Top 10 conservative movies (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100020772/the-top-10-conservative-movies-of-the-last-decade/)
QuoteThis is a list of the ten best films of the last decade that have advanced a conservative message, ranging from strong support for the military and love for country to the defence of capitalism and the free market.
[...]
A central theme that runs through several of my top ten picks is the eternal conflict between good and evil, and why the forces of tyranny and despotism must be confronted and defeated. They include films that Barack Obama should watch as he contemplates appeasing the likes of Iran and North Korea, or turning a blind eye to mass murder in Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
[...]
The list:
[list=1]
- Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (Peter Weir, 2003)
- Black Hawk Down (Ridley Scott, 2001)
- The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Peter Jackson, 2001, 2002, 2003)
- Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)
- The Pursuit of Happyness (Gabriele Muccino, 2006)
- The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)
- The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2009)
- Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004)
- The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2006)
- 300 (Zack Snyder, 2007)[/l]
The explanations for each pick is given in the article.
Some of these picks are... weird, to say the least :D
How is the Dark Knight in any way conservative?
If anything its anti-conservative; this radical man in black who doesn't obey the rule book and upsets the system in going against the authorities in the pursuit of what is right.
And Hotel Rwanda? WTF...the kind of things they're saying there is 'typical winey liberal' stuff.
It demonstrates the incompetance and crappyness of the UN, it says that the UN should have so much more power. Which of course conservatives would cough up a lung at.
300 though....
Brutal racist, closet homosexuals? Yeah, thats the conservatives alright.
Nothing closeted about the Spartans. :lol:
Yea, I really don't buy it. The author is trying to claim that "good vs evil" is a conservative theme? Even the movies that show support for the military / patriotism - slightly stronger grounds to call them 'conservative', but it still makes me uncomfortable.
ALthough I haven't seen it, Persuit of Happyness is the only one that sounds like it has an identifiable conservative message.
Sparta is the ideal Republican state. Republicans(Equals) rule over the moderates (peroci) and leftists(helots).
This list is crap.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 05:20:07 PM
This list is crap.
Yes, but I still want to imagine Spellus as a helot.
That's just fucking bizarre.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 05:05:21 PM
ALthough I haven't seen it, Persuit of Happyness is the only one that sounds like it has an identifiable conservative message.
Come on, in Gladiator a gladitorial slave kills an Emperor reaffirming conservative values of not killing one's own father.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 05:29:40 PM
That's just fucking bizarre.
How shocking, people that renounce intellectualism say dumb things.
Even though it contains many of the same movies, here is a better list of Conservative movies - National Review's 25 best conservative movies of the last 25 years.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=
Even the titles it shares in common with the first list, it does a much better job of explaining why they are "conservative".
The list isn't perfect, but it's a better starting point.
Plus I bet you never thought of "Ghostbusters" as being a conservative movie. :huh:
I love how a movie about a bunch of midget potheads, tree-hugging homos and ren faire types kicking ass of the big industry and military, advances the conservative message. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 05:20:07 PM
This list is crap.
I see your crap, and raise you crap I'd expect from the Guardian, not the Torygraph.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 05:05:21 PMALthough I haven't seen it, Persuit of Happyness is the only one that sounds like it has an identifiable conservative message.
Only because its character eschews Gittin' On Dat Dere Welfare, and pulls himself up by his bootstraps, which would appeal to racist conservatives and Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas who incidentally never needed bootstraps in the first place.
Quoteand ranks alongside Zulu, Saving Private Ryan and A Bridge Too Far as one of the greatest war films of all time.
Which of these does not belong?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2010, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 05:05:21 PMALthough I haven't seen it, Persuit of Happyness is the only one that sounds like it has an identifiable conservative message.
Only because its character eschews Gittin' On Dat Dere Welfare, and pulls himself up by his bootstraps, which would appeal to racist conservatives and Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas who incidentally never needed bootstraps in the first place.
:rolleyes:
For one thing, I think it's kind of nebulous what "conservative" means here. It seems to be just what some conservatives happen to like. David Vitter is a conservative and enjoys sex with hookers so apparently sex with hookers is a conservative value.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2010, 06:24:13 PM
Quoteand ranks alongside Zulu, Saving Private Ryan and A Bridge Too Far as one of the greatest war films of all time.
Which of these does not belong?
The one where the bad guys are white?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2010, 05:02:57 PM
Nothing closeted about the Spartans. :lol:
Its not so out there in the movie though.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:25:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2010, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 05:05:21 PMALthough I haven't seen it, Persuit of Happyness is the only one that sounds like it has an identifiable conservative message.
Only because its character eschews Gittin' On Dat Dere Welfare, and pulls himself up by his bootstraps, which would appeal to racist conservatives and Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas who incidentally never needed bootstraps in the first place.
:rolleyes:
We all respect how much you've pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, too.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 06:25:44 PM
For one thing, I think it's kind of nebulous what "conservative" means here. It seems to be just what some conservatives happen to like. David Vitter is a conservative and enjoys sex with hookers so apparently sex with hookers is a conservative value.
:rolleyes:
Sure, it's kind of nebulous what "conservative" means (just as the meaning of "liberal" is fairly elastic), but you can certainly pinpoint the vague outlines of what conservative values are:
-respect for tradition
-respect for family
-belief in the individual over the group
-religion
-support the military
-free enterprise
-self reliance
It's not than "liberals" are opposed to any of the above, but those are values more emphasized by Conservatives
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2010, 06:29:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:25:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2010, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 05:05:21 PMALthough I haven't seen it, Persuit of Happyness is the only one that sounds like it has an identifiable conservative message.
Only because its character eschews Gittin' On Dat Dere Welfare, and pulls himself up by his bootstraps, which would appeal to racist conservatives and Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas who incidentally never needed bootstraps in the first place.
:rolleyes:
We all respect how much you've pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, too.
Never claimed that I did. :huh:
I was hardly born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I've gotten a lot of support from my parents growing up. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:30:14 PM
:rolleyes:
Getting a little tired of your bullshit rolleyes spam, conservatard. This ain't glennbeck.com
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:31:05 PM
Never claimed that I did. :huh:
I was hardly born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I've gotten a lot of support from my parents growing up. :hug:
Facetiousness: It's What's For Dinner.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 01, 2010, 06:24:13 PM
Quoteand ranks alongside Zulu, Saving Private Ryan and A Bridge Too Far as one of the greatest war films of all time.
Which of these does not belong?
