The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am
Leftoid journalist Martin Flanagan and former Labor politician Tom Uren ponder conservatism:
The word conservative, as it is commonly used, makes no allowance for the fact that one of the driving forces within the so-called conservative side are actually radicals. They are radical liberals. Conservatism is the belief that humans are flawed, that notions of human perfectibility are dangerous, particularly when applied en masse as the left sought to do for most of the 20th century. The question to be asked of conservatives is what exactly are they intent upon conserving. Their own small-mindedness, however clever? Meanness? Common prejudice? Or grand principles like the rule of law? Are we conserving fearlessness, or its opposite, the sort of fear that resides within the anti-social? And who exactly are these “neocons” who think with Dr Strangelove certainty of their ability to reshape the world and treat war as some sort of video game?
- Dang, what with all the fancy word-talkin’, ah can’t rightly figure if this feller is fer it or agin it.Posted by Amos on 2006 10 23 at 04:03 AM • permalink
- They mischaracterise an ideology (classical/neo liberalism) and utterly fail to comprehend the movement’s objectives – illustrated in their criticisms of what they assume are its motivations.
When I use the term liberal, I am not referring to the erroneous definition of the word most Americans ascribe to, which applies to big-government New Dealers. Nor am I referring to the erroneous definition of the word most Australians ascribe to, via its association with a political party that is largely conservative in outlook.
The true liberals – bear in mind that liberalism and leftism are mutually exclusive concepts, so that rules out self-described liberals like Mark Bahnisch and Margo Kingston – would never characterise themselves as conservatives, even if ignorant commentators and washed-up politicians do.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 23 at 04:18 AM • permalink
- oops! hit submit instead of preview. cont’d…
So the question posed in the article is completely bunk. Liberals want to remake society in the mould of liberty – they don’t want to conserve anything that contravenes that basic tenet. Oh, and a liberal is certainly not socially permissive yet economically restrictive, which is why lefties who describe themselves as “liberal” are nothing of the sort.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 23 at 04:28 AM • permalink
- And who exactly are these “neocons” who think with Dr Strangelove certainty of their ability to reshape the world and treat war as some sort of video game?
So they have written article about which they concede they don’t know anything about!
Posted by the nailgun on 2006 10 23 at 04:34 AM • permalink
- Well said James. The misuse of the word liberal is a constant bugbear. I once had some Canberra lefty say, when i made an observation that the Green’s anti-GMO food, anti-technology stances were inherently conservative, that the greens opposed these on a liberal and progressive basis. That sure shut me up. I couldn’t quite believe what i’d heard.
- The penny drops finally, at least for a pair of paleolithic ideologues.
WTF is wrong with radical change, particularly when applied to utterly failed and bankrupt dogma?
Humans are supposed to be an evolving species- socialt utopias are degenerating dystopias, and a few of us have worked out that individual effort warrants reward, and reliance on a creaking, intrusive, inefficient and ugly state is an existence that only those with no pride, drive, ability and self respect would wish for.
- #8
My mother always jokingly calls me the “working class conservative”, but when it comes down to it, it’s her ideology that’s conservative:
Don’t build builings over a certain height
Don’t build in certain areas
Don’t grow too many people
Don’t tamper with nature to feed more people(That BTW is pretty well the conversation I had with her this arvo, however we left on reasonably amicable terms today, so I see that as a positive outcome. I rang her early this evening and she was watching Global Village on SBS, and seemed as happy as the proverbial pig in mud, so all’s well!)
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 10 23 at 05:00 AM • permalink
- And who exactly are these “neocons”
Oh, just the people who have expunged one of the world’s most odious and bloody dictatorships, and gotten rid of a particularly noxious Theocracy.
The people who have allowed millions to vote for the first time, and girls to learn how to read.
The Leftists are the ones who did nothing, except criticise.
- Great. Another set of pundits who try to wax profound on the subject of conservatism who have obviously never read a word Edmund Burke wrote.Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 10 23 at 05:19 AM • permalink
- I first read it on a comment thread on Tim’s blog some time ago, but I lost the reference so I can’t attribute. It went something like this: the left care about ideas and how those ideas make them feel. The right cares about ideas and the consequences of those ideas. Another way of looking at it is idealism/utopianism versus realism/pragmatism. That’s realistic and pragmatic enough for me to be going on with.
