Regarding the impending Civil War
I was thinking about the divisiveness of the political discourse in this country, the polarization, the outright hatred from both the extreme left and right. I was thinking about the terror level, Burt in most of the country and Ernie in New York City and DC.
I was thinking about fear as a vehicle for recruiting conservatives.
Think about this. Why do we call Republicans "conservative"? Look at their platform. Legislating to ensure the survival of "traditional American values" and leaving the rest to big business. They want to conserve the way of life begun by our--predominately--Puritan forefathers. This is fine in itself. I like Jesus and his teachings. I think Jesus was a great guy.
I think Jesus, were he alive today, would be more inclusive with his love and respect than both the current Republican Administration and most of the groups who have devoted their lives to his worship (the Catholic Church as a whole, the Southern Baptists, et al). But that's kind of beside the point.
They have a conception of a country and of a culture they like. They feel these things are in jeopardy; they desperately want them to persevere unchanged.
Let's look at culture as a function of evolution. Cultures are fluid, this is an observation, not a partisan value judgment. They change, this is inevitable. Conservatives, by definition, are resistant to change. Republicans, as a party, are resistant to cultural change. They think our country is in danger of falling into a moral fissure. Certain others feel our country is struggling to climb its way out of that fissure. These are value judgments.
So culture. How does it change? More importantly, how does it change the fastest? I'm not going to cite sources or attempt to convince you, I've got a concert to get to. Cultures, in my opinion, change the fastest when imposed upon by outside cultures, this kind of synthesis is much better at evolving a culture than a culture left to its own devices. Realize that I'm not using evolution as a term of teleological movement. When something evolves, biology teaches us, it isn't "better" per se, it isn't moving towards perfection, it is merely changing.
Just as scientists propose a spike in the pace of biological evolutionary change when asexual reproduction gave way to sexual, the pace of cultural evolution speeds up when cultures are fused, or when people of divergent cultures integrate.
If you buy this idea, what then, is the most present danger the our cultural sovereignty faces? I submit it is influence from other, radically different cultures. Outsiders.
What is the best way stifle this? I think it's fear. Fear of the other. Xenophobia. When our nation's terrorism alert system is inextricably linked with a group of people, we send the message that outsiders are inherently dangerous, or at least suspicious, and to be avoided. Similar in its functionality is the doctrine of unilateralism pushed by this administration.
GWB said, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend it's sovereignty," or something to that effect. It's them against us, all of them.
How much hatred of the French has this caused? France, a country who has been our longtime ally. Now the French are selfish communists and a divisive global element only concerned with their own (evil) agenda and a thorn in the side of the peace-loving world. Just like the Terrorists (Islamists). The peace loving are made up of a curiously small number of countries: England, Canada, Australia, etc.
Hmmm.
The coalition of the willing is not only deeply tied to us economically, but also very similarly composed culturally.
I'll probably add more depth to this later, but these are my thoughts and I have a concert to get to. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Photos (of the concert, not coalition) to (hopefully) follow.
Spellcheck works with Mozilla, now I really need to change my blog title. Strangely, blogger's spell check doesn't contain the word "blog".
posted by Luke @ 5:32 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Keep in mind that there are other types of conservatism (is that a word?). For instance, there are fiscally conservative republicans that aren't closely connected with the traditional 'morally conservative' agenda.
As much as your average xenophobic, culturally-non-absorbent conservative person pisses me off, they serve as an important 'brake' to keep our culture from moving quickly enough to destabilize. The framers counted on a similar phenomenon in politics to minimize the possiblity of a revolution that we would regret later. So, the change in our society isn't as fast as I would like, but it *almost* constantly becomes more progressive/liberal/etc, and does so at a pace that the majority finds palatable. This helps to insure that we don't often go backwards.
