It's not often that Sid and I have conversation about political things. He is moderate, leaning Republican. I am moderate, leaning what I call common sense because I definitely do not fall into the category of "liberal." Political conversations in our house are usually muted so neither of us gets either overly passionate at the idiocy of the political process (particularly now) or too depresssed over the state of the world.
Still, today we started talking about the definition of the word "conservative" Exactly what does it mean--and I mean to us rather than to political parties who have their own agendas.
Sid looked at me quizzically when I asked the question and repeated the definition of conservative as "someone with something to conserve." "Yes," I replied, "but what is the definition of something? What exactly are we trying to keep?"
I realize this interesting question is capable of many answers. Some people just want to conserve their money and the means by which they make it. Others want to conserve the nation as they know it--the bastion of privilege for the succcessful (and if you're successful, the world looks pretty all right to you just as it is).Yet others may look back on the world as they once knew it, when things were comfortable and assumptions unchallenged.
I sympathize with all this. I suppose we all can. But the devil is in the details and even looking back on my life, there are some awful details along with some bucolic memories. Let me explain.
I was born on the south coast of England. We're talking Beatrix Potter here. Daffodils in the spring. New born lambs dancing on the Downs, walking along the Sea Front, and taking the train to London. Lovely. Nostalgic. People didn't have a lot and seemed content with it. However, and to be bloody British/American about it--my brother died in infancy because there weren't the anitbiotics to keep him alive. I have three bridges and on-going dental work because British dentisty was primitive then. And, even better, the British school system decided when I was eleven that I was not university material. My mother emigrated to Canada in part because of the latter and I went on to earn a doctorate and work as part of an academic team that RAN a major public state university. To Britain, I was a throw-away. America welcomed me and was rewarded by my contribution over time.
Given this background, it's no surprise that I support state investment in public education, state involvement in health care, and state guarantees that everyone has a chance. Until the "conservative" movement broke onto the scene, I thought these were American values. The past few years have been a wake up for me.
Sid, on the other hand, had what I (and I think he) consider an enchanted childhood. He was raised in small-town Cheyenne, his mother stayed home and raised her childen (mine was a single mother who struggled), and his father walked home for lunch. He was encouraged to go to university and to have a profession. Things may not have always been easy, but he had the solid support of his community behind him.
Gosh--I'd like to conserve that too if I'd ever had it.
I think the difference speaks to what we mean by "conservative." I'll go out on a limb and say that "conservatism" means trying to maintain /impose (take you pick) the values and ideals of that time in our lives when we were the most comfortable.
For me, the most comfortable time was when I was in college at the University of Hawaii and, for the Ph.D., the University of Washington (Seattle). I didn't have scholarships because for most of that time I wasn't a US citizen, but the tuition (particularly in Hawaii) was something my husband, Chuck, and I could afford and he believed in my talent. It was the first time that anyone had done so beside my mother. It's THIS experience I want to "conserve."
In in the interest of "conserving" then, I have no problem offering some version of in-state tution to highly talented "illegal" students who graduate from high school because I speak from my own experience in saying these students will return the investment made in them. The fact their parents were illegal does not elevate me to raptures of indignation--that is the matter of luck. I came into the country when being British entitled me to special treatment because of "allotments." I was merely lucky in the times. I also have no problem with making sure that there is some rudimentary medical/dental care available to people who need it, regardless of whether those people are "worthy." At one point, I wasn't thought "worthy"--in class conscious Britian, I wasn't see as being a "clever" girl who could rise above her "class." I feel it does me no honor, nor those who gave me my chance, to sit in judgment of others who may yet serve the nation in unexpected ways.
Yep--I'd say I was conservative, although the Peters and Newts of the world would never see it.
Many among us should just be grateful that their prescriptions for others were never applied to their ancestors (at least if they're not Irish and Asian) and would benefit from standing back and defining their own use of the word "conservative." As my hero Shakespeare says, give us all our just deserts and not one among us would escape whipping.