Saving Private Ryan. How in the hell they can compare that movie to Zulu angers me.
And Grabner's death ride? Cinema perfection.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 06:25:44 PM
For one thing, I think it's kind of nebulous what "conservative" means here. It seems to be just what some conservatives happen to like. David Vitter is a conservative and enjoys sex with hookers so apparently sex with hookers is a conservative value.
:rolleyes:
Sure, it's kind of nebulous what "conservative" means (just as the meaning of "liberal" is fairly elastic), but you can certainly pinpoint the vague outlines of what conservative values are:
-respect for tradition
-respect for family
-belief in the individual over the group
-religion
-support the military
-free enterprise
-self reliance
It's not than "liberals" are opposed to any of the above, but those are values more emphasized by Conservatives
Just out of curiosity could you make a list for what liberals support?
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:10:04 PM
Even though it contains many of the same movies, here is a better list of Conservative movies - National Review's 25 best conservative movies of the last 25 years.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=
Even the titles it shares in common with the first list, it does a much better job of explaining why they are "conservative".
The list isn't perfect, but it's a better starting point.
Plus I bet you never thought of "Ghostbusters" as being a conservative movie. :huh:
That list is only marginally less crappy than the 1st post's one. All the authors seem to project more than a multiplex.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 06:33:28 PM
Just out of curiosity could you make a list for what liberals support?
Obviously anything with niggers, fags, Jews and unions stealing your tax money from the government to not work.
You forgot spics, you asshole. :ultra:
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 06:37:25 PM
You forgot spics, you asshole. :ultra:
We are all trying to forget.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 06:33:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:30:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 06:25:44 PM
For one thing, I think it's kind of nebulous what "conservative" means here. It seems to be just what some conservatives happen to like. David Vitter is a conservative and enjoys sex with hookers so apparently sex with hookers is a conservative value.
:rolleyes:
Sure, it's kind of nebulous what "conservative" means (just as the meaning of "liberal" is fairly elastic), but you can certainly pinpoint the vague outlines of what conservative values are:
-respect for tradition
-respect for family
-belief in the individual over the group
-religion
-support the military
-free enterprise
-self reliance
It's not than "liberals" are opposed to any of the above, but those are values more emphasized by Conservatives
Just out of curiosity could you make a list for what liberals support?
Okay, trying to be quite fair-minded...
-questioning authority and tradition
-sexual freedom
-belief in collective rights (e.g. collective bargaining)
-questioning faith
-pacifism / negotiating solutions
-government as a positive influence
-'people helping people'
Feel free to criticize - I spent 60 seconds, and tried to compare the list to my earlier list, when I didn't really design the first list in that manner...
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 04:58:26 PM
How is the Dark Knight in any way conservative?
If anything its anti-conservative; this radical man in black who doesn't obey the rule book and upsets the system in going against the authorities in the pursuit of what is right.
It's the conflict of order vs. chaos, what can be a more conservative message? The fact that it was all about terrorism tied it to the Bush administrations narrative in nearly every review I read.
Do you realize that these lists are internally inconsistent? How can you put "respect for family, tradition, religion, military" right next to "belief in individual over group"? These very ideas are exactly about the individual putting his or her freedom behind the values of the group he or she belongs to.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2010, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 06:37:25 PM
You forgot spics, you asshole. :ultra:
We are all trying to forget.
We are like VD, you try to forget us, but every once and a while we come back to haunt you...or something.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 06:39:38 PM
It's the conflict of order vs. chaos, what can be a more conservative message? The fact that it was all about terrorism tied it to the Bush administrations narrative in nearly every review I read.
Batman though is disorder himself. It wasn't order vs chaos. Quite the opposite, Batman was used to chaos (him) vs order (organised crime) and instead he ended up here faced by someone who just wants to watch the world burn.
Conservative Batman would stick with the police and not end up their enemy at the end, he'd play by the rule book and arrest the joker and let Dent be saw to be the criminal he was.
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 06:45:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 06:39:38 PM
It's the conflict of order vs. chaos, what can be a more conservative message? The fact that it was all about terrorism tied it to the Bush administrations narrative in nearly every review I read.
Batman though is disorder himself. It wasn't order vs chaos. Quite the opposite, Batman was used to chaos (him) vs order (organised crime) and instead he ended up here faced by someone who just wants to watch the world burn.
Conservative Batman would stick with the police and not end up their enemy at the end, he'd play by the rule book and arrest the joker.
Well, there is more than just one type of conservatism. Batman was about decisionism ("Sometimes you need to violate the order to preserve it").
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2010, 06:43:47 PM
Do you realize that these lists are internally inconsistent? How can you put "respect for family, tradition, religion, military" right next to "belief in individual over group"? These very ideas are exactly about the individual putting his or her freedom behind the values of the group he or she belongs to.
I noticed that to, but chose not to comment. It's as confusing to me as American conservatives praising the works of Ayn Rand and then decrying the dechristianize of America.
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 06:44:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 01, 2010, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 06:37:25 PM
You forgot spics, you asshole. :ultra:
We are all trying to forget.
We are like VD, you try to forget us, but every once and a while we come back to haunt you...or something.
:(
The itch that never goes away.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 06:39:38 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 04:58:26 PM
How is the Dark Knight in any way conservative?
If anything its anti-conservative; this radical man in black who doesn't obey the rule book and upsets the system in going against the authorities in the pursuit of what is right.
It's the conflict of order vs. chaos, what can be a more conservative message? The fact that it was all about terrorism tied it to the Bush administrations narrative in nearly every review I read.
Which side is conservatism on? Order or Chaos?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 06:39:38 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 04:58:26 PM
How is the Dark Knight in any way conservative?
If anything its anti-conservative; this radical man in black who doesn't obey the rule book and upsets the system in going against the authorities in the pursuit of what is right.
It's the conflict of order vs. chaos, what can be a more conservative message? The fact that it was all about terrorism tied it to the Bush administrations narrative in nearly every review I read.
Which side is conservatism on? Order or Chaos?
Evil.
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2010, 06:43:47 PM
Do you realize that these lists are internally inconsistent? How can you put "respect for family, tradition, religion, military" right next to "belief in individual over group"? These very ideas are exactly about the individual putting his or her freedom behind the values of the group he or she belongs to.
I noticed that incredible inconsistency as well, although the problem is with the retardation that is American conservatism, not with the accuracy of Beeb's representation.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:10:04 PM
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=
Even the titles it shares in common with the first list, it does a much better job of explaining why they are "conservative"
Are all conservative so bitter and passive-aggresive?
