Conservadysfunctionalism

Conservatives have a depression problem. This isn’t news; in fact, it’s the anti-news. It’s a repeat from 1789 and every year afterwards.

1789 was when liberalism really won. It won because it was popular, not because it was right. It’s often that way with things. If a lot of people want to believe something, it’s a profitable product. If your leaders have let the economy out of Pandora’s box, we all chase the money.

This however starts a cycle of despair in those who can think clearly. They know that the long-term result of this path is destruction. They realize that knowing we are heading for destruction will sabotage each life with doubt, confusion, selfishness and bitterness. They prefer to avoid it.

But when they get up there to explain their vision, there’s a smiling man who looks like he sells things for a living. He calls them hateful, because they want to exclude some behaviors. He offers instead a simple solution: love everyone, give everyone something, make us all happy.

On the surface, liberalism sounds a lot better than conservatism (which was the way things were done before liberalism). It is foolish to deny it.

In the conservative worldview, there is a natural order to existence. We work outward from our egos toward it. We meet it in some reverent state, and do what is sensible according to it, hoping to reach a transcendent understanding of life despite death. Our goal is internal: refine ourselves, get clear, become disciplined, see the world clearly.

In the liberal worldview, the natural order is random and probably horrible. No transcendence can be had. Instead, we must maximize our time in life by focusing on ourselves. There is nothing which we should deny any human being, lest they have miserable lives. Thus, if anyone has anything, they have a moral duty to share it equally. Our goal is external: fight the bad rich/kings/elites/gov’t/corporations, and then live in a perfect society of harmonious equality and tolerance.

Inevitably someone pipes up and says, “But what about classical liberals? They were more like anarchists or libertarians. Do whatever you want in your yard, and I’ll do whatever I want in mine.” This is essentially the same idea as modern liberalism. Build a civilization out of many individuals acting in self-interest, but as we see, that leads to total social chaos and thus breakdown of civilization. It’s a laughable idea, which is why modern liberalism has incorporated a strong state into its view.

This was why when the West made its shift to liberalism back in 1789, it embarked on a slow ship to destruction. Liberalism started out as a pleasant idea. It gained momentum. Finally, in 1968 it won over the most populous generation (the Baby Boomers) ever born in the West. It won socially and culturally, and the right has been so seriously marginalized since that time that it’s a shadow of itself.

1968 was when the conservative depression problem ramped up also. Before then it had been: “Well, maybe we can hold on like a rearguard action for another four centuries, and this liberalism thing will burn out.” After 1968 it was clear that would not be true — liberalism is the final stage of civilization, much like stage five cancer is the final stage for many human individuals.

It’s not a phase. It’s a death sentence, and it leaves in its wake third-world countries like the ones that were left behind after ancient Rome, Greece, India and Mexico fell. There would be no holding out, but facing a world in which conservatives would never again win elections.

Ronald Reagan was a respite. For a brief decade, the West produced a leader who could beat a formidable adversary. But it was temporary. After Reagan, conservatives were unsure of themselves so they started pandering to the left by incorporating leftist ideas.

Not surprisingly, they lost popularity the more they incorporated ideas from the left. Why would anyone want to leave behind leftism for conservatism if the two are very similar? They can get everything they need from leftism, with fewer unpleasant realities than in conservatism. Conservatism had ceased to be an alternative, and had become instead a different flavor of the same.

Conservatives don’t believe they can win and thus they are dysfunctional. In Europe, the conservatives are all neoconservatives whose only real sense of right-wing policies is militarism and a lingering but unspoken nationalism (the love that dare not speak its name).

In the United States, all of the conservatives are also neoconservatives. They want what liberals want, which is equal, social welfare, pacifism and a strong paternalistic regulatory state — but unlike liberals, they’re willing to go to church, war and a mentally taxing day job in order to achieve that.

This dysfunction in conservatism means that people elect them without having any idea why. Usually conservatives get elected after the country has swung too far to the left, and leftist policies have ruined something important, so “the people” elect the opposite to fix it.

The problem with that is that it allows the cycle to continue. Liberals win all the elections until they screw up, then we get the right-wing in place. They promptly start fixing things, which removes freebies and forces unpopular truths on the population. Thus next election they’re gone.

For this electoral cycle, conservatives should try something not attempted since 1789: be functional, not dysfunctional.