Welcome conservatives--if you are brave, do what I have--look in the mirror and be prepared to shudder.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Things I Have Learned
The most valuable lessons in life are usually the ones we learn for ourselves and often the hard way. When they work properly, these are the things we can count on--the rock solid foundations that form the cornerstone of our changing selves and our understanding of the world and societies we live in. In fact, it's my own experience that once we let other people dictate what we see in the world--that's when the trouble starts.
We are something of a flawed species. I'm not original in this thought by any means. The various satirists throughout history--from the ancient writers at the dawn of written communication until media stars like Colbert--have all had a field day with our fallibilities and self-delusions. For a species with the unique abiility to speak and think, we have quite a track record of refusing to use them. In constructive ways, anyway.
Our current policitical mayhem is a case in point. Our candidates for president are not questioning the foundational principles, instead they represent a dismal attempt to be the most bigoted, uncompromising exemplar of a set of principles that are badly in need of being examined.
How long, for example, are we going to allow our lives to be dominated by a set of rules coming out of the sands of the Middle East? All the religions developed there--Islam and Judaism and the latter's offshoot, Christianity--have the same foundational basis. They all need reexamination. If we don't like them ruling our economies through their oil, why on earth are we letting ideas developed by a group of nomads rule our lives and the way we think?
In the spirit (my own) of setting aside two-thousand-year-old agendas and looking directly at the world rather than letting anyone control my mind by telling me what to see, here's my list of the things that I think I know. I may be wrong, but at least they are my own ideas rather than ill-digested pablum, which is what I see all around me.
1. All religions and political ideas sound plausible and idealistic when presented in their most abstract form.
Take Christianity to its fullest implication of sharing with others and you get Communism. Take Capitalism to its extreme and you get the reaction of Marxism. There is a spectrum, a range. Do we understand that? Can we determine how far along a curve we are willing to go? Of course not. Self-promoting demagogues have stolen that discussion by substituting "rules" and "moral laws" supposedly to put us good in god's graces--as if anyone could--and many believe them.
2. All religions and political systems are to be judged not by what they say but by what is done in their name.
Yes, Islam is responsible for violence. Sorry. But so is Christianity. How many times do I hear people say that someone is not really Christian or not really Muslim. But on what basis? The Bible is full of smite this people and destroy that people. People who say Christianity is not a violent religion need to stop cherry-picking the Bible. Politicians who claim to represent god and religion need to be shunned--god does not need Texas politicians speaking for him.
3. Political leaders gain and retain power by telling people what they want to hear and concealing whom they really represent.
There are several well-established ways in which people become leaders. Some as they say are born to leadership; others have it thrust upon them. One would like leadership to be a sacred trust instead of a way to become rich. One of the first questions I now ask about anyone running for office is exactly where their money comes from. It's a given of human nature that we will vote for our own best self-interest. We need leaders who don't pander to us worst impulses by trying to make us feel moral for being selfish. This is a shared planet.
4. Systems created by human beings--religion, political, legal, educational etc.--are suspect because they are created by human beings.
There is no such thing as a perfect or infallible system. Even the founding consitution of the United States is not absolute and is not pefect. The founding fathers knew this because they put in provisions for it to be changed as needed. Much better to look at the consitution as a living document. Many of those using it to hit other people over the head have not read it, let alone understood it.
5. The poor will always be among us and the power struggle between the rich and poor is a given.
Aristotle made the case long ago: the rich will want the power because they have the money; the poor will want the power because they have the numbers. The challenge is to maintain the balance of these competing interests. Wishing the poor were different doesn't make them go away anymore than trying to make them more "deserving." What is the right balance? Ninety-nine to one doesn't sound balanced to me--in fact, it sounds like the firing solution for a civil war.
6. Complaining that the world has changed for the worse because it isn't like the ones we grew up in is a waste of breath.