Evol corporation movies are liberal. Manchurian Candidate remake, that African movie with Ray Feines and whatshername, Erin Brokavitch, etc.
Hard nosed cops and vigilantes are conservative, like Dirty Harry and Death Wish.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2010, 06:56:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2010, 06:43:47 PM
Do you realize that these lists are internally inconsistent? How can you put "respect for family, tradition, religion, military" right next to "belief in individual over group"? These very ideas are exactly about the individual putting his or her freedom behind the values of the group he or she belongs to.
I noticed that incredible inconsistency as well, although the problem is with the retardation that is American conservatism, not with the accuracy of Beeb's representation.
There's inconsistency with "liberalism" as much as there is "conservatism".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 06:57:59 PM
Evol corporation movies are liberal. Manchurian Candidate remake, that African movie with Ray Feines and whatshername, Erin Brokavitch, etc.
Hard nosed cops and vigilantes are conservative, like Dirty Harry and Death Wish.
What about the original Manchurian Candidate where the villain is actually the Conservative politician and his wife?
Lansbury that bitch!
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 07:10:47 PM
What about the original Manchurian Candidate where the villain is actually the Conservative politician and his wife?
I thought the villains were the Chinks. :huh:
I wonder, if a movie is anti-war but about a war that conservatives were against is it a conservative movie or a liberal movie?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 07:14:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 07:10:47 PM
What about the original Manchurian Candidate where the villain is actually the Conservative politician and his wife?
I thought the villains were the Chinks. :huh:
:o
best go watch it again mi amigo
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 07:14:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 07:10:47 PM
What about the original Manchurian Candidate where the villain is actually the Conservative politician and his wife?
I thought the villains were the Chinks. :huh:
Secondary. Turns out the real villains are the McCarthite politician who turns out to be a communist agent.
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 06:45:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 06:39:38 PM
It's the conflict of order vs. chaos, what can be a more conservative message? The fact that it was all about terrorism tied it to the Bush administrations narrative in nearly every review I read.
Batman though is disorder himself. It wasn't order vs chaos. Quite the opposite, Batman was used to chaos (him) vs order (organised crime) and instead he ended up here faced by someone who just wants to watch the world burn.
Conservative Batman would stick with the police and not end up their enemy at the end, he'd play by the rule book and arrest the joker and let Dent be saw to be the criminal he was.
Batman doesn't represent chaos, he represents the order that the corrupt power structure of Gotham is incapable of providing.
I don't think you really understand American conservatism at all. After all you also said the A-team wasn't conservative as well.
Juno, a conservative movie? Give me a fucking break. That chick would vote for Democrats so fast it'd make your head spin if she had a GOPtard government telling her that she couldn't have an abortion if she wanted one.
Batman is the richest man in the city, and leader of one of the biggest corporations. They do good in the movie.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 07:15:03 PM
I wonder, if a movie is anti-war but about a war that conservatives were against is it a conservative movie or a liberal movie?
Not directly related to the question, but why have they never made a Bay of Pigs movie?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 07:37:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2010, 07:15:03 PM
I wonder, if a movie is anti-war but about a war that conservatives were against is it a conservative movie or a liberal movie?
Not directly related to the question, but why have they never made a Bay of Pigs movie?
Never saw Red Zone Cuba huh?
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Kosovo?
World War 2?
World War 1?
Oh, I see a pattern here. Any war a Democrat starts?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 07:25:47 PM
Batman doesn't represent chaos, he represents the order that the corrupt power structure of Gotham is incapable of providing.
I don't think you really understand American conservatism at all. After all you also said the A-team wasn't conservative as well.
I think its more a lot of American conservatives don't get what conservatism is about and just see themselves as the 'good guys'.
Conservatism= traditional values, stability, resistance to change, etc.... i.e.: 'the system'.
Batman really is chaotic I think. He's a shock to the corrupt stable system. Rather than going by the book and the corrupt courts and the corrupt police he just goes out there and gets the mobster everyone knows is a nasty piece of work.
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Kosovo?
World War 2?
World War 1?
Oh, I see a pattern here. Any war a Democrat starts?
I'm not sure Conservatives were keen on the Korean war.
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Kosovo?
World War 2?
World War 1?
Oh, I see a pattern here. Any war a Democrat starts?
You're a fucking moron, Southern conservatives were Democrats in World War 1 & 2
Batman is inherently fascist, and is proof that fascism is superior to democracy.
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 07:42:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 07:25:47 PM
Batman doesn't represent chaos, he represents the order that the corrupt power structure of Gotham is incapable of providing.
I don't think you really understand American conservatism at all. After all you also said the A-team wasn't conservative as well.
I think its more a lot of American conservatives don't get what conservatism is about and just see themselves as the 'good guys'.
Conservatism= traditional values, stability, resistance to change, etc.... i.e.: 'the system'.
Batman really is chaotic I think. He's a shock to the corrupt stable system. Rather than going by the book and the corrupt courts and the corrupt police he just goes out there and gets the mobster everyone knows is a nasty piece of work.
I vehemently disagree. If continued efforts to correct a corrupt system fail, it eventually becomes justifiable to use force to effect change or to completely overthrow this system. This goes back to Locke and is something conservatives believe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 07:49:07 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Kosovo?
World War 2?
World War 1?
Oh, I see a pattern here. Any war a Democrat starts?
You're a fucking moron, Southern conservatives were Democrats in World War 1 & 2
You're a fucking moron, conservativism wasn't a strictly regional ideology in World War 1 and 2.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe9%2FAm1logo.jpg&hash=10dff295cb735b25c0504bf3545610d5a7d602cc)
America First was predominately a conservative movement. Although neoconservative revisionists and denialists like yourself will not allow such words to be spoken in their presence. Paleoconservatives tend to embrace their anti-American history.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 07:49:07 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Kosovo?
World War 2?
World War 1?
Oh, I see a pattern here. Any war a Democrat starts?
You're a fucking moron, Southern conservatives were Democrats in World War 1 & 2
Who is the bigger fucking moron Jimmy: Fate, or the person who responds to a Fate post?
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 07:42:59 PM
I think its more a lot of American conservatives don't get what conservatism is about and just see themselves as the 'good guys'.
Conservatism= traditional values, stability, resistance to change, etc.... i.e.: 'the system'.
