Share and [...]
Typical RINO. I bet he voted for Obama.
*snicker*
Darn RINO. Stinking up the joint with all that common sense. Sheesh!
Of what possible use is, “freedom from Conformity”, for a Republican when the very meaning of conformity is conservatism?
Wrong. There is no demand for “conformity” in conservatism. Sorry, but that's a pretty shallow understanding of a reverence for tradition and maintaining links with the past. In fact, the very notion of “conservative” was, by definition, hugely non-conformist until the 1970's. We used to call ourselves “individualists” – again, the opposite of conformity.
Conservatism favors the individual approach instead of the collective, it is by nature non conformist, although not all among it are so. The Liberal movement is non conformist in its own way seeking to change the society. Both are conformist in some ways too, traditional Conservatism wants to control the pace of change and take the lessons of history forward along with change at a measured pace, and Liberalism seeks to change more rapidly but via a collective and conformist approach that relies not on individual effort but via large bureaucratic entities that suppress individualism.
To put a label of conformist or non conformist on either group is to not tell the whole story, and intellectually dishonest.
No, I said:…”the very meaning of conformity is conservatism”.
Now do you see just how inefficient your politically biased indoctrination actually is?
Something like “forest for the trees” I think is a fair analogy, but of course now you will deny the veracity of analogy as a debating point.
You are confusing “conservatism” as a cultural identifier with the philosophy. You might wear a “conservative” tie but that doesn't make you a political conservative.
And why put words in my mouth? What could have possibly given you the idea that I would “deny the veracity of analogy?” Is it perhaps you are suffering from “politically biased indoctrination” and seek to set up a strawman argument with no evidence, not even a clue that I would ever make such a statement.
Better look at your zipper – your partisanship is showing.
LOL
…and of course your intellectual encyclopedic reference is….what….there….mister….honest?
Argumentative.
Please restrain yourself to facts. I suggest you start with self introspection. Maybe with a little education thrown in.
Argumentative? No – spot on. And I'm not the one who confuses wearing a conservative tie with someone automatically believing in conservative philosophy. I'm amazed that someone who just suggested that I need a “little education” would demonstrate such towering ignorance as to fail in seeing the difference between convenient shorthand used as a social construct and a political philosophy. Is it your contention that “conservative” fashion carries the same connotation as a political conservative? Perhaps you might explain how this is so – me being so uneducated and all.
Perhaps you also believe if someone wears an outrageously colored, crazy patterned tie, that automatically makes them a liberal instead of someone with very poor fashion sense.
I would give it up. You've already lost and are now just making an idiot of yourself.
That is misunderstanding the party. Conservatives do not conform but their leaders ask them to and are often forced to conform to the party line much like on the left. The difference is that a large percentage of their base gets their news from opinion people not journalists so they get the spin without the story which takes them out of reality by making any other view seem “crazy.” Many Repubs are not social and many are not fiscal conservatives but they are better at sticking to message and fighting for their own side then Dems who tend to attack their own for not being pure enough. That seems to be ending, the Dems(with the exception of the blogosphere have largely let go of the litmus tests since they are self destructive but the Repubs have begun putting the litmus test above all things as requested by Rush and other opinion pushers. Take away their megaphone by turning them off, which will happen eventually, and their level of conformity/non-conformity will look much like the current Dem party.
RickMoran, I liked and agreed with much or your article but your ad hominem laced replies to Father_Time are making you look a lot like DLS.
Well, Steve, perhaps one day you'll be both more mature and also someday learn what the various logical fallacies actually are, rather than learn one or two terms and use them too “liberally”(!).
As for this thread:
“Does not calling the president a Communist or Marxist disqualify my opinions because they are not hateful enough?”
Actually, no, but the real issue is more subtle and more broad at the same time. The problem isn't extreme or demented hatred, but rather your terms are commonplace and that is where on-the-air conservative commentary, in particular, has something of a “cookie-cutter” nature, as I observed on the road these past couple of days. There's a standard playbook with talking points that so many of the commentators appear all to read, which is their own form of conformity that isn't as oppressive or as stupid as the PC Herd and its frequently pathological character, but still — becomes predictable. Mark Levin as well as Glenn Beck routinely say “Marxist,” for example, and with overuse comes a loss of power those words have, as well as boredom from predictability. (In many ways, Limbaugh and his show remain the gold standard; so many others are simply imitating and thereby flattering him, and often doing not much else.)