The world changes, period. In our minds, it may change for the better or the worse, but our opinion is immaterial. The sun shines, the tides rise and fall, and the world changes. In fact, individually we are part of the reason that it does change.
7. Scapegoating others (illegals, gays etc) is one way in which we allow others to manipulate us.
It's high time that we looked at how much self-interest lies behind the current efforts to look for someone to blame for our own economic excesses. While we allow our focus to be on peripherals, we don't look at the underlying issues such as who's benefitting from our distraction? As many have said before, follow the money. Power is silent and exercised in back rooms. It is not out on the media waves screaming about being reborn.
8. Few people allow themselves to recognize how our lives are now governed and controlled by corporate interests (see above: follow the money).
In the guise of free trade, which is free only for corporations to send jobs abroad, our health, food, poiltics, media, mililtary, entertainment, and energy and so forth are under corporate control or influence. And you can add to this religion (those TV ministers are millionaires). This whole idea of a nation "under god" is a fraud. It can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when big companies had a PR problem and paid big money to ministers (who else?) to conflate capitalism and Christianity--not that it was hard to do since the Puritans had conflated it before them (if you're rich, it's proof god loves you).
And, finally:
9. It is almost impossible for people to give up money once they have held it in their hands.
I always found it easier to pay my taxes if I had never seen the money to begin with. This is a general principle: it is much easier to give a tax cut than it is to rein it back once given. Tax cuts are a short-term subsitute for hard thinking in the long-term.
We are something of a flawed species. I'm not original in this thought by any means. The various satirists throughout history--from the ancient writers at the dawn of written communication until media stars like Colbert--have all had a field day with our fallibilities and self-delusions. For a species with the unique abiility to speak and think, we have quite a track record of refusing to use them. In constructive ways, anyway.
Our current policitical mayhem is a case in point. Our candidates for president are not questioning the foundational principles, instead they represent a dismal attempt to be the most bigoted, uncompromising exemplar of a set of principles that are badly in need of being examined.
How long, for example, are we going to allow our lives to be dominated by a set of rules coming out of the sands of the Middle East? All the religions developed there--Islam and Judaism and the latter's offshoot, Christianity--have the same foundational basis. They all need reexamination. If we don't like them ruling our economies through their oil, why on earth are we letting ideas developed by a group of nomads rule our lives and the way we think?
In the spirit (my own) of setting aside two-thousand-year-old agendas and looking directly at the world rather than letting anyone control my mind by telling me what to see, here's my list of the things that I think I know. I may be wrong, but at least they are my own ideas rather than ill-digested pablum, which is what I see all around me.
1. All religions and political ideas sound plausible and idealistic when presented in their most abstract form.
Take Christianity to its fullest implication of sharing with others and you get Communism. Take Capitalism to its extreme and you get the reaction of Marxism. There is a spectrum, a range. Do we understand that? Can we determine how far along a curve we are willing to go? Of course not. Self-promoting demagogues have stolen that discussion by substituting "rules" and "moral laws" supposedly to put us good in god's graces--as if anyone could--and many believe them.
2. All religions and political systems are to be judged not by what they say but by what is done in their name.
Yes, Islam is responsible for violence. Sorry. But so is Christianity. How many times do I hear people say that someone is not really Christian or not really Muslim. But on what basis? The Bible is full of smite this people and destroy that people. People who say Christianity is not a violent religion need to stop cherry-picking the Bible. Politicians who claim to represent god and religion need to be shunned--god does not need Texas politicians speaking for him.
3. Political leaders gain and retain power by telling people what they want to hear and concealing whom they really represent.
There are several well-established ways in which people become leaders. Some as they say are born to leadership; others have it thrust upon them. One would like leadership to be a sacred trust instead of a way to become rich. One of the first questions I now ask about anyone running for office is exactly where their money comes from. It's a given of human nature that we will vote for our own best self-interest. We need leaders who don't pander to us worst impulses by trying to make us feel moral for being selfish. This is a shared planet.
