Posted on 02/04/2021 11:14:39 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Exploring why conservatives have lost almost every political argument since 1945, Ed West looks at this endless litany of failure from the perspective of one of the losers, in a semi-autobiographical, self-deprecating way.
Since the 1950s the western world has gone through a huge cultural shift, comparable to the rise of Christianity during the late Roman period and the 16th century religious revolution unleashed by Martin Luther. Both of these led to profound changes in public ideas about morality and sexuality, and eventually to 'culture wars' between two deeply opposed groups. Today what we're witnessing is a sort of second Reformation, and that's why it's going to be long, painful and boring, and both sides are going to get more idiotic and hysterical, just as religious divisions once drove Catholics and Protestants into prolonged insanity.
Conservatives, like the pagans and Catholics before them, are very much on the losing side. The future appears progressive and their defeat is inevitable, part of an 'arc of history' that leads irrevocably to a progressive utopia in which they're left in the dustbin. As Barack Obama said of al-Qaeda, another group of guys not entirely comfortable with the modern world, conservatives are 'Small Men on the Wrong Side of History'.
Too many polemics and articles on the Right are tediously shouty, and too few of them explore where their arguments have fallen flat and why people find conservatives so repulsive. Small Men on the Wrong Side of History is aimed at being the rare conservative book that someone on the Left will enjoy.
West will look at some of the idiocies of the modern Right and the strange characteristics shared by conservatives, including himself, but he will also offer explanations as to why people are conservative, and explain some of the benefits conservatism offers. In particular he argues it's now necessary as a break on 'runaway liberalism', the competitive desire to appear Woker Than Thou which is driving progressive politics to extremes, and which has provoked a reaction with figures like the psychologist Jordan Peterson and his legion of fans
Not a solid group of conservatives.
Jordan Peterson has only succeeded at ruining his health with his endless logical arguments against the impenetrable, illogical left. Clues to succeed at what you really need are here.
“The Power of the Powerless” by Vaclav Havel
https://bruces.medium.com/the-power-of-the-powerless-by-vaclav-havel-84b2b8d3a84a
“The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his or her ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.”
― Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless (Routledge Revivals): Citizens Against the State in Central-eastern Europe
“There are times when we must sink to the bottom of our misery to understand truth, just as we must descend to the bottom of a well to see the stars in broad daylight.”
― Václav Havel
“Lying can never save us from another lie.”
― Václav Havel
That's a very bold statement - one could almost say "extraordinary."
Without wishing to pry / while respecting your desire for OpSec: Could you please elaborate on that?
Are you saying that, after 911 (perhaps in disgust over the ensuing response / political developments), you deliberately / voluntarily "walked away" from "regular" civil society and accepted major deprivations (suburban lifestyle) in order to "serve" (in some charitable capacity?) in "crappy parts of humanity" (3rd-World Countries)?
Or did you lose those things?
Just a little less vagueness would be greatly appreciated. Did you, e.g., join some faith-based organization in order to help poor unfortunates in uncivilized portions of the world?
Your answer would go greatly towards my better understanding your posting here.
Regards,
The losses were caused by holes—compromises—in activism for morality. For example,
“The Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family helped us get DOMA...”
an organization cannot recruit enough support to defend marriage while compromising with the misogamists (those who hate real marriage) within. Family cannot be defended by those who helped to destroy fatherhood. Marriage was already lost in a whorehouse of a society.
And that’s only one example.
When people get miserable enough, they’ll learn to speak the truth and rejoice in living with it.
You are not alone.
It depends upon the meaning of "lost." (Please bear with me here!)
Today, in polite society, while attending a mixed social gathering (meaning: general cross-section of the population, with members of the whole political spectrum), one can raise one's voice slightly above the general hubbub and proudly declare, "Anyone earning more than $200,000 a year should be taxed at a marginal tax rate of 90%!" (We all know what that kind of thinking leads to.)
One can go on to smuggly say, "No one needs to have a billion dollars!" (We all know what effect that would have upon the Free Market.)
One can then opine, "A woman's uterus belongs to her! Men have no right to 'involve' themselves in 'that' discussion!" (We all know what that actually means.)
That person can sob, "Those poor people [border-violators] are only looking for a better future! And Trump calls them 'rapists!'"
A person making those remarks will not be perceived as irrational, unkind, or unbalanced. On the contrary, they will undoubtedly glean a lot of "social points" for virtual-signalling among some quarters.
No one will spit venom at them, hiss, call them "fascists" or "racists," or accuse them of "lacking compassion."
Liberals know that they (currently) have Diskursherrschaft. That they will not instantly evoke a visceral response from the majority of their listeners - many of whom may actually be "middle-of-the-road."
(Hint: It's because the ultimately inhumane and even inhuman consequences of their policies are not so readily perceived by the bulk.)
Those same "middle-of-the-roaders" will, instead, instinctively shrink when they hear someone slandered as a "Nazi." Even if they know that it isn't true and that the accusation is a case of "overkill," they will still think 1) The accuser is sincerely appalled / righteously indignant, and just doesn't know how to better express himself; 2) The accuser is courageous!; 3) The accused person hesitated for a moment, stammered, and looked kind of embarrassed - he didn't instantly fire back with a devastating riposte; 4) Hmmm, maybe the accused person is a little bit like those Nazis with their "gulags" and their "Cultural Revolution" and "Killing Field" ("Pol Pot was a Nazi, right?")
On the other hand, the reverse is NOT true: A conservative raising his voice and espousing typical (not extreme!) conservative values will nonetheless have to "duck and cover."