State your case calmly, logically, cooly and firmly. There are logical reasons behind conservatism: know them. Know there is a center to the philosophy, which is a sense of natural order and preserving identity, tradition and nature. Point out that conservatives think long term where liberals refuse to.

I can’t guarantee this will win an election. But it will ensure the voters know there is a real alternative, not just two flavors of the same failure.

59 Comments

  1. A. Realist says:

    The only candidate I could possibly vote for is Santorum. He has a clear principle and goal: Mayberry with extra Jesus. Not all of us will agree with that goal, but I think it’s better than any other goal in the campaign.

    Newt is obviously a fake, and Romney’s a businessman RINO.

    Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, et al are just sideshow.

    Anyone who votes for Obama a second time has serious problems figuring out cause and effect relations.

    1. Sun says:

      Somehow you forgot Ron Paul.

      1. A. Realist says:

        Disqualified for insane foreign policy. He has no chance as a result.

        1. Sun says:

          You should at lest mention him out of respect, at the very lest.

          Surely he must be higher then some of those who you named.

          1. A. Realist says:

            I should be clearer. Personally, I enjoy Dr. Paul and respect him. Like most others, I find his foreign policy ideas alarming. American hegemony has brought this world a stability it did not have under the British and would not have under the Russians, Chinese, Brazilians or Indians. I have problems with some American foreign policy acts, such as the bombing of Serbia and participation in the two world wars in any way other than as neutral preserver of the peace. In particular, I think allying with the Soviet Union during World War II was an evil act as were many of the war crimes committed against Germans. However, these were acts of liberal American presidents. Conservative ones have better judgment. If it were not for American tanks in Berlin right now, German girls would still be getting raped by Russians and all of Eastern Europe would still be enslaved by Communism. I don’t see eye to eye with the white nationalist types who want Russia to “save the white race” (purely hippies ideals) and I don’t see eye to eye with Dr. Paul for this reason. However, I consider his domestic policy to be a good way around the problem that has dogged America since its inception, namely states rights. In the long run however his approach will not work. If we are to be a country, we have to find agreement and work together so we can be a substantial economic and political force. Dr. Paul’s domestic and foreign policy will never support this and most people know this, so he was out of the race before he even ran. Rand Paul on the other hand has a clearer vision of practical leadership and will have an easier time becoming President as a result. Ron Paul is not insane. He’s consistent, but his ideas belong to another vision of America, as basically farmland with no foreign policy interests. That window in history has slammed shut and Dr. Paul’s policies do not reflect awareness of that fact.

        2. Sun says:

          Besides, there is a fine line between genius and insane.

          ;)

          1. Esotericist says:

            The word “genius” is thrown around too loosely.

            1. No way dude , the latest White Ring is totally genius, bro.

      2. A. Realist says:

        I think the campaign forgot him actually, about a month ago.

    2. Esotericist says:

      The Republicans in the USA have no clue about their direction any more than the right in Europe does. Right-wing has become a flavor, not an ideal or a goal.

      The two sides are very close in the center, which isn’t the fault of the underlying philosophies, but shows how very conformist our society has become. No one thinks outside of what is told to us is “right.”

      More’s the pity. Our morality is one of several, many of which give us better options than grinding ourselves into oblivion through frustration.

    3. No one is going to vote for any of those nutcases.

  2. Sun says:

    “Inevitably someone pipes up and says”

    That someone has got to be me, which is fine.

    But Ronald Reagan the last gasp of air for Conservativism, seriously?

    I do think Ron Paul fits your description more then anything else. He is a freakin’ Anti-Federal Constitutionalist. Now that is old school! That is like 1788, older then your grandpa, old school (if he is speaking the truth).

    While I may not agree with him, and in some ways make the country worse, he will over all truly bring the country to a better state (I won’t go into it unless someone wants to know why). He is very smart. Makes a better case case in so called “debate,” where no evidence and claim needs to be made, only that you look pretty and say cliche lines.

    In a way, Liberalism of today, will the the conservatism of tomorrow, in this paradigm where the classical liberal and the neo-liberal is of the same stalk.

    1. A. Realist says:

      Classical liberalism and conventional liberalism are closer than you think. Both are basically anarchic. Classical liberalism is more like modern libertarianism, but other than the liberal desire to use the state to achieve equality, the same assumption underlies both. That assumption is that if each person just does whatever they want on their own land, everything will turn out OK. History shows that is a lie. The United States started on this principle and rapidly devolved to a couch sitter welfare state through its democratic principles. White nationalists don’t understand this, but there is no problem with the USA; the problem is democracy itself.