4. Systems created by human beings--religion, political, legal, educational etc.--are suspect because they are created by human beings.
There is no such thing as a perfect or infallible system. Even the founding consitution of the United States is not absolute and is not pefect. The founding fathers knew this because they put in provisions for it to be changed as needed. Much better to look at the consitution as a living document. Many of those using it to hit other people over the head have not read it, let alone understood it.
5. The poor will always be among us and the power struggle between the rich and poor is a given.
Aristotle made the case long ago: the rich will want the power because they have the money; the poor will want the power because they have the numbers. The challenge is to maintain the balance of these competing interests. Wishing the poor were different doesn't make them go away anymore than trying to make them more "deserving." What is the right balance? Ninety-nine to one doesn't sound balanced to me--in fact, it sounds like the firing solution for a civil war.
6. Complaining that the world has changed for the worse because it isn't like the ones we grew up in is a waste of breath.
The world changes, period. In our minds, it may change for the better or the worse, but our opinion is immaterial. The sun shines, the tides rise and fall, and the world changes. In fact, individually we are part of the reason that it does change.
7. Scapegoating others (illegals, gays etc) is one way in which we allow others to manipulate us.
It's high time that we looked at how much self-interest lies behind the current efforts to look for someone to blame for our own economic excesses. While we allow our focus to be on peripherals, we don't look at the underlying issues such as who's benefitting from our distraction? As many have said before, follow the money. Power is silent and exercised in back rooms. It is not out on the media waves screaming about being reborn.
8. Few people allow themselves to recognize how our lives are now governed and controlled by corporate interests (see above: follow the money).
In the guise of free trade, which is free only for corporations to send jobs abroad, our health, food, poiltics, media, mililtary, entertainment, and energy and so forth are under corporate control or influence. And you can add to this religion (those TV ministers are millionaires). This whole idea of a nation "under god" is a fraud. It can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when big companies had a PR problem and paid big money to ministers (who else?) to conflate capitalism and Christianity--not that it was hard to do since the Puritans had conflated it before them (if you're rich, it's proof god loves you).
And, finally:
9. It is almost impossible for people to give up money once they have held it in their hands.
I always found it easier to pay my taxes if I had never seen the money to begin with. This is a general principle: it is much easier to give a tax cut than it is to rein it back once given. Tax cuts are a short-term subsitute for hard thinking in the long-term.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
A Sour World
Recently, I took down one of these blogs because it bored me. I was giving the same old message of 'we need to look at ourselves' at a time when no one wants to. It takes rational disinterest to stand back from the pleasures of one's prejudices, and we're sorely lacking in that as a nation and as a world. One day, we're going to look back on the lunacy and wonder what we were thinking. But that's for later.
Right now, people want to hear only what agrees with the minds they have already made up. We've just lost one of our major public intellectuals--Christopher Hitchens--and in reading the tributes being published for him, one theme stands out. People who didn't like his ideas had little to offer in the way of debate with him--they resorted to name-calling because they couldn't muster decent arguments. I read him even when he dabbled in lunacy (he thought the neo-cons were the only way to stop Islamic fundamentalism) because it was an interesting lunacy. When he moved back to the middle, I cheered because I at least needed him to be an independent, inquiring, moderate in order for him to be a moral compass. He was right about proud (and ugly) anti-intellectualism around him.
I'm no Hitchens--that kind of intellectual brilliance drives me back to writing because I cannot sustain the type of debate he exemplified. But I can learn from him. What I see in his work--and also attempted in my own--is the revelation of the very sourness that lies in the basement of our being.
We are at root tribal creatures. We herd. We want the loud-voiced leader who spout maxims we don't have to strive to understand (we're also lazy, of course). We want a religion that flatters us into believing we have every right to eat whatever walks or flies on this planet. We want politicians who benefit us in various ways (mostly getting out of the way of our making money). We want a culture that never changes and people who believe like we do.
