Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Conservatives Trounce Progressives 25-Zip in Boxing Day Mismatch

In the Boxing Day match-up between blogging up and sleeping in, it was no contest. Blogging never really had a chance. So, out of laziosity, I decided to look at what I had posted exactly one year ago, and it was the following Boxing Day match-up between Conservative and Liberal principles. May the best man, woman, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer, questioning, intersexed, or curious win. Although "win" is perhaps too strong a word, since we don't want to damage the self-esteem of the non-winner. And "best" implies an oppressive hierarchy, so that won't do. How about, "may the equals equalize in their equality. If not, let's force the issue."

*****

In Chapter three of my book I survey history and culture, looking for evidence of what I call “mind parasites." I just finished a new book that confirms many of the things I wrote in that section, The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It from Itself, by Lawrence Harrison. Although Harrison identifies himself as a liberal, the book absolutely demolishes many ideas that are central to contemporary liberalism -- most particularly, multiculturalism, cultural relativism, and any kind of liberal victimology, for the book demonstrates with hard data how cultural beliefs, attitudes and values are the key to understanding the (real) progressive evolution of society.

The book is actually somewhat shockingly -- but thoroughly refreshingly -- politically incorrect, and says some things that even Colonel Beaglehole might hesitate to blurt out behind closed doors at the Drones Club. (He and Prince Philip attended the same boarding school for almost one full semester, and would often try to top one another in making what the expulsion letter referred to as "insensitive remarks.")

In the preface of the book, Harrison, a long time USAID director -- notes that all of the underdeveloped or underprivileged countries or cultures he worked in were plagued by the same things: disrespect for law, lack of cooperation with one another, acquiescence to (and extertion of) unbridled authority, passivity when encountering problems, absence of civic consciousness, lack of trust, and selfish pursuit of narrow personal interest. It is much more politically acceptable for scholars such as Jared Diamond to blame geography, insufficient resources, or “guns, germs, and steel” for the failure of so many cultures, but this entirely begs the question of why certain groups -- most notably, the Jews or East Asians -- thrive wherever they are allowed to take root. In each case, they have a "portable culture" of extremely healthy and adaptive values that stand them in good stead.

Harrsion approvingly quotes the great scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, who wrote that “When people realize that things are going wrong, there are two questions they can ask: One is, ‘What did we do wrong?’ and the other is ‘Who did this to us?’” The latter question leads to (or, more likely, is already rooted in) paranoia, conspiracy theories and liberal victimology, which is why the Islamists and international left share a common cause -- they have the same underlying assumptions about reality and about who is at fault for it -- which always comes down to variations of "anyone but I."

The book shows how deeply rooted are some of the pathologies of the left. I did not know this, but even in 1948 the American Anthropological Association opposed the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the preposterous grounds that each culture must decide for itself “what is true, good, beautiful, and efficient,” and no cultures were any better or worse, just “different.” Thus, “liberals” found themselves at odds with a document calling for such things as the right to life, liberty, and security of person, equality before the law, and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The more progressives change....

It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think they are doing these people a favor by supporting their cultural pathologies. As is always the case with leftist thought, it is a monstrous arrogance and condescension masquerading as compassion. Harrsion quotes a brilliant African scholar named Daniel Etounga Mangelle, someone I also cited upon in my book. At a conference, he responded with sarcasm to such liberal nonsense:

"I am going to tell the truth. We Africans really enjoy living in shantytowns where there isn't enough food, health care, or education for our children. Furthermore, our corrupt chieftaincy political systems are really marvelous.... It would be boring if free, democratic elections were organized all over Africa. Were that to happen, we would no longer be real Africans, and by losing our identity -- and our authoritarianism, our bloody civil wars, our illiteracy, our forty-five year life expectancy -- we should be letting down not only ourselves but those Western anthropologists who study us so sympathetically and understand that we can't be expected to behave like human beings who seek dignity.... So let us fight with the full support of those Western scholars who have the wisdom and courage to acknowledge that Africans belong to different world.”

It is so glaringly obvious that the vast majority of really destructive racism comes from the left, not the right. Undoubtedly individual racists exist everywhere on the political spectrum, but their influence is nil compared to the institutional and ideological racism of the left. Professor John McWhorter, who happens to be black, describes in the book the devastating impact of liberal racism on African Americans. He writes that since the 1960s, the core of black identity has come to revolve around “rebellion and disaffection." Furthermore, "Misbehavior and criminality are not the only ways this is expressed. Even the most educated blacks with the most assimilated demeanors get their 'black authenticity' stripes to the extent that they subscribe to the notion that being black remains a battle forty years after the Civil Rights Act.”

