What’s Wrong With Conservatism?



What happens when objectivity itself, is made relative to group identity? The World view, the view of the self and of existence, dives deeper into the subjective. Things like being an American are now deconstructed into becoming, ‘The Real America.’ And the subjectively identified group followers seem fine with the idea. Abstractions are used to deny some consideration from their full presence as Americans, while ones own group is assumed to be their standard bearers, even amidst the startling contradiction generated regarding the self and an other. This is what subjectivity in group identity as an ideology does to inclusive concepts.  The rub is; The followers are blinded to blindness.

In today’s world, it is as if a broken record insist it is still fine, just continue spinning it.

{First this digression of sorts.}

Viewpoint on Epistemology

We humans look into the world, the natural world, and see a kind of knowing we may not be certain of ourselves; instinct and kinds of intuition. Flowers seem to know what to do. Many animals seem, or act as if they know the next thing to do. We intuit our own needs from inner desire, then go about trying to fulfill them. We wish to belong to an absolute knowing, a confidence in Being that is beyond question, beyond fearful doubt.

I have seen in my life, and the lives of others and of many animals, a sense seeming to “know” when to fear, when to be insecure. I have also seen how this apparent knowledge can undermine what is assumed to be my interest. This leading me down a path of a kind of ruin. I have seen ones own fear and insecurity eat them up alive from inside.

Somewhere, without knowing it, ones knowing can become false, yet ones own life seem to prove it true beyond doubt. My opinion is that many, if not all of us, act as if we are certain of things, yet we never question them extensively or objectively. Some of these “knowings” however, we are willing to fight and die over, while questioning others as to why they do not believe as us as well.

We are challenged, whether we admit it or like it or not, to find what is really true, actually correct, if we our to advance own interest in being fulfilled. We are truth seekers looking for facts that will prove their value as truth. The fact is that some of our abstracted laws we assume to be correct may be always changing appearance, for our idea may have never been actually complete. This is part of the struggle of civilization to move toward a more complete state of human being, more near the facts of the Ultimate Reality imbuing the universe beyond our subjective abilities to misread It. It is my view, that Love and Forgiveness are qualities of being that can transcend our divisions in knowing, actually bypassing our own ignorance and its certainty’s. Providing us with a pathway to exit circular states of conflict and misunderstanding.

Particularly since the economic collapse in progress, the anarchy (free to do what I want), or predatory/free market capitalism’s faithful, continue to insist it is the Way, while government intervention in the economy is not. I like how someone just put the issue on Rachel Maddow’s show; ‘That government regulation of business is like having a bumper car, but by taking the bumpers off, you have a demolition derby.’ But it seems some conservatives cannot exit their broken subjective paradigm. The FIX is on them, and unfortunately, they only see us as requiring to believe in their way as well.

It is surreal to hear the allegedly conservative party suggest the very mechanisms that are implicated in today’s economic mess, as the new solutions. This is what cult like thinking, or unsubstantiated faith, will do to you; Faith and belief can and often are manipulated behind your back by clever opportunist. I guess Darwin rules? It is curious how the interest of society, even when obvious, are considered to be beyond the right of society to act, and instead, insist on depending on a failing system to fix itself with our help.

For a while we were being informed by some conservatives that the public works projects of the New Deal were ineffectual (too small?) to have actually shrugged off the market crash effects in the 1930’s. They say that World War Two did to rebounding deed. This is that truncating of context that happens so often to “prove” an argument. Unfortunately for that argument, World War Two was the most massive public works project of all time. And for those not so important jobs programs; I believe that eating or not is quite important to those who participated. How easy it is to dehumanize by ideology as good principle.

It sounds crazy to some of us to ignore those citizens facing calamity due to our economic conditions, but to others, it is the only way. Collective action is demonized, aside from when it must for some reason, attack people for their alleged wrongdoings, or help someone in their political alliance. The individualistic concepts gain a split personality that happens to have a near perfect economic correlation to ones own interest, and not those of others (except abstractly by platitude). It is easy to be blind to the others needs when our own are under stress.

The conservative metal paradigm is closed in upon itself, yet from the inside alone, they cannot perceive it. Their minds are blocked from integral and integrated perceptions of the whole of society, or the world as one process within a larger One Process. Many conservatives are primed to feel both defensive and threatened with extinction by liberalism, because it is a different mode of operation and knowing. Notice conservatism’s appeal is most often to engendering fear and insecurity, then often selecting out liberalism as the target. Someone like me putting this out makes me the target of some as well; Conservatism cannot admit to error in a fundamental way, for their paradigm is that they are the only answer. The fault conservative seem to direct towards their own kind is; You are not pure to conservatism enough.