So, in that sense, the conservatives have lost.
Regards,
I like that you actually disaggregated your analysis according to political grouping!
Regards,
The difference between “Progressives” and Conservatives is Conservatives view Government as a necessary nuisance and “Progressives” see government as oxygen.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Post 911 , I left a 100,000 + per year career and rejoined as enlisted even though with a masters degree I could’ve been in officer country. I had prior served active in the 90s and my reserve commitment were done. My spouse who was not at all pleased I joined specifically to get in the Sh1t that’s why I went enlisted and in a combat MOS not original MOS I was before. That choice to go fight cost me a marriage ending in divorce. The house and land it was on, my boat and most of my “friends” so yes I completely turned my life upside down and when I came back stateside started from scratch to rebuild a career, but a home and marry the much younger and attractive wife I’m married too now so in the end it worked out ok but the fact is I lost all the “comfortable” things most Americans covet and are unwilling to lose to actually fight for our freedom some men have the stones to do it I certainly did.
Actually, I believe that a great many younger people - even those who identify as "woke" - actually want to lead "normal" lives. Most of their political utterances are mere posturing and virtue-signalling. They certainly don't want a big chunk of their paycheck squandered on dubious social programs. They don't like walking through Union Square in S.F. and treading on human feces everywhere. They would definitely feel uncomfortable taking their little nephews and nieces to, e.g., a "Tranny Library Hour" or to a track meet where they are forced to compete against trannies. But those unconscious feelings of outrage or disgust are trumped by the conscious perception that the new social mores. (Sort of like how a man will feel slightly ashamed when he cranes his neck in order to see a little "boobage.")
But the immediate gain (in social credit) had by "going along" and "being agreeable" far outweighs (in their short-range thinking) the drawbacks.
For them, the "Future" (i.e., when it comes time to "pay the piper") is next month, at most.
Regards,
I see.
I thought that by writing "I did something (in order to)..." you meant that it was deliberate and intentional - that you knowingly made that sacrifice... That you knew in advance what it would cost you.
Regards,
LOL. What a fool. You can’t even see the connection between social things like 50 genders, single parent families, abortion for any reason you want, no meaning to life, cut your child’s balls off in support of tranny rights, etc. and the decline of the west.
And guess what. The younger generations don’t want conservative fiscal policy either. I’m a millennial. I know that of which I speak.
Just admit that you personally don’t like any the social conservative stuff and that’s why you advocate for getting rid of all of it. At least then you’d be an honest fool.
3 letters for the author: NHS.
Not necessary nuisance.
Necessary evil.
As somebody younger & whose values lean traditional- but not exclusively so- I’d have to disagree. Firstly, since when have social conservatives wanted to ‘tell people how to live’? By saying that you literally are arguing that social progressives don’t force their values on others. Have you been living throughout the last couple of decades? Social progressives & social justice warriors have become the farking gestapo canceling anyone who disagrees. They make you bake cakes, force kindergarteners into sex ed classes & want abortion services to be provided by taxpayers. What planet are you on? Which issues are social conservatives pushing on others? Gay marriage? Last I checked its legalized & nobody’s talking about it any more & up until 2014, both Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama opposed legalizing it. Drugs? Most Republican voters are in favor of legalizing marijuana, having made the calculation that it, like alcohol, is mild enough to simply allow & put controls on. For other harder drugs, most Millenials are like the rest of the population- they oppose legalization for public safety. Abortion? Gallup did its annual pro life/pro choice poll of all demographic groups (Ages 18-34: 43% call themselves pro-life & support laws limiting abortions). It could hardly be considered unpopular when half the respondents favor it. The battle over abortion is not about individual rights or a personal choice- it’s a life or death issue about whether one human being has the right to end another human beings life because it resides temporarily in their womb. We have laws governing every life &
death related issue- homicide, suicide, physician-assisted suicide, cloning, death sentences, humane deaths for animals, etc., it’s idiotic to think we’d have no law governing abortion in some small way. Im honestly not sure where you get your overall perspective that social conservatism is the repellent aspect of the conservative philosophy. To restate- I’m a mildly traditional, mostly libertarian constitutionalist conservative that favors capitalism over socialism any day of the week. I have to disagree with you though. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed - but it’s the economic conservative message that has proved least appealing to the young. They are faced with low paying jobs, worthless college degrees, a crowded job market, offshoring, free trade problems, horrible deficits & a lot of crony capitalists making the brand look bad. Few young people are traditional economic conservatives- that is almost a relic of Thatcher/Reagan era days. Half of young people could be described as mildly socialist economically while the other half are more in line with a Populist/mildly conservative world view. That’s not to say that historic economic conservatism is dead by any means, just that this generation isn’t likely to become its advocates any time soon. If I were directing the conservative brand to the young, I’d be leading with the constitutionalist/freedom wing of the movement. Center things mostly around individual freedoms & historic constitutional liberties. Build on that. I war against mind control, cancel culture & big tech silencing. Socially, the life issue should be fine, religiosity is good but generally be tolerant towards gays. Economically, tax cuts are nice & oppose socialism, but defend American jobs, oppose bad trade deals & lower immigration levels so that American start to rise again 😃
Let me get this straight. Sanity is on the “Wrong Side of History”? So, this author is praising the rise of China and Worldwide Fascism? Apparently.
Ed West sounds like he is intellectually and spiritually a ‘Small Man’.
Let’s hope his book sales are as small as his is.
And don’t forget to recycle the remainders. Trees died in order to him to publish this leftist BS. Tree-killer, he is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.