McWhorter writes that young blacks are indeed “victims” -- not of what they call “racism” but of liberal ideology. This pathological and self-defeating world view would have puzzled “the black Americans who worked so hard before the 1960s to pave the way for blacks to make the best of themselves in an imperfect world. Realizing that culture is the main problem now rather than racism or societal inequity, our task is to pull black America out of [its] detour, freeing us from self-fulfilling prophecies of recreational racial indignation and returning us to a clear-eyed, proactive race leadership that will allow us to truly 'get past race' for good."

As I said, I can't believe this book was written by a so-called liberal. It actually gives me hope for the future.

In the book, Harrison lays out a helpful summary of those traits that are characteristic of the “progress-prone” culture vs. the “progress-resistant” one. They fall under four main headings: “Worldview,” “Values and Virtues,” “Economic Behavior,” and “Social Behavior,” with a total of 25 subcategories, or "factors." Almost all of the progress-prone attributes are what are now called "conservative" ideas, while ninety percent of the progress-resistant ones are -- you guessed it progressive. As always, the hurrier progressives go, the behinder they get.

Beginning with Worldview, the characteristics of progress-resistant cultures are almost an exact description of modern liberal victimology. Regarding the subcategory of “destiny,” the liberal victim is beset by “fatalism and resignation,” and imagines that the game is rigged against him in advance, thus paralyzing the will and breeding cynicism. With respect to “time orientation,” their obsessive focus on past or even present grievances discourages working hard for the future.

Under the heading of “wealth,” liberals inevitably reduce it to a zero-sum enterprise, which lies at the heart of their economically dysfunctional high tax and income-redistribution schemes. Likewise, knowledge for them tends to be “abstract, theoretical, cosmological, not verifiable.” As we have had occasion to discuss many times, liberal academia (especially the subhumanities, formerly known as the humanities) is filled with childish, kooky, and utopian cranks with abstract ideas that have no bearing on the real world. The rest are just crazy.

The one last subcategory for Worldview is religion. Here you might think that the left has the upper hand, and in many contexts (i.e., Islam) you might be correct. But Harrison makes no distinction between pre- or irrational religiosity vs. the type of sophisticated religiosity we discuss on this blog. Thus, the secular left is often more rational than primitive African animists, practitioners of Haitian voodoo, or bestial members of CAIR.

But the problem is, leftists themselves deny the superiority of western civilization and values because of their PC belief in cultural relativism, so this patronizing attitude simply enables and promotes cultural and religious dysfunction, both here and abroad. And I don’t believe for a moment that modern secularism is more rational or sophisticated than the kind of omade supra-formal neo-traditional transrational cosmic religious philosophy we discuss here and which will eventually be shared by all sentient beings. Furthermore, it remains to be seen if the societies of Western Europe will even be able to survive their own post-human secularism and irreligiosity.

So for the category of Worldview, conservatives trounce the left four to one or possibly even five-zip.

The next heading is Values and Virtues, which has three subcategories, “ethical code,” “the lesser virtues,” and “education.” Here again, I don’t see how any intellectually honest person can give the nod to the left. The values of progress-prone cultures are “rigorous within realistic norms,” while progress-resistant cultures have “elastic” values. 'Nuff said. It's hard to think of something more elastic than a Clintonan conscience, an Edwardian principle, or a whole Obamian panderpoint presentation.

Likewise, progress-prone cultures emphasize small virtues that actually end up making a huge difference, such as tidiness, courtesy, “a job well done”.... to which I might add, politeness, not cursing in public, and being free of off-putting tattoos, tongue piercings, and pagan "body art." To the progress-resistant culture, such small virtues are unimportant. (The thing that most strikes one about dailykos or huffingandpissed -- aside from the shrill adolescent anger -- is the constant unnecessary profanity. I'm all for the necessary or occasional kind, but the ceaseless flow of coarse language is one of the big reasons the left appears so barbarous to the civilized. In this regard, it is critical to emphasize that the form of their language conveys a dark spiritual substance which is its real "unintended" meaning.)

The last subcategory is Education, and here again you might think that progressives are at least in the game. But just look and look at what the progressive educational establishment has done to our educational system. They have been in complete control of lower and and even lower education in this country for at least 50 years, and the effect has been devastating. Furthermore, they are specifically opposed to truly progressive policies that could turn things around, such as fostering competition by introducing vouchers into the system. And let’s not even talk about what progressives have done to the university in the span of a single generation of vipers. For one thing, I don’t have enough time. I have to be out of the house in 45 minutes.