- Listening to leftists talking about conservatism is akin to listening to teenagers talking about sex…Need I go on?Posted by dover_beach on 2006 10 23 at 05:33 AM • permalink
- It also makes me feel a little dirty and worse off for the experience.Posted by dover_beach on 2006 10 23 at 05:34 AM • permalink
- I read somewhere that a conservative is someone who now accepts ideas that were promulgated by lefties 20 years ago and I think it’s true enough for some of those ideas. After all, conservatives these days are usually pretty tolerant of homosexuality, even to the extent of thinking it’s merely a variant of normal and nothing too bad would happen to our society if they were allowed to get married. I can’t imagine too many conservatives of 20 years ago thinking the same way. But there you are. Something like 2,700 years ago the prophet Hosea wrote, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hos 4:6)
The following is pleasantly surprising coming, as it does, from ratbag lefties.
Conservatism is the belief that humans are flawed, that notions of human perfectibility are dangerous, particularly when applied en masse as the left sought to do for most of the 20th century.
So they’re not entirely stupid, but for the rest of it all Flanagan and Uren are doing are demonstrating typically lefty thought. Anyone who disagrees with them must be EEEEVIL!!!. It’s funny how full of moral judgements are the thoughts of those who live by philosophies that deny that there are moral absolutes.
What I want conserved is precisely the understanding that humans are flawed. We are, in fact, sinners from the day of our birth and, given sufficiently poor socialisation during childhood and the right opportunities, we are far more likely to do the wicked than the good. We need to protect ourselves from each other and we need to protect ourselves from those who want to prescribe for everyone else how they should live. As far as I can see libertarians are just as utopian as any lefty.
- I don’t think anyone on the right doesn’t understand and appreciate that the conservatism of Thatcher, Reagan and Howard was radical for the societies into which they came into power.
Flanagan and Uren might ponder how reactionary the progressives are.
In looking back 200 years, Flanagan might come across Romanticism, a reaction to the Enlightenment. I can assure him that the meanness of Enlightenment (in its demand for evidence) added more years to life of his noble savages and their offspring than the Romantic philosophy ever would have.
- I read the article to which Tim linked. Twice. And I still didn’t understand the point. The extract above is just the stupidist piece of an article whose major objective appears to be the redefinition of the word stupid. And defining it downwards I should add.
The title gives the game away: “Let down by leaders, but others have shown the way”. So leaders have been replaced by what? Leaders? Give me a break. Are there no editors at the SMH any more?
- An 85 year old unrepentant communist, a former Minister in the appalling Witless Government of the 70’s, Tom Uren should confine his comments to the latest fashion in incontinence pads.
Much more relevant than that turgid crap in the SMH.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 10 23 at 06:04 AM • permalink
- #12, Andrea:
Great. Another set of pundits who try to wax profound on the subject of conservatism who have obviously never read a word Edmund Burke wrote.
I’ve never read that guy either. What kind of stories he write?
Anyhoo, I’d like to match my ignoramusness with the other “pundits”, seeing as how I’m just as clueless on Mr. Burke too.
Ok, here’s my try.
Conservatives are folk that try to deal with reality as it actually exists.
Leftoids are folk that believe reality must submit to the inventions of their imaginations.
How close did I get?
- In my way of thinking, conservatism is doing what brings the most benefit, in the most fair and practical way, in the most stable and substainable manner, in an overall fashion. That is why anti-discrimination was supported, albeit slowly, during the 1960’s. It was right. And why most liberal spend-the-kids’-savings programs are opposed. They don’t work and they make things worse.
Think of it as the way things would be run politically, socially, and financially, if the accountants ran the world. Which will happen once our leader, Irving Lobenowitz, CPA, ascends to power. Um, after the books get audited and the quarterly statement is issued of course. And tax returns have to be filed. And the SEC reports. And government regulatory reports are finished and mailed in. But rest assured taking over power is on the TO DO list.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 10 23 at 06:27 AM • permalink
- #21 Pedro: Tom Uren, An 85 year old unrepentant communist
Actually I heard Uren once admit that he’d backed the wrong horse most of his life. He was by then too old to find out what the ‘right horse’ was all about. Still ignorant and confused about conservatives, he’s living proof that most lefties rarely ever learn by experience or by thinking clearly.
- I’ve never read that guy either. What kind of stories he write?
In short, Edmund Burke was a British classical liberal philosopher who broke with his colleagues over the shittiness of the French revolution. (Despite his support for the American one).
He is thus considered the father of modern conservatism. (As opposed to the older, continental reactionary conservatism as embodied by Metternich and others).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 10 23 at 06:35 AM • permalink
- wronwright – with such outrageous lack of shame you reveal the Great Secret! The Name Which Cannot Be Named!
