I read plenty of arguments attacking "conservatism" as a whole. To a point, I think that this is misguided. I'm very liberal minded, but still choose to endorse true consrervative economic policies, like lower taxes for everyone not just for corporations. Its the cultural aspects of conservatism, that made me head towards a more progressive stance several years ago. But what is the ultimate vision of conservative culture? Besides the normal charges of Christianization of America, the mores of conservative culture can be found in the paradoxical world of 1950's T.V. and movies Take the shows Leave it To Beaver or The Honeymooners. Both shows represent different forms of subsrervience. The latter repres ents the part of women yielding to their husbands, while the former portrays children yielding to parental authority. Now I do believe tht children should show respect to their parents, but i don't believe in the concept that "kids should be seen not heard" Teaching kids to bury their opinions is setting them up for failure in life. Another element of modern conservative culture deals with the denial of America's diversity. Movies of first half of the 20th century, up until the 60's barley showed people of color, relegating them to lower social roles. If you say that you're a "pure" American, but deny your immigrant roots, than your obviously ignorant of your own history. So what does conservative culture want? A dream, a vision of society that never truly existed.
there are 3 types of people who are neo-conservatives(people in the raygunite/W ideology) -idiots- people who are blindly patriotic and dont have the mental capacity to understand politics. they fall for for photo ops and are scared to death of ragheads -ignoramae-those who have been duped into flawed ideology and choose to believe the rediculous bullshit the government wants them to believe. -evil-the people who are behind it all, whose love of money and power overtakes common sense, humanitarianism and patriotism. (this theory is a work in progress btw) as for beliefs i think money and power are their main motivation for everything
Conservatives want a past that never happend and liberals want a future utopia that will only ever exist in dreams. There's both sides.
Average conservatives are Christians. The Christian nature is to evangelize. A conservative politician has a simple formula, save the world from fags, abortion, and naked ladies and youll have yourself a subservient voting bloc to get your legislation through to allow big business to further rape and pillage and so on.
The Islamic nations we despise is what conservatives want, only here it would be christianity instead of Islam.
I'm a Christian and I'm certainly not conservative. My father is a Pastor and some of his view points are even more liberal than mine!(he's also been a vegetarian for over 40 years) Then again I'm not your average Christian. What these Right Wingnut Religeo- Nazi's want to do is to overthrow Democracy and turn America into a Theocratic Dictatorship. Many Neo Cons view the Antebellum South(that's pre-Civil War South) as their model society. Check out www.theocracywatch.org Also look up Dominionism and Christian Reconstruction.
Conservative Culture wants to hide and preserve the latent homo-sexuality of patriarchal civilization. Conservatism is the authority loving homo-erotic impulse of male sexual inadequacy. Conservatives are effeminate men who surrender their own individual soveriegn spirit path in order to submissively be obedient to the authority of other men. Conservatism is the effeminate desire to seek the security and authority of alpha-male father-figures within a social hierarchy. In other words, the classic psychology of an insecure woman. Race, class and religion are used by conservative culture to compensate for their sexual inadequacy. It's no coincidence that the White Male Establishment, after being exposed as sexually repressed squares in the '60s and '70s, and humiliated by Black and Vietnamese liberation, turned to the father-figure Reagan and the White, property owning Christians of the Republican Party. Just as the Germans, after their cultural humiliation in WW1, turned to father-figure Hitler and the Nazis.
I guess you can say I've been reading between the lines. Conservative Freud had to be dragged kicking and screaming to his reluctant and carefully limited conclusions. C.J. Jung, on the other hand is less conservative and less constrained in his interpretations.
Nobody, especially the highly repressed, likes being stripped naked and having their hairy smelly unconscious motivations expossed. Jung and Freud embarrassed The Establishment by exposing The Establishment's hidden motivations, and that's why they've been constantly attacked, especially by the highly repressed American Establishment.