We are greedy and paranoid. We want to be protected. We may make noise about wanting to be independent, but let there be one listeria-cantaloupe outbreak, and hear the cries for government to protect us. We treat money as if it is something real rather than just an artificial representation of labor value, and we live in fear that some undeserving person might get something we didn't.
We are also aggressive and territorial. Religion's only excuse for existence is the preaching (more or less successful) of a set of values and ethics. Too bad that once religion gets established, it becomes just like us and uses our herding instincts and paranoia to its own advantages. Want to be a member of a herd: join our congregation. Paranoia? No problem. We've got redemption on tap, not to mention confession. Need to work out your dislike of people who don't think like you? Great--we have a crusade you might be interested in.
I'm not talking here exclusively of the US elections--prime horrors though they are--but of the tendency of the whole human race. People offer up short-term solutions on the belief that political actions can somehow change basic human nature. Well, they can't. In another hundred years, who the heck is going to care whether we have gay marriage? illegal immigration? In less than that, medicare and social security won't be a problem because the baby boomer generation will be gone, and we'll be crying for population. We may be very glad of those illegals we have now been led to despise (many married to and parents of Americans).
Things change. We don't seem to.
One thing I've learned about us and our politics--our demand as fleas for a greater voice in managing the dog--is that we get what we deserve. Right now I can't imagine why anyone would want to lead any country, let alone the US.
Right now, people want to hear only what agrees with the minds they have already made up. We've just lost one of our major public intellectuals--Christopher Hitchens--and in reading the tributes being published for him, one theme stands out. People who didn't like his ideas had little to offer in the way of debate with him--they resorted to name-calling because they couldn't muster decent arguments. I read him even when he dabbled in lunacy (he thought the neo-cons were the only way to stop Islamic fundamentalism) because it was an interesting lunacy. When he moved back to the middle, I cheered because I at least needed him to be an independent, inquiring, moderate in order for him to be a moral compass. He was right about proud (and ugly) anti-intellectualism around him.
I'm no Hitchens--that kind of intellectual brilliance drives me back to writing because I cannot sustain the type of debate he exemplified. But I can learn from him. What I see in his work--and also attempted in my own--is the revelation of the very sourness that lies in the basement of our being.
We are at root tribal creatures. We herd. We want the loud-voiced leader who spout maxims we don't have to strive to understand (we're also lazy, of course). We want a religion that flatters us into believing we have every right to eat whatever walks or flies on this planet. We want politicians who benefit us in various ways (mostly getting out of the way of our making money). We want a culture that never changes and people who believe like we do.
We are greedy and paranoid. We want to be protected. We may make noise about wanting to be independent, but let there be one listeria-cantaloupe outbreak, and hear the cries for government to protect us. We treat money as if it is something real rather than just an artificial representation of labor value, and we live in fear that some undeserving person might get something we didn't.
We are also aggressive and territorial. Religion's only excuse for existence is the preaching (more or less successful) of a set of values and ethics. Too bad that once religion gets established, it becomes just like us and uses our herding instincts and paranoia to its own advantages. Want to be a member of a herd: join our congregation. Paranoia? No problem. We've got redemption on tap, not to mention confession. Need to work out your dislike of people who don't think like you? Great--we have a crusade you might be interested in.
I'm not talking here exclusively of the US elections--prime horrors though they are--but of the tendency of the whole human race. People offer up short-term solutions on the belief that political actions can somehow change basic human nature. Well, they can't. In another hundred years, who the heck is going to care whether we have gay marriage? illegal immigration? In less than that, medicare and social security won't be a problem because the baby boomer generation will be gone, and we'll be crying for population. We may be very glad of those illegals we have now been led to despise (many married to and parents of Americans).
Things change. We don't seem to.
One thing I've learned about us and our politics--our demand as fleas for a greater voice in managing the dog--is that we get what we deserve. Right now I can't imagine why anyone would want to lead any country, let alone the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)