    2. It doesn’t make sense to use modern definitions of liberal and conservative.

      What’s conservative? It’s a culture more than anything else. Belief in tribe, religion, values, customs and tradition. Distrust of people who haven’t proven themselves.

      In a modern sense, we might do OK with conservatives like Buckley but they just trying to hold back the tide. We need a conservative quest for a conservative society, which will be a new type for all us modern voters.

      1. Conservative: realist.
        Liberal/leftist: self-ist.

        That’s as simple as it gets.

        We have plenty of conservatives, but very few of them are coherent in any meaningful way.

        1. Far-right: anything farther right of Reagan.
        2. Social conservatives: care about religion, sex, and family.
        3. Neoconservatives: liberals who like war, patriotism and finance.

        There is no true conservative movement in that.

        In Europe, they have the “New Right,” which has gotten too much hippie into its mix. This is the same mentality as of those people in the 1970s who thought nuclear war would end us all, that the Equal Rights Amendment needed to pass or we’d disintegrate as a society, and are afraid that CIA drug rendition flights will cause us all to end up in Gitmo. There’s too much of a “useful idiot” in the New Right, too much of a quest for the mythical “third way” (that is still political) and yet too much of the White Nationalist “we need to talk more about Jews and Negroes” mentality. Last I heard, the New Right were trying to decide who we should encourage to conquer us, China or Russia, to save us from our own democratically-elected governments.

        The American right is ridiculous because they are essentially leftists. Why go to war in Iraq? For freedom. However, they’re not much more leftist than European mainstream right politicians, who want a welfare state and to invade the third world so we can civilize them with soap and liberalism.

        In sum, yes, the modern definitions are corrupt. But only on the surface. Drill down to the core and you’ll see that the ideas remain, even if none of our current morons can implement them.

        1. crow says:

          Leftist = What I want.
          Rightist = What I know I can’t have.
          Somewhere-in-between = What I know I have no right to expect.

          Leftists are unable to focus anywhere outside of their own heads.
          Rightists are unable to focus at all.
          Somewhere-in-betweens are are to see something wicked this way comes, but don’t know what to do about it.

          The only reason I can say these things is because I am not even human (:>

          1. Sun says:

            I want to make myself something to eat for dinner now.

            Guess that makes me a leftist. :P

            1. A. Realist says:

              The “What I want” is exclusive of all else. We all want dinner, but the sane people among us want that dinner to come about rationally. We need a source of income, a stable society, clean food and a family to eat it with. A liberal just wants dinner and if someone else has food, wants it given to them. Parasites.

              1. crow says:

                A laugh a minute :)
                Great stuff, Realist!

          2. Esotericist says:

            These definitions don’t make sense to me.

            Leftism: individualism.
            Rightism: natural law.

            Somewhere-in-between: wanting a former version of rightism.

            1. crow says:

              Leftism: Me.
              Rightism: It.
              Somewhere-in-between: Us.

              1. Esotericist says:

                “Us” is a subset of “It.”

                1. crow says:

                  Naturally.
                  Politics are always a subset of something else.
                  Remove the politics, and you get real life.
                  Closer to the balance point, is closer to sane.

                2. A. Realist says:

                  Let me agree with this and say that I think there are only two political paths. Either you think of the world as part of yourself, or yourself as part of the world. There is no middle or alternative ground. I appreciate that some people around here might want to think there’s a handy “third way” because we’re so pissed at our conservatives for being cowardly millionaires, but then we’re just introducing garbage to the debate. We need a better and renewed conservatism, not a fleeting vision to chase.

                  1. crow says:

                    Great reply, Realist!
                    I had to re-read that, several times, and ponder it.
                    It’s a view I had never really considered, before, especially since it is not my own. It seemed almost ‘right’, but maybe incomplete?
                    Consider this:

                    The Leftist wants the world to be the way it wants it to be, for the Leftist to be able to use it (up), right now.

                    The Rightist wants the world to be the way the world must be, for the Rightist to be able to exploit it for as long as is (long-term) possible.

                    While I don’t want anything of the world, but to hold it as sacred, care for it, and take from it as little as possible, in order to go on living.

                    I see three ways, there.
                    Neither Left, nor Right, has the best interests of what sustains them, at heart.
                    Unless the world is seen as sacred, nothing else really works, in the long term.
                    Naturally, I prefer the Right, to the Left, since it doesn’t wreck things nearly as fast.
                    But the aim, for me, is a consensus that decides not to wreck things, at all.