ACTUALLY, when Leave it to Beaver was started on TV, it was considered "Permissive Parenting." Ward and June TALKED to their children, explained what they had done wrong, discussed how they could right their wrongs, and actually gave their children thanks when they did a good job at something. THIS was considered "Permissive" by many, especially conservatives who believed that children needed to be beaten regularly. A lot of parents had a lot of pressure to LISTEN to their children and talk to them when Beaver was on the airwaves, and that made a lot of people uncomfortable. Just an observation. Yeah, people told President Lincoln, Kennedy and Martin Luther King that. And many, not all, but many of their dreams, which the Conservatives said would "never happen" are daily events today. (Please, don't tell me Lincoln "was a Republican" it had a very different meaning 145 or so years ago.) Basicaly, you are saying people shouldn't hope for a better world we have today, because it is only a dream? Damn, you are cynical for such a young girl.
I agree, "Leave it to Beaver" was very popular amongst us kids, because we could sense and relate to their defiant and freedom seeking spirit. "Ossie and Hariet" was another good example of an evolving liberal spirit amongst modern parents. "The Honeymooners" was also a bad example of subservience. I mean Alice and Trixie never took any shit from the twin goofs Ed and Ralph. Those two were hopeless without Alice and Trixie. But most important you could tell they were deeply in love. Every time Ralph threatened Alice with "To the moooon!", you knew he was saying 'I love you beyond words'.
Neo-Conservatism is the current trend while conservatives are more aligned to pseudo-socialistic ideals. The neos creed basically is "greed is good" as evidenced by sky-rocketing wages for CEO's who economically "rationalise" workforces by cutting wages and jobs for workers, thereby creating short term paper profits for shareholders that is stupidly perceived as 'successful business strategy'. But not in the long term. This type of behaviour is nothing short of criminal IMHO, and it has forced my evaluation of principles such as socialism in response. My view is that without socialism, society could never have become what it is now because of two basic premises ~ 1] Primitive society was established upon socialist concerns ~ the wellbeing of the group was supported by all individuals in providing food, shelter and protection, as well as supporting those who became injured in the process of ensuring group wellbeing. Thus communities were established, as well as the nations and services provided by nations today. 2] The conservative "greed is good" motive is entirely destructive of community concerns and well-being in favour of exclusivity and wealth. It creates a social divide along which community fractures, thereby generating the very causes of social concern such as crime. Corporations are the neo-con breeding ground, and corporations have one obligation and one obligation only ~ to profit. And profit invariably comes at the expense of the individual. Imagine what could be if corporations were modelled on socialisism in it's purest form as demonstrated by our ancient forebears. I believe that the world and every individual would be far far better off. Steps down from soapbox, reflects on what could be.......
The profits are not paper, they are real. Keeping workers in unneeded positions stunts productivity and thus GDP. Creative destruction - it wasn't invented in the 1980s. All this rationalisation has not resulted in mass unemployment, in fact unemployment is low in a historical perspective. Did you thing western societies were created by god in 1901? No, they climbed their way to prosperity through capitalism and the pursuit of profit. Look at history - if the individual suffers from profit, where did all this wealth come from? Do you live in a mud hut with no running water or electricity?
The egocentric greed of capitalism creates blind denial of what should be obvious ~ Right now there are more than 3.1 billion people in the world living on less than $2 a day. Another telling fact is that the net worth of the 358 richest billionaires is equal to the combined income of the poorest 45% of the world’s population. 45% translates into 2.3 billion people! Nearly a billion people in just the Third World are landless or have too little land available to them to feed their households. In the advanced countries, 100 million people live below the poverty line, 5 million of them without homes. ............................ here in the United States, the income disparity is now the widest it has been since the 1929 stock market crash and it is continuing to grow. These previous examples illustrate the unequal distribution of wealth, an irreversible symptom of the ailing capitalist system. Capitalism is characterized by perpetuated poverty that results from, among other attacks on the working class, workers’ wage cuts, an increase in the cost of living without an increase in minimum wage and layoffs, all motivated by capitalism’s drive for profit profit. Remember, the income disparity continues to grow, so it’s true that, as the old saying goes, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. You won't find such truthful stats on a balance sheet. http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/hunger.html http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/pov/toc.htm