Flee! Run and hide! Even now the underlings of Lobenowitz close in! Crap! Now I’ve done it too! Oh well, six months hiding out in King’s Park… he’ll forget about it.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 10 23 at 06:57 AM • permalink
- Grimmy’s on the money. (But so was Burke…)Posted by bonjour triteness on 2006 10 23 at 07:25 AM • permalink
- Murph, Yes – I disagree with what Tom Uren has to say, but he, probably more than any of us here and in Australian politics today, has the right to say it.
“Uren was a sports fanatic in his youth, never the spectator then or in later life. He played rugby league for Manly Warringah, was a strong competitive swimmer and a boxer who challenged for the Australian heavyweight championship against Billy Britt before going to war.
For young Uren it seemed the war was going to be short-lived after his 2/40 Infantry Battalion surrendered to the Japanese after a brief fight in Timor. But Uren and his comrades were destined to do the war tough—working on the infamous Burma-Thailand railway, where they were subjected to physical brutality and died by their thousands of starvation and disease.
Later, Uren was transferred to Japan, where he and his comrades were again put to work. There they were to witness a distant crimson sky following the explosion of the US atom bomb on Nagasaki.
Upon his return to Australia, he took up boxing professionally, travelling to England to box, but his health was never the same after his wartime experiences and he gave the fight game away”.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 10 23 at 07:29 AM • permalink
- Being trated badly by Korean POW guards is no real excuse for being a dickhead- Uren was utterly opposed to nuclear weapons, despite the fact that one saved him from a beheading as a POW in a mine near Nagasaki.
If he wants to let his humanist beliefs overide his own sense of self preservation, bully for him- he doesn’t have the right to speak for the rough end of a million gyrines who’d be in holes if the Enola Gay and the Bocks Car didn’t prove the superiority of the West.
I know a lot of diggers, my old man was one; I can respect Uren’s suffering, I cannot respect his idiocy.
Fuck him.
- And that account of a brief fight before surrendering is a bit harsh on the 2/40th Bn and Uren and the rest. Blackforce was under the command of Brig Arthur Blackburn VC who landed at Gallipoli and won his VC in France (read his citation, it’s quite remarkable) and was ordered to surrender by the Dutch higher command. Along with Uren he also survived Japanese captivity.Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 10 23 at 07:43 AM • permalink
- The first part of this sample is correct. The second part doesn’t follow the first. I will read the article but I bet he hasn’t heard of the word Libertarian.
It’s as if he is waking up to a fact that he is trying ever-so-hard to understand. What? A lefty discovering reality?
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 10 23 at 07:43 AM • permalink
- The act of having served in uniform during a time of war should never be the cause of any sort of “special dispensation”. Serving during war time is what able men are supposed to do. It’s a basic minimum requirement.
Good men and bad serve. Smart men and stupid.
Uniformed service alone does not a saint make.
To have been a communist during the Cold War was to “adhere to the enemy”. That should never be forgotten nor forgiven.
- The “Libera;” party ion Canada is very lefty and also rather like the PRI in Mexico – used to power and corrupt.Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 10 23 at 07:50 AM • permalink
- As for writers named Burke. I kinda like this guy’s style.
- #17 Janice:
We are, in fact, sinners from the day of our birth and,
I would prefer: We are in without a user’s manual from teh day of our birth.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 10 23 at 08:00 AM • permalink
- Mighty lies from little planted axioms grow. The authors switch quickly from a completely historical, yet abbreviated, view of conservatism – i.e., its realization of the limitations of human nature and its mistrust of mass movements (usually engineered by the State) – to the sweeping statement, or rather thinly veiled and unsupported accusation, that conservatism is parochial, racist and intolerant. Having picked up speed, this intellectually dishonest snow job easily becomes an avalanche of mere attitudinizing, in which the authors ostentatiously overlook the fact that neo-conservatism covers a lot of diverse territory and includes, among its principals, genuine scholars and intellectuals who, in many cases, have had more than a slight brush with conservatism’s opposite. And how odd to characterize as “Strangelovian” the very people who are trying to prevent the apocalyptic maniacs in North Korea and Iran from blowing up large parts of the world.
I know a lot of diggers, my old man was one; I can respect Uren’s suffering, I cannot respect his idiocy.
Fuck him.
Habib should replace Downer when he’s done with Foreign Sec. You’ve got an absolutely unforgiving Brass Pair, sir. Gleaming with brutality.
I commend you.