But the scales are tipping. That's why I'm so upset about what has happened in the last, oh, let's say, four years. People are more, as you noted, fearful of foreigners and foreign cultures. They're also more obsessive about censorship and the content of media. For instance, when was the last time you went to an R rated movie and there was a really saucy sex scene? I can't remember if Swimming Pool was rated R or not. Probably not. The Dreamers? Forget about it. NC-17 all the way. Violence (fear) good. Sex (love, ostensibly) bad. The FCC has also recently lost its mind and is imposing *more* restrictive rules than had previously been in place. That's unheard of.
"I was thinking about fear as a vehicle for recruiting conservatives."
It's the *best* recruiting tool. You might feel a lot of ways about a lot of different things, but if you aren't *afraid* of them, you're not likely to do much besides sit around and bitch. Fear gets the ball rolling. For a textbook example, take a look at the scene in American History X when Ned Norton (Ed Norton's evil, nazi alter-ego) is recruiting people for his skinhead group and makes the 'pinata' speech. You don't have to make valid points, you just have to make good-enough sounding points that get people afraid. They'll blur the distinction between the truth and the almost-truth all by themselves.
Saddam Hussein is a bad man
Al-Queda is comprised of lots of bad men
Saddam Hussein is a bad man
Al-Queda is comprised of lots of bad men
Saddam Hussein is a bad man
Al-Queda is comprised of lots of bad men
Saddam Hussein is a bad man
Al-Queda is comprised of lots of bad men
Saddam Hussein is a bad man
Al-Queda is comprised of lots of bad men
Saddam Hussein is buds with Al-Queda. See? The administration never said (by their own account, anyway) that Sadam Hussein was linked to Al-Queda. They just repeated some scary sounding facts in the right order enough that people filled in the gaps all by themselves. *That's* scary.
--Mike Sheffler
I don't think immigration and cultural evolution could move fast enough to create the kind of revolution conditions you were talking about.
Could be wrong though
You can use one of these possible names: http://ineedanameforthisblog.blogspot.com/
Luke,
I think you're right that they probably couldn't move quick enough to incite revolution, but there are minor cases, like the 60s, that some people were nary to happy about and thought were as bad as revolution (just not a full-on overthrow of the government).
Personaly, I don't think that immigration and cultural evolution can move fast enough period (well, cultural evolution, anyway. Having the population base in wild flux [mass immigration/emmigration] causes bigger problems than just some people not being fond of immigrants). Unfortunately, I am not everybody. When I wrote what I wrote in the first comment, I just meant that the presence of extremes tends to make things move along at a reasonable pace for the much larger segment of people that are 'average' and have 'average' views on all those isuses.
--Mike Sheffler
Jesus: You've all seen those "Jesus Was A Liberal" bumper stickers, or just heard that line used as rhetoric. i was thinking about that, and thinking it's probably true. But, people tend to get more conservative as they get older. Jesus would be over 2000 years old if alive today, in the physical or spiritual sense. So it could go either way really.
Xenophobia: Oooh...i don't know. i think you're attributing American's distrust of Arabs to an all inclusive/exclusive "the other," meaning all non-Americans. Did any American look at Africans or Asians in a new, more suspicious light after 9/11? i doubt it. They were pretty keenly focused on Arabs. And, and far as outsiders contributing to social evolution...we've already got the hang of Algebra (well, not me, but you know what i mean) so what else do they have to offer here?
As far as cultural love-ins go, you can probably guess who i back to further our cultural revolution. JAPAN JAPAN JAPAN. Obviously they have the awesome videogames and movies, but they also have a crazy work ethic, less sexual hang-ups (in some cases), basically zero crime, and...i just want to see more Japanese girls around.
France: There's backstory here that i don't fully know, but i was actually raised to think that it's okay to hate France. Not by my parents but by the Wizard Magazines that i borrowed from Mike. They made prejudicial anti-French jokes all the time. After i noticed them in Wizard i started noticing French jokes everywhere. The message was clear: the French is one of the few groups of people that it's totally okay to hate.
Not hate like you're supposed to hate Nazis, but hate in the "France. Feh!" kind of way.