There's a lot more to Conservatism than just being resistant to change Tyr.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 07:55:49 PM
Who is the bigger fucking moron Jimmy: Fate, or the person who responds to a Fate post?
Door three Monty! Timmay!
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 07:57:04 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2010, 07:42:59 PM
I think its more a lot of American conservatives don't get what conservatism is about and just see themselves as the 'good guys'.
Conservatism= traditional values, stability, resistance to change, etc.... i.e.: 'the system'.
There's a lot more to Conservatism than just being resistant to change Tyr.
Yeah. Being a selfish prick and faux religious is a huge component of conservatism.
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 07:54:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 07:49:07 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Kosovo?
World War 2?
World War 1?
Oh, I see a pattern here. Any war a Democrat starts?
You're a fucking moron, Southern conservatives were Democrats in World War 1 & 2
You're a fucking moron, conservativism wasn't a strictly regional ideology in World War 1 and 2.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fe9%2FAm1logo.jpg&hash=10dff295cb735b25c0504bf3545610d5a7d602cc)
America First was predominately a conservative movement. Although neoconservative revisionists and denialists like yourself will not allow such words to be spoken in their presence. Paleoconservatives tend to embrace their anti-American history.
The point I was making was that one can't compare the modern parties to those that existed before the realignment of the 70s.
Also, denailist? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 08:01:34 PM
The point I was making was that one can't compare the modern parties to those that existed before the realignment of the 70s.
Also, denailist? :unsure:
And that point is not very good. It's true that some factions switched camps, but as far as conservatism goes, it has been the rallying cry of Republicans for far longer than 40 years.
I hate the fact that you'd call our liberals conservatives and our conservatives liberal. Conservatives seek to uphold the present status quo.
I also hate the fact that liberals (as in classical liberal late 1800's liberals free markets and trade and human freedoms and rights) have been reduced to calling themselves a hyphenated adjective "Conservative-Liberal" I cringe.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2010, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 08:01:34 PM
The point I was making was that one can't compare the modern parties to those that existed before the realignment of the 70s.
Also, denailist? :unsure:
And that point is not very good. It's true that some factions switched camps, but as far as conservatism goes, it has been the rallying cry of Republicans for far longer than 40 years.
Not true, the Republicans were far more progressive than the Democrats prior to the realignment.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 08:14:12 PM
Not true, the Republicans were far more progressive than the Democrats prior to the realignment.
Was it Republicans who passed New Deal and Great Society?
Did Republicans really oppose entry into WWII more than Democrats? Honest question. Virtually every book I've read has said simply "the nation was in an isolationist mood." There was the vote on declaring war, which went 99-1 (one Democrat dissenting), but that doesn't say anything.
Korea I don't know how it played politically either. No declaration of war, so no vote. Never heard of Truman having any problems with appropriations. Then Dugout Doug ran as a Republican, and he was pretty darn hawkish on the war.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2010, 08:28:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 08:14:12 PM
Not true, the Republicans were far more progressive than the Democrats prior to the realignment.
Was it Republicans who passed New Deal and Great Society?
They're the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act and were the ones responsible for the saftey regulations passed after the turn of the century.
Uh you sure about that statement timmay?
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 09:11:40 PM
Uh you sure about that statement timmay?
A much higher percentage of Republicans were in favor than Dems. The Dems got credit just because LBJ was in charge.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 08:47:04 PM
Did Republicans really oppose entry into WWII more than Democrats? Honest question. Virtually every book I've read has said simply "the nation was in an isolationist mood." There was the vote on declaring war, which went 99-1 (one Democrat dissenting), but that doesn't say anything.
Korea I don't know how it played politically either. No declaration of war, so no vote. Never heard of Truman having any problems with appropriations. Then Dugout Doug ran as a Republican, and he was pretty darn hawkish on the war.
From what I've read the Senate Republicans were the isolationist power center in government before 1941. The most prominent American Firsters were Midwest Republican Senators.
It seems that many of the Neutrality Acts did not have recorded roll call votes... christ, the Senate was a bunch of limp dick cowards. :lmfao:
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 09:35:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2010, 08:47:04 PM
Did Republicans really oppose entry into WWII more than Democrats? Honest question. Virtually every book I've read has said simply "the nation was in an isolationist mood." There was the vote on declaring war, which went 99-1 (one Democrat dissenting), but that doesn't say anything.
Korea I don't know how it played politically either. No declaration of war, so no vote. Never heard of Truman having any problems with appropriations. Then Dugout Doug ran as a Republican, and he was pretty darn hawkish on the war.
From what I've read the Senate Republicans were the isolationist power center in government before 1941. The most prominent American Firsters were Midwest Republican Senators.
It seems that many of the Neutrality Acts did not have recorded roll call votes... christ, the Senate was a bunch of limp dick cowards. :lmfao:
You do know the Dems dominated the house and senate in the 30s don't you?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 09:38:29 PM
You do know the Dems dominated the house and senate in the 30s don't you?
Nah, those were the 3-party days. Dixiecrats don't count.
Quote from: Fate on February 01, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Raz, show me a war that conservatives were against? :P
Kosovo?
World War 2?
World War 1?
Oh, I see a pattern here. Any war a Democrat starts?
Gavrilo Princip and Adolf Hitler weren't Democrats. Bill Clinton I'll grant you, but he'd probably argue that Slobodan Milosevic started it.
Quote from: dps on February 02, 2010, 12:40:06 AM
Gavrilo Princip and Adolf Hitler weren't Democrats. Bill Clinton I'll grant you, but he'd probably argue that Slobodan Milosevic started it.
Adolf Hitler was very ideologically similar to today's Democrats, however.
Quote...Master and Commander, making no concessions to modern, egalitarian sensibilities, is among the most thoroughly and proudly conservative movies ever made. It imagines the [H.M.S.] Surprise as a coherent society in which stability is underwritten by custom and every man knows his duty and his place.
Plus rum, sodomy and the lash, kid soldiers, and driving a man to suicide because of superstitious fears. Paradise on Earth, I suppose... As with 'Black Hawk Down' in the other list, I wonder if they watched the same movie I did.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 01, 2010, 09:15:34 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 01, 2010, 09:11:40 PM
Uh you sure about that statement timmay?
A much higher percentage of Republicans were in favor than Dems. The Dems got credit just because LBJ was in charge.
That and more actual Democrats voted for it then Republicans voted for it. Besides reality intruding in your statement would be correct.