Posted by The Apologist on 2006 10 23 at 08:06 AM • permalink
- #36 – In 1940 serving during wartime wasn’t even a basic minimum requirement. All Australians at that time were volunteers. You could sit on your arse in Australia and do diddly squat if you wanted to – and a lot did. Uren volunteered as did my father, a lifelong socialist, who spent five years away in the UK flying Mosquitos and getting a DFC en route. He said very little about it, never joined the RSL and I learnt more from what his navigator’s son wrote for the BBC recently.
But he remained a very left wing socialist for the rest of his life, maybe because when he returned after 5 years away he noted that all the local conservative cockies hadn’t set foot outside Australia and had managed to get rather wealthy in the meantime. Maybe Uren felt the same.Habib might claim that my old man is also an idiot, but I can’t fully grasp what these men went through over such an extended and violent period so I don’t know. But I do know that if anyone called him an idiot to his face they would find themselves sitting on their arses very smartly.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 10 23 at 08:27 AM • permalink
- O/T kinda, but an excellent rebuttal of lefty polemic has been picked up by Andrew Bolt.
It seems Beccy cole (youtube video) copped a serve by an ex-fan for going to Iraq to sing to sing to the diggers over there. She didn’t just write back, she wrote a song as a rebuttal (called poster girl). Its available on the OZ itunes store, but I am not sure if it is available from international itunes (yanks and people from the old countries can have a look at the local versions of itunes and see if it is there). I just bought my copy. Let’s see if we can get it up on the country ‘top songs’ list (which unfortunately is dominated by the dixie chicks…..
Conservatism is the belief that humans are flawed, that notions of human perfectibility are dangerous, particularly when applied en masse as the left sought to do for most of the 20th century.
And the problem with that is … What has happened throughout the world when less enlightened people have resisted the en mass application of the Socialist utopian vision? Oh yeah, they die.
I love the leftist who condemns Christianity on the basis of intolerance, the Crusades and the Inquisition then extols the virtues of his religion of social justice without a hint of irony.
Posted by CrankyNeocon on 2006 10 23 at 08:40 AM • permalink
- #43, Whale Spinor:
By “minimum requirement” I meant that any man who is fit and able and does not step up to voluntarily serve his nation and his people during a time of war is not a man.
Also, love them or respect them, its all good but true is true and socialism and communism have always been broken and disingenuous philosophies and were the hall mark of our common enemy for several decades.
It does not matter why a man gives himself up to the enemy’s views or philosophy, it only matters that he did.
We, as a common culture, have been far too forgiving of those that sided with our enemies in times past and that is part of the weakness and lack of resolve that is plaguing us now.
that the conservatism of Thatcher, Reagan
Both of them enacted liberal economic policies, yet on social matters were quite conservative. Thatcher sometimes talked the liberal talk – apparently she was in correspondence with and got a congratulatory letter from the great FA Hayek upon her election to 10 Downing St – but I suppose she would have been constrained by her party. Most of whom were genuine conservatives, just like the label said. I’m not sure forwarding social permissiveness was part of Reagan’s agenda at all.
So neither can be thought of as liberals, but it’s not fair to call them conservatives, either. Centrists?
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 23 at 08:48 AM • permalink
- PS to #46.
Personally, and in amendment to my post above, I differentiate between communism and general socialism. Socialism as a concept long predates Marx or any codification of “scientific socialism” and has, at least in part, proven beneficial.
Pure capitalism doesn’t exist. Our “capitalism” is softened by fairly substantial doses of socialism. Some feel its too much, some feel not enough but that is a pendulum that will be swinging back and forth for awhile still.
I couldn’t even imagine living in a true capitalist society.
So, if you took what I wrote as a dig at your father for his beliefs, then I am sorry for being a sloppy writer. Socialists are for arguing with, Communists are deserving of nothing better than the sentence usually prescribed for traitors.
- 48#: Most socialists – hell, even lots of communists – are and were good, well-meaning people. Unfortunately, their belief in compulsory collective action as means to spread the greatest benefit to the greatest number makes them vulnerable to co-option by persuasive, evil people with a belief only in forwarding their own agenda at the expense of all else – and a spectacularly effective way of doing that is engaging others in compulsory collective action.
Hence hard-left socialism and communism are quite unique systems in that an enormous number of good, caring people can make up the bulk of something tremendously bad.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 23 at 09:05 AM • permalink
- #46 – Grimmy, bugger you. With my one finger typing, I was half way through saying more or less what you said in #48.