The next main factor is Economic behavior, which has seven subcategories. This one is so self-evidently in favor of conservatives that it’s hardly worth debating. Progress-prone cultures believe that competition leads to excellence, that advancement should be based on merit, and that work is one of the primary purposes of life (the “protestant work ethic”). They try to foster a spirit of entrepreneurship, risk-taking, innovation and investment.

Conversely, the progress-resistant are suspicious of prosperity -- it is a threat to equality because some will get rich, thus provoking envy, which must be tamped down with oppressive policies that punish the creative and productive. They are uncomfortable with competition, as it is a sign of aggression and a threat to both equality and, perhaps more importantly, privilege (such as the unearned privileges enjoyed by the leechers union, or by tenured wackademia nuts, or by New York Times idiotorialists). And, of course, they are constitutionally opposed to the idea of merit, and instead believe that the government should get involved in giving special privileges to different racial, cultural and "gender" categories.

So for economic behavior, it’s conservatives 7, progressives bupkis.

The last main factor is Social Behavior, which has the most subcategories, ten. Some of these are frankly rather bland and neutral, and it is fair to say that most Americans of whatever political stripe share them, or at least imagine they do: belief in the rule of law, a belief in checks and balances and dispersed authority, and the responsibility of elites to society. Others are a bit misleading, for conservatives clearly believe in gender equality, they just don’t believe in gender equivalence. And leftists obviously don't believe in the rule of law when it comes to the Constitution.

Other categories that are less innocuous fall clearly in favor of conservatives. For example, the progress-resistant culture has a much stronger identification with the narrow community -- i.e., multiculturalism. Progressives believe in dividing the country along racial and gender lines, so that one’s primary identification is not, say, “American” but “African American” or "Guatemalan transgendered Wiccan performance artists." If you've ever wondered why they embrace a nut like Juan Cole, it's because they have to take a Muslim named Juan seriously. Likewise, the progress-resistant culture emphasizes the collectivity rather than the individual (except when it comes to your individual right to show your breast during the Superbowl or ride a bicycle naked in public to protest the war).

The last category is Church-State relations. According to Harrison, the progress-prone culture is “secularized” and believes in a “wall between church and state,” whereas for the progress-resistant culture, “religion plays a major role in the civic sphere.” How true. The adverse impact of mixing church and state is never more clear than when the religion in question is Progressivism.

34 Comments:

Anonymous mudslide said...

since everyone else seems to be busy elsewhere, and not apropo of anything, I thought I would drag up Bob's post from the 24th. In all PCness (ie, not intending to insult anyone), the thing that bothered me about the "Anthro-apologists" (whatever) was this: What area of my life, belief system, thing, philosophy, am I equally as blind to or about ???(other than the obvious grammar and spelling) but then I realized, Heck! I don't know enough to have anything to worry about...
and things sorta smoothed right out.....

-aiming for the blue horizon

12/26/2007 08:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

look, i am down with conservative ideas, but you don't have to be a jerk about it - go back in time and tell republicans to speak in public with more humility, respect and grace, and you'd still have a lock on washington.

i read all sorts of political commentary, and i also make sure to read comments on blogs and straight news articles. yea, some leftists are loons, but whenever drudge links a story on politics, you will see that there is a lot of bitterness & hatred coming from some on the right. that is part of a continuum to some prominent conservative commentators & elected officials, whose rhetoric is often gloating and hubristic. the truth is the left has good ideas and so does the right, and each has their share of terribly stupid ideas as well.

12/26/2007 10:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Atlas said...

anon,
What you don't get is that, according to the author of this blog, all good ideas are conservative and all bad ones are leftist.
For example, Martin Luther King, other than being a rabble rousing, marxist, philandering, anti-war ghandian, was, when he had a good idea, a conservative. So was JFK--except when he was insisting that Israel not get the bomb and firing CIA leaders, and playing with Marilyn Monroe.
Therefore, there is never any point to arguing here about left vs. right. Bush is a conservative, except when he's not, which cannot be mentioned. Same for ex-CFR director Cheney. Rumsfeld is a conservative, except when he announces, like he did on 9/10/2001 that he could not find 2 trillion dollars of the Pentagon's (read taxpayer) money.
The next Republican nominee for president will be a conservative (unless it is Ron Paul) unless he's not. Then it won't be touched on. Because there is no point, since from the point of view of HISTORY and DESTINY it is literally not seen.
Capish?

12/26/2007 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

shadow boxing day
critics swing wildly at air
rope a dope still works

12/26/2007 11:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am convinced that people will listen to reason. i used to be pretty dogmatic, but i've matured. if i can do it, anyone can.

12/26/2007 11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous rabid racoon said...

"but whenever drudge links a story on politics, you will see that there is a lot of bitterness & hatred coming from some on the right."