Quote from: dps on February 02, 2010, 12:40:06 AM
Gavrilo Princip and Adolf Hitler weren't Democrats. Bill Clinton I'll grant you, but he'd probably argue that Slobodan Milosevic started it.
Princip didn't start the war either, he just gave the powers that be an excuse to start it.
Well, it was a long shot.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2010, 06:56:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2010, 06:43:47 PM
Do you realize that these lists are internally inconsistent? How can you put "respect for family, tradition, religion, military" right next to "belief in individual over group"? These very ideas are exactly about the individual putting his or her freedom behind the values of the group he or she belongs to.
I noticed that incredible inconsistency as well, although the problem is with the retardation that is American conservatism, not with the accuracy of Beeb's representation.
I don't think Beeb is talking about American conservatism. I think his list illustrates the bumper-sticker mentality that "conservatives" and liberals both adopt when they start thinking of themselves as "conservatives" or "liberals" rather than people.
In very rough terms, the political right values opportunity most highly, while the political left values justice most highly.
Quote from: Delirium on February 02, 2010, 03:50:54 AM
Well, it was a long shot.
Not really, at least according to the reconstructions.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feldib.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fsarajevo28juillet1914-1.jpg&hash=eb9eb3e1a85852443848a390243c6945d39115df)
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 07:27:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2010, 06:56:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 01, 2010, 06:43:47 PM
Do you realize that these lists are internally inconsistent? How can you put "respect for family, tradition, religion, military" right next to "belief in individual over group"? These very ideas are exactly about the individual putting his or her freedom behind the values of the group he or she belongs to.
I noticed that incredible inconsistency as well, although the problem is with the retardation that is American conservatism, not with the accuracy of Beeb's representation.
I don't think Beeb is talking about American conservatism. I think his list illustrates the bumper-sticker mentality that "conservatives" and liberals both adopt when they start thinking of themselves as "conservatives" or "liberals" rather than people.
In very rough terms, the political right values opportunity most highly, while the political left values justice most highly.
What about Iranian conservatives? I'd say that the political right value preservation of a current system, slow reforms or a return to a real or imagine previous time period. The Left would be the opposite of these things.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 07:33:53 AMNot really, at least according to the reconstructions.
:pinch:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 07:36:44 AM
What about Iranian conservatives? I'd say that the political right value preservation of a current system, slow reforms or a return to a real or imagine previous time period. The Left would be the opposite of these things.
I don't think "the Left" is the opposite of "Iranian Conservatives." I'd argue it is right-wing conservatives pretending to be left-wingers versus right-wing reformers pretending to be left-wingers.
I just ordered a bunch of MST3K movies, so I'll let everybody know if Tom Servo or Crow T. Robot is conservative.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 10:02:34 AM
I don't think "the Left" is the opposite of "Iranian Conservatives." I'd argue it is right-wing conservatives pretending to be left-wingers versus right-wing reformers pretending to be left-wingers.
Clear as mud.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 02, 2010, 10:34:53 AM
Clear as mud.
It has some big words, true, but don't worry if you don't get it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 10:02:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 07:36:44 AM
What about Iranian conservatives? I'd say that the political right value preservation of a current system, slow reforms or a return to a real or imagine previous time period. The Left would be the opposite of these things.
I don't think "the Left" is the opposite of "Iranian Conservatives." I'd argue it is right-wing conservatives pretending to be left-wingers versus right-wing reformers pretending to be left-wingers.
I like the traditional and actual definition of conservative since it's more encompassing and less stupid.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 10:39:05 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 02, 2010, 10:34:53 AM
Clear as mud.
It has some big words,
Not really. Just ones used ambiguously. Who are these people pretending to be left-wingers? Iranians? Congressional Democrats? Activist types?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 10:40:40 AM
I like the traditional and actual definition of conservative since it's more encompassing and less stupid.
But it doesn't fit the Iranian government, who claim to be revolutionaries. Plus, it is only your own personal definition, and so isn't traditional and encompasses only what you think it does.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 02, 2010, 10:25:41 AM
I just ordered a bunch of MST3K movies, so I'll let everybody know if Tom Servo or Crow T. Robot is conservative.
I think Tom Servo is somewhat leftist while Crow is a populist conspiracy theorist.
Btw did you ever see "Teenage Strangler"?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 02, 2010, 10:53:58 AM
Not really. Just ones used ambiguously. Who are these people pretending to be left-wingers? Iranians?
Yes. The post I was responding to was specifically referring to Iranians. The logical conclusion, I would think, would be that I was also referring to Iranians.
QuoteCongressional Democrats? Activist types?
To which Congress do you refer? How would one tell an "activist type" from an "inactivist type" if neither is at a given moment moving?
Quote from: derspiess on February 02, 2010, 11:01:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 02, 2010, 10:25:41 AM
I just ordered a bunch of MST3K movies, so I'll let everybody know if Tom Servo or Crow T. Robot is conservative.
I think Tom Servo is somewhat leftist while Crow is a populist conspiracy theorist.
Btw did you ever see "Teenage Strangler"?
Its been so long, I forget.
Iranians have never really struck me as claiming to be "left-wing" (which is pretty meaningless in a non-Western context). They may be revolutionaries, but their revolution was founded in Islam, not Marxism.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 10:40:40 AM
I like the traditional and actual definition of conservative since it's more encompassing and less stupid.
But it doesn't fit the Iranian government, who claim to be revolutionaries. Plus, it is only your own personal definition, and so isn't traditional and encompasses only what you think it does.
They are going back to an imagined time of religious austerity. Such people are called Reactionaries and are right wing. They are "returning" to previous more pure time which fits in my definition. Since countries have different meanings conservative might be for different things in different countries. American conservatives see in their past more personal and economic freedom (where that really existed is for debate), while a conservative in say Saudi Arabia might view their past in terms of stately monarchs who kept people in their place.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 02, 2010, 11:15:04 AM
Iranians have never really struck me as claiming to be "left-wing" (which is pretty meaningless in a non-Western context). They may be revolutionaries, but their revolution was founded in Islam, not Marxism.
Marxism is not the same as leftism.
I suppose one can argue that "left wing," "right wing," "conservative," and all the other labels are not meaningful in a non-Western context, but if you do so, then you need to either propose meaningful alternate terms, or else concede that you cannot meaningfully discuss the non-western situation at all.
I don't make that argument, though. I think the terms fit just fine.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 11:21:06 AM
They are going back to an imagined time of religious austerity. Such people are called Reactionaries and are right wing. They are "returning" to previous more pure time which fits in my definition.
