I can readily admit that I am sometimes a glutton for punishment. For example, rather than simply try to avoid those of a conservative bent, I often try to engage them in discussion. More often than not, this tact does not work because far too many conservatives will do almost everything possible to AVOID a genuine discussion.
These kinds of people see the world in stark black and white. There's one correct opinion -- their opinion, of course -- and they see no need to entertain any other possibilities. In fact, if a person might happen to disagree with one of their often unfounded assertions, such a person is trying to be divisive, mean or hurtful. Such conservatives simply can't accept the notion that a) a person may be merely asking a question about something that seems unclear or b) that someone might have a different opinion.
One of my "favorite" conservative (my way or no way) blogs is Where's Your Brain? The blog's author hides behind the moniker, Justadog. Here is a quote from the original entry about the so-called liberal media.
These kinds of people see the world in stark black and white. There's one correct opinion -- their opinion, of course -- and they see no need to entertain any other possibilities. In fact, if a person might happen to disagree with one of their often unfounded assertions, such a person is trying to be divisive, mean or hurtful. Such conservatives simply can't accept the notion that a) a person may be merely asking a question about something that seems unclear or b) that someone might have a different opinion.
One of my "favorite" conservative (my way or no way) blogs is Where's Your Brain? The blog's author hides behind the moniker, Justadog. Here is a quote from the original entry about the so-called liberal media.
Liberals target people in attempted character assassinations. This is actually a tactic that is taught in any early college logic class or debate class - if you can't support your position then attempt to destroy the message of your opponent (however true it might be) by destroying the messenger. There is a lack of ideas, solutions to problems, or hope that comes from their programming. Liberals are very good at this.
From my observations of American politics, I would say this was an apt definition of rabid conservatives (think Swift boat people or Karl Rove). Since, in my personal opinion, Mr. Hound was turning this definition on its head, I asked for some documentation to back up this assertion.
How do you think he responded? By avoiding the issue at hand and attacking my character!
Don't get me wrong. If this unknown guy wants to attack my character, fine. I'm not going to get upset about it. No, what strikes me as so ironic is that this ultra-conservative is doing precisely what he accuses liberals of doing and he can't see it even though it's staring him straight in the face.
And this is no anomaly either. In discussion after discussion, the same scenario plays out. When he asks that I provide documentation of an assertion, I provide it. When I ask him for the same, he immediately tries to sidetrack the issue by calling me names.
As I written on this blog before, he is the kind of person who only wishes to engage in a monologue, not a discussion.
None of us can learn anything if the only voice we value is our own!
How do you think he responded? By avoiding the issue at hand and attacking my character!
Don't get me wrong. If this unknown guy wants to attack my character, fine. I'm not going to get upset about it. No, what strikes me as so ironic is that this ultra-conservative is doing precisely what he accuses liberals of doing and he can't see it even though it's staring him straight in the face.
And this is no anomaly either. In discussion after discussion, the same scenario plays out. When he asks that I provide documentation of an assertion, I provide it. When I ask him for the same, he immediately tries to sidetrack the issue by calling me names.
As I written on this blog before, he is the kind of person who only wishes to engage in a monologue, not a discussion.
None of us can learn anything if the only voice we value is our own!
I would say that is a characteristic of an extremist, regardless of affiliation. So either a conservative or liberal, with extreme views in which they hold them either sacred or absolute, will not sway from them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would say that Liberalism and Progressivism are more prone to absolute thinking because of its structure. It is elitist in nature, desiring centralized "governmental" control. If it were benevolent, as its framers intended, it would be beneficial. But, applied as it is today, it is oppressive. George Orwell extrapolated this concept in "1984". Although, thought police don't exist, diversity committees do on college and high school campus', providing a similar function.
I would also say you, as a Taoist, see the world in black and white also. Isn't that the concept of Yin-Yang? "The Laozi states that Dao gave birth to the primordial organic unity, from which are derived the two opposite forces, which interpenetrate each other, giving birth to the myriad beings." Something to consider.
Hooker,
ReplyDeleteI will grant that fanatics, whatever their hue, do tend to be close-minded. That said, the premise of conservative thought is that average people are not particularly bright and must be led by the self-chosen. If the self-chosen don't see you as an equal, then whatever you have to say seems spurious. Liberal thought, on the other hand, postulates that people are intelligent beings and able to make decisions on their own given adequate information. Thus, a conservative zealot will always be more adverse to a genuine discussion than a liberal.