Nothing has really happened to change my mind since High School. i don't find anything special in the fact that the French and i both agree that going to Iraq sucks.
-ben
That Jesus was a Liberal thing has gotten a retarded amount of air in the last week or so. Jesse Jackson wrote an editorial about it I think. I'd look it up, but more or less anything that guy says is cute, and maybe noble, but naive and a waste of my time, God bless him.
As far as Xenophobia yeah, not just Arabs are Muslim. Nigerians, Kenyans, Somalis etc etc.
Who was in the Axis of evil? Iraq, okay, Iran, sure . . . but North Korea?
Nuclear weapons, right and WMDs everywhere else.
Bullshit.
So I stand by my statement.
And yeah, it is okay to hate France, because they're supposedly really snobby. I didn't get that when I was there. David Sedaris didn't convey it to me either.
I hate France because their Toll Highways sucked me dry and left very little money for Paella and Absinthe in Barcelona.
I think they saved our ass in the Revolutionary war too, but I could be mistaken.
I dunno, I don't have a problem with them really.
And stop continually referring to Nazi's, now you're just violating the law on purpose. lol
Further, it's a common stance among conservatives to be really hard on immigration.
Mike Savage, who is a very very bad man, is an ultra-right talk show host who thinks the borders should be almost totally closed and all imigrants force-fed English.
Right or wrong, that's the stance crystalized.
The ultimate push for homogeneity and traditionalism in culture is multi-faceted. Promoting xenophobia through fear is just one aspect.
...i thought the law was only violated if you COMPARED someone to Nazis...i don't think i actually read it.
-ben
Crap, I guess technically it is, but you violated the spirit, if not the letter of the law.
Diabolical.
Merk,
These are valid points, and I agree with you on most of them. You're missing the essential aspect of my blog
You asked: "If America was so Xenophobic"
I never said that, if America was uniformly xenophobic we wouldn't be so polarized. My point was about conservatives--not to be confused merely with Republicans. Further, not fiscal conservatives--moral and cultural conservatives.
"Legislating to ensure the survival of "traditional American values" and leaving the rest to big business. They want to conserve the way of life begun by our--predominately--Puritan forefathers. This is fine in itself."
My argument, broken down is this:
Cultural conservatives oppose cultural evolution by definition.
Assuming--as I argue--that the most fluid cultures are those with the least restricted ebb and flow of immigrants from other cultures.
Immigrant populations never simply assimilate, they integrate, synthesizing the old with the new and leaving a lasting impact on the culture they immigrate into.
To restrict this end, cultural conservatives traditionally--always in fact--seek restrictions on immigration.
What I see happening now though, is the attempted polarization of public oppinion, the drive to view most of the world as against us. Not just the arabs, but the French, the Germans, etc etc.
Who was in our coalition? Canada, UK etc etc Spain also, but they're more or less a third world nation.
Whether Canada considers themselves close to us culturally, the fact is they are a predominantly protestant Christian country with a long history of open borders and good relations with America. There government, while leaning more toward western european socialism with their universal healthcare and whatnot, is ideologically similar to our own.
The same goes, more or less for Britain
So in the minds of cultural conservatives, these people are close to us culturally.
and RE: the title itself, it's from an earlier collection of blogs, and esp an article noted by smacktooth (link is in my blogroll) about how if this polarization is to continue, civil war is the only real end. I don't know if I agree with that, but that was the impetus for it at any rate.
"I guess what I am saying is that I don't think breaking down conservative to the lowest common denominator is very fair"
you're right of course, I was trying to make a statement about those orchestrating the polarization, not more moderate conservatives, and once again, only those who consider themselves culturally conservative--which, from reading your blog, you don't really seem to be, could be wrong though.
Obviously there is a vast spectrum of opinion that falls under the category of conservative, but I was trying to look at hardline conservatives in particular, I didn't really make that clear I guess
Post a Comment
<< Home