It seems conservatives cannot understand that liberalism is, yes, not for any one form of conservatism, but actually for them all. A closed paradigm does not see the legitimacy of the open, only its lack of certainty and circular conformity. The object of what are called Progressives, is to work toward a society that works for the benefit of all and addresses the difficulties of all. We do not then, all “get our way” exactly. In that, liberalism is a unifying (in theory) approach that is inclusive, it will seem to not favor any one conservative aspect automatically over another, nor necessarily new ideas. Although liberalism as practiced by many a liberal, will seem to jump to new ideas without thorough questioning or reviewing the preexisting conceptual relationships.

Reality, and the full empowerment’s of societal contract abstraction (freedom, liberty etc), is to be liberalism’s sorting mechanism, and not how someone does not wish change in realization of ideology per say. This seems not a good thing to the self interest of self conserved and obsessed mindsets. Certain more embodied truths, truths fulfilled to their abstract proclamation, can become incomprehensible to subjective bias as ones point of orientation. Now what becomes change, moment to moment, are seen are threats which need interpretation.

The actual motivations as to why conservatism appeals as a response to stress?

Comfort is gained in seemingly clear good and bad definitions that place oneself squarely into the good, the bad in someone and somewhere else. Now, one knows who to blame, and need not ask questions. It is a fundamental mathematical error drawn out into sociological and cosmological definition. But from the end of a blind, or more correctly, blinded alley, the world seems as filled with other blind alleys.

What popular conservatism as defined today does not, and seemingly cannot comprehend, is that by biasing itself to subjective consideration of fact and of idea, it diminishes critical thinking ability to discern truth, or reality correctly. Prime example; The public conservatism “movement” today is against an allegedly liberal (corporate) main stream media. Yet what exactly do they propose, one run by one conservative viewpoint?  One with conservative government oversight?

With liberalism being inclusive and conservatism essentially exclusive, a free press and media (presumably liberal by definition of openness) represents a problem to different factions of conservatism. The conservative news show, for instance, was on the same network with the most sex and violence in its programming. One side of conservatism working against the other, validating the other, as they blame liberalism for the result.  Liberalism does not claim to be perfect, but a hands on involvement with issues, that by nature, will not please everyone.  Our nation was founded by “firebrand liberals”, who intended on a political platform that works for all, no matter how imperfect that definition of all was at the time.

There are grounds for critiquing liberals for hypocrisy, and especially a lack of an attention to notions of freedom that do not take accountability to the repercussions of ones “free” action. These dysfunctions of liberalism as used by opportunistic individuals, remain some of conservatism’s strongest grounds for critiquing liberalism’s out-workings.

Liberals and liberalism continue to seem disingenuous to many conservatives because they (liberals) do not seem to be concerned enough with the ramifications of individual liberty on dysfunctional individuals. Conservatives can see that if their ideals were being lived by absolutely, presumably, the aberrations of individual excess would not happen. This applies most to social conservatives. So as far as liberals are concerned; why would a conservative opt for liberalism if it does not seem to support an answer to their questions of it? This is the oldest argument going on across the world and across the ages. It has not been answered politically, for it in not rightly a political issue. It is cosmological one and ultimately spiritual. Human hearts closed off to others will only accept certain “facts” for the mind to interpret.

Tricks of the mind.

I use this example of how liberalism is perceived in many an argument. Many of the modern conservative rejection retorts to a liberals position often go something like this; If I say I am intolerant of intolerance as a liberal, I will be called from the abstract, intolerant. The liberal position can then be dismissed as self contradictory, instead of actually promoting tolerance in the full implementation of the abstract collective sense. (Tolerance is referring to an opinion of objectionable others who are not actually violating others rights to exercise their rights.) The right wing is full of these out of context abstraction based turn around “proofs” of liberals and liberalism’s alleged contradictions.

Blind philosophical alleys are someones home; They become decorated; They grow histories and mythologies; They become everything. It seems to be the place where life and love comes and goes, a clear place of living; The All. Then, from beyond these alley walls, indications of others, and of alien idea. These are “naturally” threats to a myopic indoctrination of a mathematical error in perspective. The error is ones inability to see the connection to math of abstraction and individual realization to all citizens, or to Life itself. The error is unaccountable to others subjectivity.

Liberalism (which essentially produced democracy, freedom of speech, human rights etc…) is a more advanced means of exploring and discovering unified reality, yet it comes to represent an other to some. It looms to the possessive of subjective identity, as very worrisome, a threat to existence. They must then focus on liberalism’s assumed misuses and unresolved dysfunction as reason to eradicate it.

Next part 2

Then into the world comes conflict of interest

Whole article in page below link

What’s Wrong With Conservatism?

One thought on “What’s Wrong With Conservatism?

  1. What’s wrong with “conservatism” is that it has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

    “[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican

Comments are closed.