The old man was a socialist and a patriot. He saw no contradiction and neither do I. Australia had Labor governments during most of the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Communism and Islamofacism is another matter. Fortunately one is all but dead, it’s the other we need now to concentrate on.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 10 23 at 09:07 AM • permalink
- #50, James:
It’s always that way. Part of “the human problem” that utopianists of all stripes never remember to factor into their various hallucinations.
I would guess that most Nazis in Germany circa WW2 weren’t all that bad as individuals.
Same for the Imperialists of the Black Dragon society in Japan at that same time.
Some say that most of those that joined the Fascists in Italy simply wanted the trains to run on time.
- I’ve always liked PJ O’Rourke’s take on conservatism. I couldn’t find the exact article I was looking for, but this one isn’t bad:
The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and – lest individualism run riot – insist upon individual responsibility.
Posted by ArtVandelay on 2006 10 23 at 09:15 AM • permalink
- Grimmy
As much as it pains me to say it, Tories in Australia and Britain were the biggest appeasers of Hitler and Japan. WS is right. It was the blue collar workers in Australia – ALP men through and through – that made up the bulk of the Australian volunteers. Tories tended to stay at home and make truckloads of cash out of the war.
Remember: Chamberlain was a Tory. Churchill was made British PM by the Labour party. Not much has changed. When it comes to the war against Fascist Islam, the Tories here in the UK are divided between panty wetting appeasers and “strongman” supporting appeasers.
- Grimmy – I don’t agree. Fascism is far more likely to take the form of a small group of powerbrokers enforcing their will over a bulk of pliant yet ideologically unmotivated citizens. This makes the fascist system a lot more brittle. In the golden years of fascism, fascist leaders used nationalism to inspire its true believers and justify its means, as opposed to the lofty humanitarian goals espoused by the ideology of communism and socialism.
I believe most people are generally good and many are very good, yet fascism doesn’t sell itself to good people. So when the false promise of fascism – national glory – loses its lustre (usually when the country under its yoke plunges into war), what do the fascists have to justify their regime? When it’s got to that stage, the end is usually near. As Mussolini found out.
Communism/socialism, on the other hand, can string the masses along so much more effectively – and for a lot longer – with its reassuring-sounding rhetoric; we know it’s uncomfortable now, but you’re all working towards a bright future, working for each other.
Of course, that’s rubbish and the masses clue up to it after a good long spell, but then the regime is so entrenched that dislodging it requires much time and popular effort – or even more time and popular lethargy, precipitating collapse rather than overthrow.
Also, it takes the confluence of a very particular set of unpleasant circumstances to allow a fascist state to arise because of its lack of ideological worth. However only a few decades need pass before the young of the future, largely ignorant of the nature of the Soviet tyranny and its acolytes in other parts of the world, to appreciate afresh some ideas of Marx’s and Trotsky’s for making the world a better place, a more equitable place…
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 23 at 09:52 AM • permalink
- I’ve always thought that the simplest way to describe modern political philosophy is based on the idea that there are three qualities present in society which conflict with one another to some degree: freedom, order and equality.
The question then becomes which of these you think are worth prioritizing. A conservative might say that without order there is no real freedom, only chaos. A classical liberal (libertarian) would say that freedom is of the utmost importance and then try to hash out how to answer the questions of order and equality. The leftoid believes in equality first and foremost while a populist emphasizes equality and order without much regard for freedom.
This link has a graph which illustrates the concept. I admit this mostly applies to domestic politics, but it provides a lot of insight about the assumptions ideological actors make.
- PS. – when I say “fascism”, I include the Nazis and the Japanese, although the Japanese variant is an interesting and arguably more durable model than the Continental one; what with its god-like leader to rally around. Vesting so much power in a mortal is risky, however, and succession is another obvious point of weakness.Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 23 at 09:59 AM • permalink
- #54, murph:
No such thing as perfect when it comes to humans, human ideas or human organizations.
Iirc during the 1930s the US GOP became infested with nazi sympathizers and KKK.
Doesn’t matter a lick to today’s problems though. That was then, this is now.
Trace any lineage back far enough, for any person or group, and you’ll find dastardly deeds.
About the Tories in the UK today. I would guess that they are as divided by the cult of cowardice and the general corruption of mind and soul that infests all societies that have tried to beat the entropy game by remaining static for too long, much like many of our “conservative” politicos here in the US.
Hell, what’s generally considered “conservative” today would have been radical leftisms only a half century ago. The spectrum has shifted so much.