I don't believe that they are. I think that they are
creating the Iranian religious nation, not recreating it. I don't think this religiously pure time ever existed, as far as they are concerned (and certainly not in Iran, even if they think it existed in the Arab world during Mohammad's lifetime).
QuoteSince countries have different meanings conservative might be for different things in different countries. American conservatives see in their past more personal and economic freedom (where that really existed is for debate), while a conservative in say Saudi Arabia might view their past in terms of stately monarchs who kept people in their place.
This is part of the reason why "conservative" is such a poor and imprecise (even personal) word, and lacks the "traditional and actual" meaning you mistakenly attach to it.
I think the Iranian regime is overall quite right wing but they're aiming for centrism.
At the core it is of course a religious regime- and religion is at the core of tradition and conservatism.
However- the Iranian regime is officially also revolutionary and left wing.
What you have in Iran is the very right wing Supreme Leader who is supposed to act as a stabilising, conservative moderator over the left wing idea of democratically elected candidates (Ahmajidad of course being a serious rightist to begin with....and lets not go into his vote fixing).
What Iran wants is to be left wing but left wing in moderation. Just as left wing as the people want whilst still keeping their traditions in mind.
A big problem I see with the word 'conservative' overall is it is firmly routed in the evolution of right/leftism way back in the 18th century.
Back then the right were TRUE conservatives. The nobility and the ilk who wanted to keep everything as it was. The left meanwhile were the democratic reformers and bourgois- who if transported through time to todays world would mostly be horribly far right people.
The world keeps moving ever leftwards hence I see 'true' conservatives as people fighting a rear-guard action. Trying to stop the rate of change or perhaps in extreme circumstances temporarily set it back.
Of course though few conservatives are true conservatives. Especially not on every front. In the UK at least things are totally messed up with there being no right or left and just two major parties with different ideas of how to do things and trying to court more votes.
Conservatives just can't afford to be real conservatives and only look out for the elites these days, back when mobilising your voters was all important they could do this but in these modern times...They've had to look for something else. The conservative name sticks with them but in reality they're anything they want to be.
At their core they do still perhaps see the key to success as being with the success of the elites and they have somewhat traditionalist social values but otherwise...right/left sucks.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 11:21:06 AM
They are going back to an imagined time of religious austerity. Such people are called Reactionaries and are right wing. They are "returning" to previous more pure time which fits in my definition.
I don't believe that they are. I think that they are creating the Iranian religious nation, not recreating it. I don't think this religiously pure time ever existed, as far as they are concerned (and certainly not in Iran, even if they think it existed in the Arab world during Mohammad's lifetime).
QuoteSince countries have different meanings conservative might be for different things in different countries. American conservatives see in their past more personal and economic freedom (where that really existed is for debate), while a conservative in say Saudi Arabia might view their past in terms of stately monarchs who kept people in their place.
This is part of the reason why "conservative" is such a poor and imprecise (even personal) word, and lacks the "traditional and actual" meaning you mistakenly attach to it.
There seems to have been an urge in the Revolution to return to an age before the Americans and Russians dominated and even before there was a split between Shia and Sunni. The cry of the Conservative revolutionary or reactionary is always "We want to take our country
back. That is the constant thread.
Raz is doing a good job disecting the nature of conservatives all the world over.
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2010, 12:26:40 PM
Raz is doing a good job disecting the nature of conservatives all the world over.
When it comes to conservatives vivisection is often preferable.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 12:47:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2010, 12:26:40 PM
Raz is doing a good job disecting the nature of conservatives all the world over.
When it comes to conservatives vivisection is often preferable.
Sure thing Razmeister.
The authors of the article are morons. some of those films are the opposite of what they think. Most don't have any actual "political view" other than one made up to suit whatever review you want to write. I could write Marxist crits of each of those films in my sleep, it wouldn't make the films Marxist, or any political stripe.
Lives of Others for example is a film about the dangers of a totalitarian world view, and how even Big Brother can be made to cry, given the right impetus.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2010, 12:47:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2010, 12:26:40 PM
Raz is doing a good job disecting the nature of conservatives all the world over.
When it comes to conservatives vivisection is often preferable.
:lmfao:
Why isn't Passion of the Christ the #1 conservative movie? It has antisemitism, religion and indecipherable gibberish.
Quote from: The Brain on February 02, 2010, 01:50:15 PM
Why isn't Passion of the Christ the #1 conservative movie? It has antisemitism, religion and indecipherable gibberish.
It has Jews.
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:38:45 PM
-belief in the individual over the group
-belief in collective rights (e.g. collective bargaining)
I have issues with these two. I think liberalism is all about individualism, while conservatism is to some extent largely about a collective understanding. Tradition doesn't mean nothing without a community. Restraint is restraint because of collective values and a collective sensibility. Conservatism doesn't make sense as a liberational, individualist ideology. That sounds to me like self-centred materialist libertarianism that I think conservatives would be more likely to oppose than lefties.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2010, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:38:45 PM
-belief in the individual over the group
-belief in collective rights (e.g. collective bargaining)
I have issues with these two. I think liberalism is all about individualism, while conservatism is to some extent largely about a collective understanding. Tradition doesn't mean nothing without a community. Restraint is restraint because of collective values and a collective sensibility. Conservatism doesn't make sense as a liberational, individualist ideology. That sounds to me like self-centred materialist libertarianism that I think conservatives would be more likely to oppose than lefties.
I dunno if either position has any sort of coherence, but the best I can do is to note that conservatism appears more concerned with honour and liberalism appears more concerned with justice.
Both imply a social setting to be sure, as neither honour nor justice really have meaning absent a social setting. Yet the emphasis is different: honour is generally more a personal thing; justice something provided from the collective.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2010, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:38:45 PM
-belief in the individual over the group
-belief in collective rights (e.g. collective bargaining)
I have issues with these two. I think liberalism is all about individualism, while conservatism is to some extent largely about a collective understanding. Tradition doesn't mean nothing without a community. Restraint is restraint because of collective values and a collective sensibility. Conservatism doesn't make sense as a liberational, individualist ideology. That sounds to me like self-centred materialist libertarianism that I think conservatives would be more likely to oppose than lefties.
I was really discussing these points in a fairly North American context. Certainly both left and right will describe themselves as supporting individual rights, and certainly both left and right do in certain instances actually use much more collectivist language (right: much more nationalistic, left, much more class-based rhetoric).