On a superficial level, Taoism sees all things in black-and-white. However, if you think about the Yin-Yang symbol, one soon finds that it encompasses a wide field of gray. The symbol depicts the two simultaneous views of a mountain; one side in daylight, the other in the shadows. Within the daylight side is a black dot and within the darkness side is a white dot. Each side is always moving to become its opposite.
Where black meets white is gray. And since these two colors share a continous border, there is a lot of grayness in the middle. This middle section is life as we know it. We live in the gray, always trying to achieve balance between the yin and the yang. This is what is meant by the use of the word "interpenetrate" above.
You know, honestly it confounds me why the whole country has become so polarized. I don't think people should be so caught up in if the other person is a conservative or not. The other person is still a person, and should be engaged as such! Who cares if you're liberal or conservative! I'm sorry to rant on your blog, but you seem to have had the most open mind towards conservativism that I've seen yet. At least you've made an attempt at discussion, where most liberal blogs tend to mindlessly bash on conservatives as closed minded idiots (Not that conservative blogs are any better). I just wish that people would get over it, and move on to something a little more usefull!
ReplyDeleteKaos,
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if we could build a bridge between conservative and liberal thought. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as it might appear. Though both stand on opposite sides of a theoretical canyon, in order to build a bridge, both sides must agree on a general midpoint to come together. And, from my perspective, this is where the trouble lies.
The liberal is willing to meet halfway and, sometimes, two-thirds of the way between the two sides. The true conservative, on the other hand, often is looking in a totally different direction. If the attempt is to build a bridge running north-south, the true conservative is fixating their gaze on the east or west. If the liberal then tries to develop an east-west connection, the true conservative turns to the north or south.
In other words, in order to drop labels and to meet in the middle on crucial issues, both sides need to be looking in similar directions. If they don't, then how does would try to find a middle point?
Hmm, I suppose that I never really thought of it in that light. You would think that finding a middle ground wouldn't be that much of a problem, even if the only thing bolth sides could agree on is to disagree. Though I suppose thats a bit of a post-modern viewpoint, and more liberals tend to also be post-moderns than conservatives. Anyway thanks for the interesting perspective!
ReplyDeleteKaos,
ReplyDeleteAs someone closer to the liberal side, it is easier for me to view this subject from THAT perspective. However, to be fair, I should also try to view things from the conservative perspective.
I would venture to guess that a conservative would say that the chief problem in trying to establish a midpoint with a liberal is that the liberal is viewing too broad of an area. While the conservative is trying to focus on a specific issue or problem, the liberal gaze is so wide that it's hard for the conservative to hone in on what might be considered the middle. Far worse, the broadness of the liberal gaze is not static -- It keeps broadening. Thus, it's hard to find the midpoint of a moving target.
Also, you are certainly correct that it would be nice to simply agree to disagree. Unfortunately, this principle doesn't find much resonance in a society built upon the concept of competition. Competition necessitates a winner and a loser, a right answer and a wrong answer. Each side believes it holds the winning card.
In order to agree to disagree means that both sides would need to agree with the idea the contest was a draw. For most people in a competitive society, a draw is worse than a loss because it lacks a definitive outcome. Therefore, people will continue to butt heads in the hope that they ultimately can claim a definitive victory.
Trey the Taoist,
ReplyDeleteOn whose writings or defination do you base your comment on the premise of conservative thought? In my readings of Websters, Wikipedia and Questia, Conservative Thought tends to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these.
I think your premise of conservative thought is a sterotype and demagogic.
Current Conservative thought, by its very nature, is black and white. (You were right!) "Classical conservatism, by definition, is sceptical of plans to re-model human society after an ideological model."(Wikipedia) Libertian Conservative Frank Meyer emphasizes man's freedom: "Innate freedom is of the essence of his being." It is "the aspect of of the nature of men which political institutions exist to serve". Therefore, Conservatives, as we know it in the US, tend to believe political change should come about through legitimate governmental channels. As long as the rule of law is upheld, and change is effected gradually and constitutionally, rather than revolution, the current(classical) conservative is content.(Summarized Wikipedia)
Hence, all conservatives are opposed to what they perceive as liberal relativism. Thus, the current social liberal agenda of cultural evolution(or revolution) does not fly well with current conservative thought.
"The goal of human growth is virtue. Conservatives believe that people become virtuous as they struggle to conquer their innate evil tendencies and attune their actions with the moral order. Achieving virtue requires freedom, for unless a man is free to choose good or evil, he cannot choose to be virtuous; there is no purifying struggle without freedom. If a man chooses evil, he will not achieve virtue, but neither can he become virtuous unless he is free to choose. A man may be coerced to act virtuously, but he is not then free to face and conquer his evil tendencies, and thus he is not virtuous." Questia
Liberal thought does base its rational on man's ability to evolve. Thus values, economy, society and governments are all part of the evolutionary process. But, conservative thought believes that there exists an objective reality, independent of man's knowledge or perception of it. This reality includes standards and principles that are real, immutable, and eternal-truths that men should live by and by which human conduct and social and political organization should be judged.(Questia summarized)
So, you can see that the liberal framework of a "general discussion" with a conservative by a liberal, will be frustrating for both parties involved.
I see the Yin-Yang symbol more black and white, with a thin grey area. You see the Yin-Yang symbol with an ocean of grey. So, as I am a Christian, did our religions determine our political philosphies, or did our political philopshies determine our religion?
I am not eloquent enought to keep it to 25 words or less.
OSU Hooker,
ReplyDeleteI am not eloquent enought to keep it to 25 words or less.
At The Rambling Taoist, there is no requirement to be eloquent nor should anyone feel the need to express themselves in any fewer words than they need.
I must admit you have me a bit confused. Initially, you say that "your premise of conservative thought is a sterotype and demagogic", yet, further down, you seem to indicate there is much congruence between my definitions and yours. So are we both demagogues?
So, as I am a Christian, did our religions determine our political philosphies, or did our political philopshies determine our religion?
I would say that a person's world view (i.e., religion or philosophy) influences everything else about them. We start to form our own unique perspectives early in life. Hopefully, it's a never-ending process. Generally speaking, people don't become politically aware until their teens or much later -- some never become politically aware.
Trey,
ReplyDeleteSorry, was out for a week observing human nature in Las Vegas.
I don't disagree with the premise that conservatives think in traditional absolutes. But, this statement,
"That said, the premise of conservative thought is that average people are not particularly bright and must be led by the self-chosen."
is a sterotype and demagogic. What is this statement based upon other than an opinion?
I would not call us demagogues, but I do feel that statement is demagogic in nature. Especially, considering the audience of this blog. Demagogues are Karl Rove and Sen. Dick Durbin, trying to gain power away from each other.
My discussion on how conservatives think, which concurs with your illustration to some degree, was to explain why your preception of a discussion turns into a monologue by a conservative.
Your preception of a geninue discussion, using the liberal thought, is not how a conservative views a debate. The converse of the monologue preception, by someone of a liberal thought process, is the conservative who attempts their form of geninue discussion perceives a person who engages in rationalization of their situational ethics.
Hence their world view is the filter on how they perceive the debate. So, will you ever get a geninue discussion. Don't know.
But, I do concur that attacking someone's character is the wrong way to discuss or debate. Debate is to attack the idea(opinion), not the person. Strengthen your idea, vice yelling louder, is how you discuss topics. But, I guess the modeling of the "yell louder with associated name-calling" method by our elected officials seems to be the standard these days.
OSU Hooker wrote, "But, this statement, "That said, the premise of conservative thought is that average people are not particularly bright and must be led by the self-chosen." is a sterotype and demagogic. What is this statement based upon other than an opinion?"
ReplyDeleteIt's based on my interpretation of the works of Sir Edmund Burke, the father of conservativism. Burke was a strong supporter of aristocracy and believed that tradition, as opposed to reason, should guide society. In other words, people aren't smart enough to make rational decisions themselves and so they must look to leaders (the aristocracy is self-chosen) to guide them.
Dear Trey:
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed some reading of your local blog.
Your interest in Tao, might not sit well with the Radical Muslim community. If fact, it may get your 47 year old face on some tape someday.
As someone who is kind of set in his ways at 58, you know Republican/Nam vet ,gun owner(love targets at 300 or more yards) not a big NASCAR fan..I drag race one of those 600 hp fossil fuel burning problems, and a Christian, I'd say we both are in trouble with those folks you want too appease and tolerate.
9:05 PM
9:09 PM