But, never mind me. I generally assume it true that simply wanting to become a politician, of any sort in any party, means a man is broken inside.
- Cor blimey, look at this thread! History, political philosophy, the human condition – and shot through with elegant penmanship – move over Larvatus Prodeo, whaddaya think of these apples?!?Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 23 at 10:05 AM • permalink
- #55, James:
I dont have it in me to argue points overmuch. I’m not at all well read in such things and only going on generalisms as have seemed to hold true as I watch folk over time.
But, I’m not so sure reality is as clean and clear cut as would seem when viewed through the lens of history and the sanitizing that tends to occur as folk work and rework writings on such things.
It has been my understanding that most folk that “join” philosophical movements do so for varied reasons but its only the radicalized that do it for the reasons and/or goals set forth in that philosophy.
Most folk that join, do so because that’s how you get the decent job, or that’s how you get decent privileges or that’s how you best provide for your family. Many even join simply because “everyone else is”.
And there’s always justifications and rationalizations made available for the joiners by the true believers, no matter what the philosophy.
Some will even join simply out of fear of appearing different. Those tend to be that weird group that vigorously defends the beliefs without having a clue what the beliefs actually are.
Humanity is a messy minded thing.
- #50: Most socialists – hell, even lots of communists – are and were good, well-meaning people.
Which underscores, I think, the conservative’s mistrust of mass action, particularly when it is based on mere theory rather than on experience. As Michael Oakeshott said, “The conjunction of dreaming and ruling breeds tyranny.”
- More than anything that article proved that lefties cannot talk about conservatives without going off the deep end in a torrent of hysterical abuse, they claim to be the repositories of the one true wisdom,and the one true holy ultimate truth but that article proves they are just a bunch of deluded bullshitters, the key to understanding the left is to understand that everything they say they are for they are actually against.
- Leftoid journalist Martin Flanagan and former Labor politician Tom Uren ponder conservatism:
They seem to be giving up at an earlier and earlier age to the point where it may soon seem change is no longer possible until, that is, a calamity like Cyclone Katrina jars us into a new consciousness.
Katrina?!?
With all that is taking place in the world, due in great part to Liberal/Leftist multicultural bullshit, outright allowance, and in some cases collaborative effort, in essence giving the cult of death a free pass to kill, maim, hold captive, behead infidels and WE, including Martin Flanagan and Tom Uren are the infidels.
They use Katrina, as THE defining moment a calamity like Cyclone Katrina jars us into a new consciousness, to bash conservatives and conservatism?
Wouldn’t the last name of Tom Uren be pronounced urine? OR for an obvious reasons, would he pronounce it Er-ren?
Are these two, complete utter fucking idiots?
Or am I missing something here?
- Control the definitions and you control the debate.
The “writers” equate “neocon” with conservative; I don’t know what it means in OZ (if anything) but in USA it means they had to invent a new term to describe the worst of both Left and Right, joined at the hip.
Neocon is not equivalent to conservative, and I lay the failures of the Neocons to their embracing big government, big spending, willy-nilly immigration and conducting the war in Iraq as though they were worried that some Iraqis might get hurt.
These are essentially leftist ideas, carried out by those who consider themselves conservatives. What a crock.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 10 23 at 12:37 PM • permalink
- #56 91B30:
Thanks for linking to that graph…interesting to see freedom as the pivot point to both equality and order, which is something I hadn’t considered that explicitly before.
I’m also struck by the realization that today’s Democratic Party (and much of the modern Left) doesn’t so much fall into the liberal camp as the populist/communitarian one…they’ve essentially married “equality at all costs” with the parochialism (“we, and only we, know what’s best for you”) long ascribed only to conservatives and far-right ideologies.
- PS. – when I say “fascism”, I include the Nazis and the Japanese, although the Japanese variant is an interesting and arguably more durable model than the Continental one; what with its god-like leader to rally around. Vesting so much power in a mortal is risky, however, and succession is another obvious point of weakness.
I think I disagree with that last point…notwithstanding the fact that they’re probably indeed too brittle to even get to that point, succession seems to be a major problem in Hitler/Mussolini style fascism where the projection of supreme leadership emanates from an individual, but not so much in the Japanese version. Keep in mind that it wasn’t so much Hirohito personally who was revered as God-like, but the position of Tenno. You need a special brand of charisma to credibly succeed somebody like Hitler; to succeed Hirohito you merely need the right blood line.
Granted, there’s always the “lack of male offspring” problem that can hit all monarchies, but overall I’d say the Japanese model could have been quite stable if they hadn’t given in to the baser tendencies of fascism (particularly the over-reaching outward aggression).