        2. Sun says:

          No.

          I believe the New Right from Europe is a true form of change that will leave a mark and change the course of history.

          The left and right are inextricably linked.

          As the left continues on holding on to power, without realizing the weaknesses inherent, the harder their fall will be. They will fall hard.

          Oh! A storm is a’ brewing!

          But hey, that is just one guys opinion. :)

          1. Esotericist says:

            The New Right will lead Europe into exactly the same screw-up that cost them the first and second world wars.

            God help us all. And if he’s busy, maybe some sensible humans can help.

          2. A. Realist says:

            Have the New Right stopped talking about Jews and Muslims yet?

            Let me know so I can pay attention again. Last time I talked to some New Right thinkers, they sounded exactly like American white nationalists: the Jew controls international finance and the USA, only Europe is pure, and we’ll wage our great war for whiteness with the help of the former Soviet Union.

            It’s so mind-bogglingly stupid I can’t even grasp it.

        3. Fringe right-wing movements are a joke, they’re basically financed by the government so it has an enemy. If the economy goes to shit, trot out the Nazis and we can all relive the glory days of WW2.

      2. Sun says:

        Sure it does.

        In a society, whether you like it or not, that uses such discretion based upon current political climate, you will be better off.

        Probably extend your life by a few seconds by not exploding/imploding when the average man in your daily life displays a different point of view.

        Speak many tounges.

        And, don’t get too caught by words but the essence behind them.

    3. Esotericist says:

      Any time someone mentions Ron Paul, normal conversation ends. This thread is just more proof of that…

      1. Sun says:

        Sorry, is there a rule for not mentioning Ron Paul?

        I’ll stay off of him, if he is a touchy subject for Amerika commenters.

  3. The recent Republican candidates have been so miserable I can’t even see myself voting for any of them.

    I don’t know what passes for right-wing in Europe. Merkel? Sarkozy? le Pen is a ray of hope.

    1. crow says:

      Modern definitions are so last generation :)
      Words mean whatever anyone thinks they mean, now.
      Revelations revealed this.
      I have my own definition of ‘leftist’, for example:
      One who is so insecure, so resentful, and so self-centered, that his idea of reality is defined solely by him, at the expense of everybody else.

      1. I think leftists are also fundamentally self-destructive. Self-pity goes best with self-destruction because then one does not have to consider oneself selfish.

        1. Esotericist says:

          Anyone with a paradoxical philosophy is self-destructive. No one chooses a paradoxical philosophy because they’re well-adjusted. All these people are really screwed up but mostly functional.

          1. crow says:

            Any philosophy is necessarily paradoxical.
            Paradox is the nature of reality.
            Which is probably why so few are able to identify it, being so prone to bias, one way, or the other.

            1. A. Realist says:

              I don’t think that every philosophy is necessarily paradoxical. What you might be saying here is that language and philosophy are imperfect representations of reality itself. That doesn’t make them paradoxical. Liberalism on the other hand could be called inherently paradoxical because the results it achieves are totally different from what it says it’s going to achieve. For example, in the Soviet Union, the idea was that everyone would be equal. In reality, that ended up meaning that no one wanted to work and that everyone equally waited in line for $25 bread.

      2. Sun says:

        Ironic. :)

        1. crow says:

          Irony can be found in absolutely anything, if one is so inclined.
          It can be humorous, and that was its origin.
          Now it is mostly a cheap vehicle for sarcasm, which is, in itself, a cheap vehicle for disguising one’s own mental instability, and assigning it to others.

          1. Sun says:

            That is a lot of thought put into a simple word.

            Perhaps reflective of ones own self?

            1. crow says:

              Perhaps true, nonetheless.
              Certainly I have been guilty of what I describe.
              Which is probably why I recognize it.
              And try, at all costs, to avoid it, now, myself.

              1. Sun says:

                The mind is a mirror of one’s soul. :)

                1. crow says:

                  Which comic did you read that in?

                  1. Sun says:

                    Batman Vol. 244.

            2. A. Realist says:

              We should always put a lot of thought into any words we use. Otherwise, assumptions and imprecisions sneak in. That’s going to happen anyway, but it’s not a binary judgment. It’s a matter of degree. The more we minimize it the more rational our communication is. I don’t think he’s projecting at all.