But I still think my comments are broadly fair. The classic conservative icon is the cowboy, the self-made and self-reliant man of the frontier (which ignores the historic reality than the cowboy was probably given his land by the government in exchange for settling there), but it's still a much more individualistic point of view.
The liberal icon? Nothing quite so obvious, but in trying to be fair I'll put forth George Bailey, from It's a Wonderful Life, who spends his life trying to help the people of Bedford Falls, and in return is saved from ruin by the community coming to his rescue. A more community-based point of view.
Now I'm not trying to come up with a PhD level thesis here. If I remember correctly I was only trying to argue that you can meaningfully use terms like "conservative" and "liberal" - that they do have meaning.
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2010, 04:54:12 PM
I dunno if either position has any sort of coherence, but the best I can do is to note that conservatism appears more concerned with honour and liberalism appears more concerned with justice.
You're going to have to work up that idea a bit more, because off the top of my head I can't see how you tie conservatism and honour, in particular as something being different from justice.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 04:55:43 PM
The liberal icon? Nothing quite so obvious, but in trying to be fair I'll put forth George Bailey, from It's a Wonderful Life, who spends his life trying to help the people of Bedford Falls, and in return is saved from ruin by the community coming to his rescue. A more community-based point of view.
Oh my, Jimmy Stewart is turning over in his grave.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 04:55:43 PM
But I still think my comments are broadly fair. The classic conservative icon is the cowboy, the self-made and self-reliant man of the frontier (which ignores the historic reality than the cowboy was probably given his land by the government in exchange for settling there), but it's still a much more individualistic point of view.
But this is also very much a North American thing. I think in the UK we'd probably have some country gentry figure in a Barbour jacket - but derives importance from being a pillar of the community, as well as living his life the sort of person who's a magistrate, Church warden, regular in the local pub, wife runs the local WI and so on.
QuoteThe liberal icon?
I can't think of one either.
QuoteNow I'm not trying to come up with a PhD level thesis here. If I remember correctly I was only trying to argue that you can meaningfully use terms like "conservative" and "liberal" - that they do have meaning.
I think you can use them but I think it's always worth remembering their or original meaning within a society when talking about their modern meaning.
I think Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) in The Grapes of Wrath was (or at least wanted to be) a liberal icon. Wherever there's a a cop beatin up a guy, he'll be there.
Quote from: Savonarola on February 02, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 04:55:43 PM
The liberal icon? Nothing quite so obvious, but in trying to be fair I'll put forth George Bailey, from It's a Wonderful Life, who spends his life trying to help the people of Bedford Falls, and in return is saved from ruin by the community coming to his rescue. A more community-based point of view.
Oh my, Jimmy Stewart is turning over in his grave.
Huh - you caused me to google, and I never knew Jimmy Stewart was a staunch republican. :mellow:
Actually Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men is probably a liberal icon (albeit an establishment one).
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 04:56:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2010, 04:54:12 PM
I dunno if either position has any sort of coherence, but the best I can do is to note that conservatism appears more concerned with honour and liberalism appears more concerned with justice.
You're going to have to work up that idea a bit more, because off the top of my head I can't see how you tie conservatism and honour, in particular as something being different from justice.
"Honour" in this sense means being reliant on one's own social and moral code, usually drawn from the idealised social norms of one's traditional society & history: in our case, as you said, the notion of the mythical cowboy or frontiersman. No-one imposes it on you, but you know some things
just ain't right. It is bottom-up, grassroots stuff. It isn't necessarily libertarian, since those who hold to it do not see it in relativistic terms: what I think "ain't right", I'm happy to enshrine into law so that no-one else can do that, either. This explains why conservatives can see ownership of guns as being no-one's business but their own, while at the same time supporting criminalization of drugs, etc. An honourable person can be relied on to deal with their guns properly, but people who do drugs aren't honourable, by definition.
"Justice" means creating a social and moral code inspired by notions of fairness and reciprocity. These notions may have been inspired by traditional philosophical sources, but are ultimately divorced from them - they are abstract and universal, and unrelated to one's personal convictions or situation: it is Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" stuff, creating the ideal society in ignorance of your possible place within it. It is top-down, in that all of society has a duty to positively enhance justice. Thus, liberals see regulation of drugs and guns similarly, as issues of harm containment; they are less likely to draw distinctions between these activities based on assumptions about the persons engaged in them.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 05:07:38 PM
Huh - you caused me to google, and I never knew Jimmy Stewart was a staunch republican. :mellow:
He also wrote a book of poetry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51X24V3ATQL._SS500_.jpg&hash=3eabb3224f3dc73957abfbfa3869bb012f3bceae)
Malthus,
I've attempted to discuss the issue in as neutral a language as possible, but you have all but explicitly laid out liberals as being more highly 'morally evolved' ala Kohlberg.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 05:21:50 PM
Malthus,
I've attempted to discuss the issue in as neutral a language as possible, but you have all but explicitly laid out liberals as being more highly 'morally evolved' ala Kohlberg.
Oddly enough, I was going to add that the older I get, the more important I find personal honour.
I guess I'm ... devolving. :D
Though OTOH, I don't think that personal honour
has to be culture-specific, only that in the case of NA conservatives, it mostly
is.
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2010, 04:54:12 PM
I dunno if either position has any sort of coherence, but the best I can do is to note that conservatism appears more concerned with honour and liberalism appears more concerned with justice.
Both imply a social setting to be sure, as neither honour nor justice really have meaning absent a social setting. Yet the emphasis is different: honour is generally more a personal thing; justice something provided from the collective.
I agree with the justice comment. I am not so sure that conservatism is about honor, per se, but I think you are on to something. Conservatism, it strikes me, is more about the personal, as you nopte, but I think it is more about individuals being able to carry out their "duties" than preserving their "honor." Classical liberalism is more about opportunity. My thinking on this definitely does need some more work.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 05:21:50 PM
Malthus,
I've attempted to discuss the issue in as neutral a language as possible, but you have all but explicitly laid out liberals as being more highly 'morally evolved' ala Kohlberg.
I don't see this at all. I think that the key difference is that leftists see the "right outcome" as justice coming from society and controlling the baser instincts of the individual under stress, whereas the right sees the "right outcome" as people doing what they know is right, and the communal sort of action as being needed only because there are always a few bad apples. In a sense, I think, Kohlberg would think the right, with their assumption that "bad things happen because of individual bad people" is more advanced than the left's more "bad things happen because social conditions make people bad." But he would, on the other hand, think the "classic liberal" view that moral reasoning has to be intrinsic (not coming from religion, tradition, and the like) is a higher level of reasoning than is typical from those I consider to be "on the right."