The point is to be unified, balanced, and centered.

"i am convinced that people will listen to reason. i used to be pretty dogmatic, but i've matured. if i can do it, anyone can."

Don't fall into dogmatized reason! It's a deep hole to climb out of.

12/26/2007 12:12:00 PM  
Anonymous coonified said...

"supra-formal neo-traditional transrational cosmic religious philosophy"

Say that three times fast!

I know...I don't have that much to offer.

Deep sigh.

12/26/2007 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Robin Starfish said...

A Usually Unnecessary Buffy Moment:

Principal Flutie: You burned down the gym.

Buffy: I did, I really did. But
you're not seeing the big picture here. I mean, that gym was full of vampi ... asbestos.

12/26/2007 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Elephant said...

The wool over the eyes on the 'left' is that they have slipped from the solid ground of knowledge that humans are fallen and therefore need a system that applies to that condition. Leftists are like people who would label poison 'vitamins' because vitamins sounds like a better idea. Hmmm...it's still going to kill you. It's called denial.

12/26/2007 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Hey now, one more book I won't have to write: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg.

12/26/2007 05:19:00 PM  
Anonymous coonified said...

Two more books added to may amazon wish list! Thanks Bob.

Now I just need the mind to read them all.

The physical sure does take a long time to reform; a one cell at a time kind of pace.

Sigh again...

12/26/2007 06:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Djadja said...

Oh my. I realized with this post that I’ve been reading Bob’s blog for at least a year now, read…make that BOUGHT and read his book (I wouldn’t want you to think I was so cheap that I just borrowed it), but I’ve never posted a comment. Not that I have any deepness to share today, but I thought it worth saying hello to all the other raccoons out there.

12/26/2007 06:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Welcome to the lodge! You are now safely ensconced with your kind. You sound so alert, I think we'll waive the usual proof of a public school diploma or equivalent.

There's nothing I can do about the $1.50 annual dues, however.

12/26/2007 07:06:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"It is much more politically acceptable for scholars such as Jared Diamond to blame geography, insufficient resources, or “guns, germs, and steel” for the failure of so many cultures, but this entirely begs the question of why certain groups -- most notably, the Jews or East Asians -- thrive wherever they are allowed to take root."

Yep. Sort of a sure tip off that a historian needs to continue studying history before writing history, is if they think that the point of history is the study of things instead of men.

12/26/2007 09:07:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ladies and Gentlecoons! Tonight we have a flyweight matchup between, in this left corner, aninnymouse! "...whose rhetoric is often gloating and hubristic. the truth is the left has good ideas and so does the right, and each has their share of terribly stupid ideas as well."

Hmm... yes, well...ahem...and... in this left corner, flatlass! "...The next Republican nominee for president will be a conservative (unless it is Ron Paul) unless he's not. Then it won't be touched on. Because there is no point, since from the point of view of HISTORY and DESTINY it is literally not seen. Capish?"

... sigh...yawn...

Well... this has been a rather dissapointing matchup... neither seems to be able to either master or even muster an idea, nor even quite grasp the distinctions between Classical Liberals, lefties or Republicans.

...sigh...yawn...

Well it looks like the Ref has decided to call the bout on account of boredom, and it's being thrown to the judges...they give a 0 and a 0...a 0 and a 0, ...a 0 and a 0... OH and a 1 for flatlass for having at least mastered the use of the Shift key, and a -1 to aninnymouse for not even having the gumption to say a single "i" with a Shift.

Congratulations flatlass, you must be so... proud.

12/26/2007 09:54:00 PM  
Blogger Elephant said...

It seems to me that a simple vocabulary lesson would do much to enliven the vote across the entire nation. Yes, people desperately need some meanings of terms clarified with examples of historical events matched to the political standpoints/philosophies. Milton Friedman does this in the latest edition of Economics and Freedom.
Classical liberalism is what many liberals naively think they are or fancy themselves to be. Oops, they forgot to do their homework and see what has become of 'liberalism'. It is now state-ism, ie control, the opposite of classical liberalism. Right?

12/26/2007 10:01:00 PM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

The idea that bad things are to be labeled "left" and good things to be labeled "right" is hardly a new discovery.

Ecclesiastes 10:2 "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

The question is rather why anyone, knowing this as well as the implicit double meanings of the words "left" and "right", anyone would voluntarily align with the left.

12/27/2007 05:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i'm not playing your game, van. i did read your blog - i'd have to say if you think i am boring i will trust your judgment on that - your blog is pretty boring. its not that it is filled with bad ideas, but it isn't worth reading like this blog is. poor font selection as well - that is way more important than capitalization.