“There is no demand for “conformity” in conservatism.”
There appears to be conformist pattern in conservative _commentary_ by Rush Limbaugh's followers-on. That was the gist of what I just posted. That is distinct from conservatism (which in fact can and does change, just with much more thought and reasoning and “inertia” and _substance_ than modern liberalism, and especially contemporary post-1960s radicalized liberalism, has ever possessed or exhibited).
@@when the very meaning of conformity is conservatism?@@
What dictionary do you derive your definitions from? Conformity is a measure of relativity to something else, as is conservatism. So, the very meaning of your statement is to say one measure of relativity is the meaning of another measure of relativity.
I could “conform” to the liberal mindset of TMV posters like you. I could be “conservative” in my approach to the overturning Roe v. Wade.
Thanks for playing….try again.
See what I mean?
h/t DLS
And I think your confusing “conservatism” as a cultural identifier with “conservatism” as a political agenda. There is actually quite a bit more conformity in the later than found in the former. Libertarian type Conservatives bear not such a strong resemblance to the social conservatives of the religious right, but both can find more common ground with each other than with progressives. This does not make them blindly conform but it does lead them to unify with reason for some items. When in the minority or during times when under attack strange bedfellows occur. The US did not share alot of values with the USSR under Stalin, but they still found cause to work together to oppose Hitler (not invoking Godwin, just the theory of the enemy of my enemy is my friend). On issues with a common interest is not shared there is little conformity, gay rights for example. At present individual freedoms and capitalismare under fire from the progressives, so its not surprising that those who wish to preserve them, be they conservatives, right-leaning moderate, or blue dogs.
This cartoon sums it up
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/090821/asay.gif
I almost agree with that.
FT,
Why are you being so combative? I think Rick has made some very good points. I don't agree with everything he writes, but his post is thoughtful and fair. I think sometimes it's hard to let go of the puglilistic stance even after the other guy has stopped punching you (and I include myself in this; the “you” is meant broadly).
I think FT is giving as good as he gets. In fact, he may have been the one who threw the first punch.
I've written before about Amitai Etzioni, who has identified US or Western “conservatives” and the two main kinds, which represent the logical division of the Republican Party if it were to be partitioned and become two (or more) parties someday. Etzioni (no conservative) probably makes the best description of this basic division; also related to it are things like previous English history (which even affect North-South relations up to at least the time of the Civil War — Roundheads and Cavaliers).
“While laissez-faire Whigs perceive the state to be created by individuals, for individuals, Tory conservatives view the community as a body into which individual cells are incorporated.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/A198.pdf
“The Closed Community viewpoint is historically associated with church doctrine, nationalism,
and Tory conservatism. These approaches view the society as an integrated body and the
individuals as cells incorporated into the more encompassing entity. The collective body-if
it is mother church, the fatherland, or the invisible college, is viewed as the source of value.
Individuals gain a standing by serving the collectivity. Authority, the legitimate power of the
commons, places and guides individuals, who, it is assumed, are inherently unable to guide
themselves and subject to urges to debase society and themselves. Hence the need to keep the
societal 'lid' on by the use of moral persuasion and/or force. …
In political science Leo Strauss has been a strong advocate of the doctrine of absolute values.
Absolute values provide positive direction to the members of society, and constitute in his terms,
the true liberalism, in contrast to false liberalism that treats all desires (of individuals) as equal,
and leads to spurious freedoms and a decaying society, a very Tory viewpoint. In contempurary
USA the “social agenda” of the Reagan Administration, including its efforts to prohibit
abortions, to force prayers in schools, to decide which medical treatment is to be provided to
handicapped infants, is a direct policy outcome of the Tory position supported by the Moral
Majority and other fundamentalist groups.