We need to bring Rousseau into this: you could find something from him supporting just about any position one could take in this discussion! :lol:
I love his paintings. :)
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 06:13:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2010, 05:21:50 PM
Malthus,
I've attempted to discuss the issue in as neutral a language as possible, but you have all but explicitly laid out liberals as being more highly 'morally evolved' ala Kohlberg.
I don't see this at all. I think that the key difference is that leftists see the "right outcome" as justice coming from society and controlling the baser instincts of the individual under stress, whereas the right sees the "right outcome" as people doing what they know is right, and the communal sort of action as being needed only because there are always a few bad apples. In a sense, I think, Kohlberg would think the right, with their assumption that "bad things happen because of individual bad people" is more advanced than the left's more "bad things happen because social conditions make people bad." But he would, on the other hand, think the "classic liberal" view that moral reasoning has to be intrinsic (not coming from religion, tradition, and the like) is a higher level of reasoning than is typical from those I consider to be "on the right."
We need to bring Rousseau into this: you could find something from him supporting just about any position one could take in this discussion! :lol:
Yup, this is pretty well how I see it.
I was going to say that, Kohlberg aside, what I tend to disagree with in conservatism is the reliance on traditional sources for forming their notions of honour & morality; I tend to disagree with liberals that individual honour and morality are not particularly significant compared with social forces acting on the individual.
Looks like Languish still has some interesting discussions left in it. :)
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2010, 04:54:12 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 02, 2010, 04:41:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 01, 2010, 06:38:45 PM
-belief in the individual over the group
-belief in collective rights (e.g. collective bargaining)
I have issues with these two. I think liberalism is all about individualism, while conservatism is to some extent largely about a collective understanding. Tradition doesn't mean nothing without a community. Restraint is restraint because of collective values and a collective sensibility. Conservatism doesn't make sense as a liberational, individualist ideology. That sounds to me like self-centred materialist libertarianism that I think conservatives would be more likely to oppose than lefties.
I dunno if either position has any sort of coherence, but the best I can do is to note that conservatism appears more concerned with honour and liberalism appears more concerned with justice.
Both imply a social setting to be sure, as neither honour nor justice really have meaning absent a social setting. Yet the emphasis is different: honour is generally more a personal thing; justice something provided from the collective.
You have all convinced me that neither liberalism nor conservatism is a coherent ideology. Congrats.
I think both are at times individualistic and collectivist. Liberals (in the US) are certainly not individualistic economically, but they are when it comes to privacy and bedroom politics. The same is true for conservatives, but in reverse.
I don't really get the point about honor and justice. They aren't opposing concepts for one thing. The opposite of justice is, well, injustice. Or if you prefer, pardon, parole, mercy or compromise. The opposite of honor is something more like shame. So, honor would be more of a collective thing to me, since it comes from a set of expectations of behavior agreed upon as a group--and it deals primarily with how a person is viewed by others. Justice would be more on the individualistic side, since it has more to do with rights.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 02, 2010, 09:31:02 PM
I don't really get the point about honor and justice. They aren't opposing concepts for one thing. The opposite of justice is, well, injustice. Or if you prefer, pardon, parole, mercy or compromise. The opposite of honor is something more like shame. So, honor would be more of a collective thing to me, since it comes from a set of expectations of behavior agreed upon as a group--and it deals primarily with how a person is viewed by others. Justice would be more on the individualistic side, since it has more to do with rights.
So, if you are saying that Conservatives are not the opposite of modern liberals... congratulations. You have gotten to a point many conservatives and modern liberals never get to. I feel that they are more like baseball players arguing with hockey players. Baseball players are not the opposite of hockey players, they just pursue different goals.
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 09:40:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 02, 2010, 09:31:02 PM
I don't really get the point about honor and justice. They aren't opposing concepts for one thing. The opposite of justice is, well, injustice. Or if you prefer, pardon, parole, mercy or compromise. The opposite of honor is something more like shame. So, honor would be more of a collective thing to me, since it comes from a set of expectations of behavior agreed upon as a group--and it deals primarily with how a person is viewed by others. Justice would be more on the individualistic side, since it has more to do with rights.
So, if you are saying that Conservatives are not the opposite of modern liberals... congratulations. You have gotten to a point many conservatives and modern liberals never get to. I feel that they are more like baseball players arguing with hockey players. Baseball players are not the opposite of hockey players, they just pursue different goals.
Actually, baseball players pursue runs instead.
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on February 02, 2010, 09:40:42 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 02, 2010, 09:31:02 PM
I don't really get the point about honor and justice. They aren't opposing concepts for one thing. The opposite of justice is, well, injustice. Or if you prefer, pardon, parole, mercy or compromise. The opposite of honor is something more like shame. So, honor would be more of a collective thing to me, since it comes from a set of expectations of behavior agreed upon as a group--and it deals primarily with how a person is viewed by others. Justice would be more on the individualistic side, since it has more to do with rights.
So, if you are saying that Conservatives are not the opposite of modern liberals... congratulations. You have gotten to a point many conservatives and modern liberals never get to. I feel that they are more like baseball players arguing with hockey players. Baseball players are not the opposite of hockey players, they just pursue different goals.
Ah. I like this idea. The whole idea that lib/con is some sort of primal yin yang or black/white notion is silly at best, yet people cling to it in both camps.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 02, 2010, 09:45:22 PM
Actually, baseball players pursue runs instead.
Excellent point; it improves the analogy.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 02, 2010, 09:31:02 PM
I think both are at times individualistic and collectivist. Liberals (in the US) are certainly not individualistic economically, but they are when it comes to privacy and bedroom politics. The same is true for conservatives, but in reverse.
But there are areas which are both. Is TV about economics, for example? Should certain content be restricted or not - that comes from a communal set of values which conservatives hold, economics be damned. Similarly pornography is more opposed because it's against those values - which are not individual or individualist - equally the American ban on online gambling. The left has less desire to restrict people's access to them because I think they still rate individual gratification and consumption higher than a collective moral worth, I can't think of anything in terms of economics that liberals don't want you to be able to buy or to do (not just in terms of privacy or bedrooms but dry states, restrictions on opening hours). They're more about a sort of social auto-erotica while conservatives still believe in some cohesive, communal social fabric that is formed by a set of shared values.