- #54–Murph: Regarding Churchill, he returned to Parliment as a Tory in 1939, and Chamberlain appointed him first lord of the admiralty. Following Chamberlain’s resignation in 1940, Churchill became PM–of a coalition (all-parties) government–and subsequently lost the prime ministership when Labor defeated the Conservatives in 1945.
First elected to Parliment in 1900, as a memeber of the Conservative Party, Churchill was elected as a memeber of the Liberal Party from 1904 to 1922–returning to the Conservatives in an election in 1924 (through 1929).
I don’t think it is accurate to state that Churchill was made PM by the Labour Party.
The question to be asked of conservatives is what exactly are they intent upon conserving
The question to be asked of undertakers is what are they under?
The question to be asked of archivists is where are their arches?
The question to be asked of greenies is why they do not appear green?
The question to be asked of leftists is how they cope with right-handed scissors?
For god’s sake, the word “conservative” is merely a label for a constellation of beliefs. The word has a historical relationship to ‘conserving’ aspects of society, a century or two ago. Likewise, ‘reactionary’, ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’, ‘left’, ‘right’, etc have little relationship today to the other meanings of those words. This is grade 6 reasoning.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 10 23 at 02:44 PM • permalink
- PW-cheers. When I teach an introductory level class it is helpful to be able to explain concepts like these as simply as possible. I like that chart because freedom is a “point of departure”, you assume freedom and then talk about how different points of view make political decisions that move away from freedom along one axis or the other and what assumptions motivate that decision making.
- That is one of the most incomprehensibel articles I have ever read – even by SMH standards. It served no purpose whatsover except to make it’s authors feel pure.
Poor old Tom was a prisoner of the Japanese in Changi so I have a pretty wide latitude of tolerance for his ramblings, however this sealed it for me: “that notions of human perfectibility are dangerous, particularly when applied en masse as the left sought to do for most of the 20th century”.
Tell that to the millions of victims of Stalin and Mao.
- #71 For god’s sake, the word “conservative” is merely a label for a constellation of beliefs
I think that’s a superficial view, daddy dave, since it has a long history and real flavour, just as ‘progessive’ does in use today.
Take Samuel Johnson defining ‘Tory’ in 1755[which became The Conservative Party]:
‘one who adheres to the ancient constitution of the State, and the apostolic hierarchy of the C of E.’
Still a pretty good definition [sorry Mental Floss] as it combines statehood and moral/religious convictions.
I think Churchill embodied the values in the word [eg ‘Christian Civilisation’] as well as showing its vitality and flexibility.As to the ‘problem’ of male succession how come the Brits’ greatest eras were ALL with females on the throne – not to forget Maggie T – another ‘radical conservative’?
- #67, Harry: Neocon is not equivalent to conservative, and I lay the failures of the Neocons to their embracing big government, big spending, willy-nilly immigration and conducting the war in Iraq as though they were worried that some Iraqis might get hurt. These are essentially leftist ideas
Some truth there, Harry. BUT didn’t Bush give successful tax cuts that the ‘liberals’ screamed about?
I think the neocons can be called ‘radical conservatives’ – economically, and in their belief that foreign wars [though expensive and risky] could be used for good ends.
- I finally got round to reading the article. It contains the usual left arrogance that they are the moral ones with a conscience and those who don’t agree aren’t.
Puke.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 10 23 at 07:39 PM • permalink
- They are evidently puzzled by the strange turn of events when the “progressive ideas” (that have bnow been tried for over 50 years) are being rejected by realists, radicals even, who think the premise needs changing.Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 10 23 at 07:42 PM • permalink
- Barrie #74,
Take Samuel Johnson defining ‘Tory’ in 1755
Wasn’t this my point? these words have old, historical roots, and they don’t mean exactly what they say at face value. Conservatives like to see progress on certain issues, and progressives like some things to stay the same. I still say the rhetorical question was facile.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 10 23 at 09:44 PM • permalink
- #43- I’d be unlikely to bag your old man, WS, as he’s kept his opinions to himself and not tried to use his wartime service as a platform to promote marxism. Uren has, and continues to do so. The fact is he is alive thanks to nuclear weapons, yet has made much noise opposing same- it’s as if he’s embarrassed to have survived.
- Ireland hasn’t produced much over the millennia, but it did produce Edmund Burke and for that we are truly grateful.Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 23 at 10:28 PM • permalink
- #81, Kyda Sylvester:
Ireland hasn’t produced much over the millennia
Q: Why was whiskey invented?