The Whig position rose in direct challenge to the Tory dominance. (No attempt is made here
to do justice to many other differences between the two positions or subpositions within each
camp and changes over time. The focus here is on the main positions.) In the opposing view
the individual is not merely the center of the societal universe but the only legitimate actor
and entity. There is, in principle, no need for societal order; it arises automatically out of the
interaction among individuals, whose self-interests are complimentary and harmonious. There is
no justification for external coordination, let alone for an imposed order, by anybody above and
beyond that introduced by individuals themselves. Not only is the legitimation of the state at best
minimal, typically, and negative, but community bonds, if they are mentioned at all, are not part
of the main Whig conceptual framework. While the position is as old as The Wealth of Nations
(and it continues to disregard the 'other' Adam Smith, the author of the Theory of Moral
Sentiments), its contemporary legions are numerous, including both laissez faire conservatives
and libertarians. Among its most forceful proponents are Friedman (1962,1982), von Hayek
(1945, 1960) and Nosick (1974). Their “undersocialired” view of persons is still dominant in
neo-classical economics (Granovetter, 1985), a new school of political science ('public choice')
(Mueller, 1979), and in a sociological branch known as 'exchange theory' (Blau, 1964) and in
psychology (Kelly and Thibaut, 1978). …
In contemporary USA the Whig position is dominant not only in social sciences but also in
the government economic policy, or at least in its ideological manifestations.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/A176.pdf
“The Revolution was by no means a clear-cut nationalist movement, but began as a
civil war that split Whig and Tory in Britain, the United States and in what was to
become Canada. In fact, British Whig intellectuals like Edmund Burke and Charles
James Fox encouraged the American Revolutionaries, while members of the colonial
Whig elite like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington became convinced of the need
for independence no sooner than a year or two before the Revolution. In fact, in much of
the Middle Atlantic and in parts of the South, Tories were a majority, but eventually, the
Whig vision prevailed and the Revolution began to be woven into a new American ethnohistory,
in which a nation of small-farming Davids had vanquished the Imperial Goliath.”
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/staff/academic/eric…
[...] Stream of Consciousness Saturday (Guest Voice) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Rick, back on the substance of your post, I can intellectually absorb that the injecting of hyperbolic charges by both sides distracts from substantive debate of merits (of any topic), nonetheless, I've also come to absorb that it has largely become a standard coin of the realm. I simply do not take it as “world-changing” in the real world. It is a political game for “entertainment”, not the changing of events or personal behaviors not already in evidence.
In my real world circles of politics, neither Beck, nor Limbaugh, nor Palin get much mention, much less are considered “movement” leaders. I laugh heartily when Joe G puts up his 101st post on the topic, because I know he is not privy to the closed-door thinking of the Republican influence circles, nor are any of the other “always offended” posters and editors here. “People” can charge us with being silent to this “movement”……so be it. Our own pure political calculation leads us to believe it is serving a useful “political” purpose. The time will come when the tenor of the Republican voice must change, but that change need not happen right now. While I do not believe Republicans will regain congressional control in 2010, I do believe the stage is already well set for sufficient inroads to derail any liberal agenda in Obama's final 2 years.
As far as Jimmy “economic malaise” Carter's charges of racism, or that of any poster on your blog, this blog, or any other blog, what outcome do you believe they are altering? That dedicated Obama supporters remain dedicated Obama supporters? Yes, but that is the only thing they are accomplishing.
Don't sweat the stuff of no significance.
Sorry Rick. Just felt like stirring the pot. There is nothing better than one arrogant arse trying to out do the other. You know how it is.
set and match
Dear sweet Kathy, I cannot but defend your political honor. Like the sword of Damocles I await those that may, through subterfuge and disingenuous generosity, steal away thy mojo.
Forgive the pedantic veracity of your unworthy guardian’s blowhardedness. I place my red beret at your feet and await my penance.
“Like the sword of Damocles I await those that may, through subterfuge and disingenuous generosity, steal away thy mojo…Forgive the pedantic veracity of your unworthy guardian’s blowhardedness. I place my red beret at your feet and await my penance.”
that was truly coffee-spewing funny. Very conservative.
dr.e
What Dr E. wrote. And I'm actually drinking coffee right now. Your penance, if indeed any was required, has been done.:-)