12/27/2007 05:59:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Oooh, Van- that's gonna leave a mark!

Maybe you should let Julie, Joan or MizzE pick out your font for you to save you from dread Typeface Blogblight.
Lady Racs live to serve...

Nice re-run, Bob. This was a favorite last year.

12/27/2007 06:08:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

ninnymouse said "i'm not playing your game, van. i did read your blog - i'd have to say if you think i am boring i will trust your judgment on that - your blog is pretty boring."

I did try to compete with Gagdad once... for about a week, and as is the case with most sprinters when they come up against a long distance runner... I was sucking wind pretty damn fast.

There's only one One Cosmos, and Gagdad is its King.

Still, I do manage to keep myself amused. And I'm not surprised you found my blog boring, those who consider thinking a game, usually do find it boring. Still, at least I can stand up straight in my boringness, where as you remain a slouched little 'i'.

BTW, since niny brought it up, I'll shamelessly plug the concluding post in my series on Reason, this morning(if you don't mind boring into it, that is).

12/27/2007 06:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, its true. i don't have to be on board with your laughable blog posts on kant to want to get rid of federal taxes.

12/27/2007 06:16:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Sal! If Herman's Haremetical Research Group would like to help me with a makeover, that'd be most welcome!

(BTW, I tried to post a Merry Christmas at your site yesterday, and at Joans, but I kept getting booted out. Boredom police, probably.)

12/27/2007 06:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And I'm not surprised you found my blog boring, those who consider thinking a game, usually do find it boring."

you were the one keeping score - think that irony through.

look, your blog - i mean, great, good for you, yes, you have a worldview. you have certainly proved that you see things a certain way by writing at length about the way you see things.

12/27/2007 06:20:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse, don't sweat it, if you kant hang, you kant hang.

12/27/2007 06:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

heh, am i wrong? are you saying that being a jerk in public is the path to ending programs, lowering taxes, achieving a more conservative approach to governments?

12/27/2007 06:25:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "you have certainly proved that you see things a certain way by writing at length about the way you see things."

;-)

Yeah, that length thing is a bother... kant quite get the hang of the brevity bit. I used to worry about it, what with Shakespeare's comment on it being the soul of wit and all... until I realized who it was he had saying it.

And then there is that bit about the length of a Man's post relating to the ... well... you know. nudge nudge, wink wink.

Thanks for the morning bout of recreational slamming before work, Anonymouse, put the perk back in my coffee!

12/27/2007 06:27:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

I said 'perk', not 'jerk'.

Sheesh.

Gotta go.

12/27/2007 06:29:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Bob, random psych question:
we (myself, son, two daughters and son's gf) were playing a word-guessing game. The player had to give clues to the others about the words, which he could ID as 'book, movie, band, place, event, etc., using only words beginning with the letters that came up on the seven letter cubes.
About half the time, we were able to guess the word after only one or two clues, eg.
"Book. 'Vessel'."
"Moby Dick!"
or
"Thing. 'Ovum'. Is Latin okay?"
"Humpty-Dumpty!"

Were we good at this because most of us are related and have a long history of communicating with each other or are we just Clever Hans?
Or a combination of both?

12/27/2007 07:11:00 AM  
Blogger Sal said...

Thanks, Van. Yeah, it does that sometimes. Blogger...

12/27/2007 07:12:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Magnus...

8')

12/27/2007 07:31:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Ouch! I found out from my drugged-up whigged-out "truther" half-brother who stayed with us over Christmas that I'm just close-minded to not give consideration to the possibility that our government was behind 9-11. After all, the evidence is "inconclusive". Interestingly, he was the one who wouldn't listen to a word I said.

Sheesh.

12/27/2007 07:39:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Nomo said "... just close-minded to not give consideration to the possibility that our government was behind 9-11. After all, the evidence is "inconclusive". Interestingly, he was the one who wouldn't listen to a word I said."

LOL! That says it all, doesn't it?
(assuming they're listening, that is)

And ditto on Magnus's comment.

12/27/2007 08:07:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Sal--

Hard to say, but there's presumably some sort of nonlocal deep connectedness going on beneath the surface.

12/27/2007 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Elephant, you're on the right track...

Sorry for repeating myself (probably goes back to the whole boring thing), but if someone really wants to understand Classical Liberalism as the Founders did... you can't beat the excellent presentation of the The Founders Constitution, from the University of Chicago Press and the Liberty Fund. It goes through the Constitution, line by line and hyperlinked to the relevant material which the Founders had in mind during the constitutional debates, and much more.

Gives you not only what you need to know, but points you to what else you'll want to gno.

12/27/2007 08:33:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home