A: To keep the Irish from conquering the world.Two philologists were at a symposium of transnational languages and fell into discussing coloquial meanings to terms in their native languages.
Spanish lingoist: “Does your language have a term like our “manana” ?(visualize the squiggly over the first ‘n’ )
Irish lingoist: after some thought “Yes we do, but it doesnt have the same sense of terrible urgency to it.”
- Funny how the old crones say:- “They seem to be giving up at an earlier and earlier age to the point where it may soon seem change is no longer possible until, that is, a calamity like Cyclone Katrina jars us into a new consciousness”.
Fancy picking Cyclone Katrina and not the Tsunami that killed 400,000 Indonesians two years ago, right on our doorstep. I guess Katrina fits the bill better – the Left widely blame Bush for Katrina – from Global warming to not giving a stuff about blacks being killed. It’s all Bush’s fault.
I tell you, I’ve had a fucking gutful of the left and their twisted, hypocritical logic.
- #74 Give it a rest, would ya, Barrie? One off-the-cuff comment about someone else’s view of dictionaries and their utility and you can’t seem to let it go.
F.Y.I. I have over 100 dictionaries (at least 12 of which are English—including a full edition of the OED, with supplements), lexicons, verb tables, grammars and usage manuals in over 60 languages. Arabic to Icelandic, Mandarin to Swahili, Cherokee to Kulin-Wurrundjeri.
Wander through a typical bookstore—I have more dictionaries in more languages than ANY I’ve ever visited.
So, for the sake of harmony if nothing else, Barrie, stop flogging the proverbial equine cadaver, eh?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 24 at 01:04 AM • permalink
- #84 MentalFloss: You have the OED? I envy you! I’ve always wanted a set, but I think they’re in the $2M range now, aren’t they? I love dictionaries, myself; great for browsing. There’s a rather well-known etymological dictionary that I’ve wanted to buy, also expensive, but I have forgotten the name of it (dang!).
- #25 Wronwright, this is brilliant!
Can’t wait for the movie. Irving Lebonowitz, for truth justice and the CPA…
Posted by carpefraise on 2006 10 24 at 10:16 AM • permalink
- #75
BUT didn’t Bush give successful tax cuts that the ‘liberals’ screamed about?
I think the neocons can be called ‘radical conservatives’ – economically, and in their belief that foreign wars [though expensive and risky] could be used for good ends.1. Tax cuts are just good economics, viz. JFK’s successful implementation in 1961. Lefties hate them out of spite, not principle.
2. Foreign wars for good ends are also a Democrat ideal, viz. Serbia/Kosovo, when not one Lefty objected to the total thrashing of Serb civilians and ifrastructure.Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 10 24 at 03:15 PM • permalink
- Paco, my OED cost about USD $750.00 nigh on 20 years ago (a portion of that cost was shipping from Foyles of London).
You can get the latest 20 vol. edition for about USD $895. I just now googled “OED for sale” and checked.
As to Etymological Dictionaries, the OED, in and of iteslf, actually serves the purpose very well ( the first among my “Desert Island Books”, by the way).
Still, if you are very serious about the subject, you can’t go past the following
C. T. Onions, G. W. S. Friedrichsen, R. W. Burchfield, (1966, reprinted 1992, 1994), Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, (ISBN 0-19-861112-9)
Skeat, Walter W. (1963) An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, (ISBN 0-19-863104-9)
and slightly condensed:
Skeat, Walter W. (2000), The Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, repr ed., Diane. (ISBN 0-7881-9161-6)
Bruno, whilst I am wary of responding to a baited hook, I have been described as having “swallowed a dictionary” on more than one occasion. In answer to your question, however, that would be my very rare edition of the Five Thousand Dictionary, because an hour later I would be hungry again.
When I was a very young child, barely able to read, the 1960 Colliers Encyclopædia was shelved hard by my bed. More than once was I told to stop reading, turn off the light and “Go to sleep!”.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 24 at 06:06 PM • permalink
- For fans of the OED, there is a two-volume tiny-type boxed set with a magnifier, for about $75 USD second-hand.
It also tells you that you need bifocals, when you can no longer read it without the glass. Highly recommended.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 10 24 at 06:53 PM • permalink
- #91 Harry, yes, I got one of those for 10¢ when I joined the Science Fiction Book Club in the ‘70’s (actually, that’s what prompted me to go for the multi-volume, complete version)Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 24 at 07:31 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Members:
