Without getting into a deep theological debate, I think most people would agree that Jesus was a radical. He openly opposed the status quo of his day. He didn't like the way the powers-that-be were handling things and I'm fairly certain he never suggested that his followers go back solely to live according to the mores of their ancestors. No, he was proposing a new theology -- one that looked forward.
America's Founding Fathers were radicals too. They were none to pleased with the way the authorities in England were managing things. They railed against such notions as taxation without representation. They didn't advocate moving back to England nor allowing the status quo to stand as is. No, they were proposing a new political system -- one that looked forward.
It's ironic, then, that this forward looking man and this forward looking group are now viewed as the foundational aspects of people adverse to looking forward -- American conservatives. If today's conservatives had been alive during Jesus' or the Founding Fathers' eras, they would have opposed them with every fiber in their beings. Today, however, both are their heroes.
It's really a strange dynamic, if you think about it for more than half of a second.
When ideas are new and fresh, conservatives want nothing to do with them. "Things are just swell as they are now," they declare. "You must be some kind of subversive if you mean to upset our apple cart."
It is only after the new ideas become entrenched over a period of decades -- the new status quo -- that conservatives come around to embrace them. Those very ideas that they scoffed at in the distant past are now defended as self-evident truths. Of course, any new ideas or policies suggested in the current era are opposed just as before.
This got me to thinking. If in some future generation socialism begins to take hold in the US and, in time, becomes the status quo, the progeny of today's conservatives will become socialism's greatest advocates. They will laud it as God's gift to humankind and castigate anyone who doesn't embrace it as truthfully as they do.
Needless to say, there will be new visionaries who imagine a system -- let's call it planetarianism -- far superior to socialism.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to travel forward in time to watch Glenn Beck IV or Sarah Q. Palin rallying their supporters to elect only the most reddest socialist candidates out there? Wouldn't it seem surreal to hear Rush Limbaugh VI declare that planetarianists are trying to destroy our atheist-embracing socialist nation?
America's Founding Fathers were radicals too. They were none to pleased with the way the authorities in England were managing things. They railed against such notions as taxation without representation. They didn't advocate moving back to England nor allowing the status quo to stand as is. No, they were proposing a new political system -- one that looked forward.
It's ironic, then, that this forward looking man and this forward looking group are now viewed as the foundational aspects of people adverse to looking forward -- American conservatives. If today's conservatives had been alive during Jesus' or the Founding Fathers' eras, they would have opposed them with every fiber in their beings. Today, however, both are their heroes.
It's really a strange dynamic, if you think about it for more than half of a second.
When ideas are new and fresh, conservatives want nothing to do with them. "Things are just swell as they are now," they declare. "You must be some kind of subversive if you mean to upset our apple cart."
It is only after the new ideas become entrenched over a period of decades -- the new status quo -- that conservatives come around to embrace them. Those very ideas that they scoffed at in the distant past are now defended as self-evident truths. Of course, any new ideas or policies suggested in the current era are opposed just as before.
This got me to thinking. If in some future generation socialism begins to take hold in the US and, in time, becomes the status quo, the progeny of today's conservatives will become socialism's greatest advocates. They will laud it as God's gift to humankind and castigate anyone who doesn't embrace it as truthfully as they do.
Needless to say, there will be new visionaries who imagine a system -- let's call it planetarianism -- far superior to socialism.
Wouldn't it be a hoot to travel forward in time to watch Glenn Beck IV or Sarah Q. Palin rallying their supporters to elect only the most reddest socialist candidates out there? Wouldn't it seem surreal to hear Rush Limbaugh VI declare that planetarianists are trying to destroy our atheist-embracing socialist nation?
I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that today's radicals are tomorrow's conservatives. Today's conservatives in a future socialism would be radicals. It's about being married to an ideology, rather than being able to go with the flow of change.
ReplyDeleteSociety is bound to have both, and needs both. the ones maintaining the statis quo preserve stability in the culture, while the radicals are the ones introducing necessary change into the culture lest it ossify. Kind of the fight between the priest on the one hand and the mystic on the other. For example, I'm conservative when it comes to genetic engineering: change is coming, but I favor a cautious approach.
Right now we're a bit far to the conservative side, fighting (probably too much) the change, and lord knows there's a lot of change happening of late. So it's understandable.
Hi kids,
ReplyDeleteCan you say "Yin" and Yang'. Today, let's read the I ching!