      3. Esotericist says:

        Leftists have two layers, the marketing layer (I) and the actual intent layer (II).

        You’ve described II.

        Layer I is all the stuff about equality, harmony, peace, happiness, tolerance, love, freedom, no down payment, etc.

        1. Typical leftist: commute 100 miles from the suburbs where it’s 98.9% white, socialize with white neighbors, drive past ghetto to white workplace, go to Trayvon protest and demand equality.

    2. Esotericist says:

      Europe has an original right-wing tradition, so they can always draw on a great heritage including the Nazis.

      Unfortunately these people tend to be blockheads who focus more on their enemies than on making themselves healthy. This is why European rightism has failed in every way possible and continues to do so because it refuses to change direction.

      It’s like a chicken with its head cut off.

      1. Sun says:

        Chicken’s with their heads cut off run it random directions.

        You may be, Esotericist, morally or ethically opposed to Nazis, but only a fool would think the Nazi’s being blockheads (i.e. stupid).

        Losing the war didn’t make them blockheads, especially when cost of the war comes from bad strategic decisions from their leader. Even then, it is a surprise to most honest historians that they didn’t win the war due to a whole range of advantages.

        They fought against the combined might of most of the world and yet held their own. They became a 1st world hyper superpower within 5 years from nothing. Almost all 21st century military invention comes from Nazis; including, certain domestic inventions. Created a very complex society during a time of polemical political duality in the world.

        In fact there is a whole fantasy genre, based on the fact that the Nazis who were far more advanced then any other society was at the time, called “Weird War.”

        No. I don’t consider Nazis blockheads.

        1. crow says:

          He wasn’t referring to the Nazis when he said ‘blockheads’.

          1. Sun says:

            Neo-Nazis. Nazi revisionist. Take your pick.

        2. Whether they’re blockheads or not, they lost the biggest war in history and are permanently demonized for the holocaust, so it’s a waste of time to talk about them. But “Iron Sky” looks like it will be good.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lJAw_BtM2g

          1. Sun says:

            Victors get the write history.

            If you should know anything, you should know that.

            Wonder if we will ever get a movie, or “awareness” day, about the Gulag?

            I doubt it.

  4. John D says:

    Do elections really matter that much?

    Social issues keep a lot of people voting for these neoconservatives, but they seem to me like they’re all just distractions. Elections alone can’t stop a tidal wave of liberalism from sweeping the West, and I think that unfortunately, the worst is still to come.

    Romney talks about “capitalism” as if the corporatism from which he benefits isn’t pulling all the strings. Isn’t it in all of our interests to prevent not only “big government”, but also the power of corporations from disabling people from acquiring wealth based on what they produce?

    Lastly, I don’t think that the French Revolution is such a good example, as it seems to suggest that people can be blamed for changing a corrupt system that left them impoverished. Could many unemployed people in the US today get a job if they starting working hard? I think so. But to label people as selfish for refusing to be a part of a system that makes things hard for them doesn’t make sense. It’s not a “moral vs. immoral” issue so much as a problem: society needs a better way of keeping it’s idiots happy and in line.

    1. crow says:

      Labeling such people ‘selfish’ seems quite acceptable, to me, in that they imagine they count for more than their society, as a whole, does.
      This is the basic right-left split:
      The Right respects its society, over and above the individual’s ‘rights’.
      Whereas the Left is incapable of even conceptualizing respect for its own society. Although, ironically, it proclaims all kinds of respect for foreign ones.

    2. Elections determine who’s in charge.

      I think that’s kind of important…

      1. John D says:

        I don’t think they do. Elections are fueled by the few who have millions to contribute to campaigns. Meanwhile candidates fight about stupid things like who supported government health care, who’s the least racist, or whose the most anti-abortion, and people end up voting based on who they think seems the most leader-like.

        Crow, the left cares about society just as much as we do. I think the difference is that they are more interested in equalizing incomes, and making power come from the bottom rather than the top (insane I know, but to many people, even some intelligent people, it seems like a good idea).

        Also I think if one compares the US founding documents to The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the US stresses individual rights much more, whereas the French stress the rights of the group. The left in many ways despise the power of the individual to influence his environment.

  5. [...] your regularly scheduled linkage.Brett Stevens – “Social Conservatives“, “Conservadysfunctionalism“, “Blight Wing“, “Interview with Jack Donovan“, “Keep Turning [...]

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.560 seconds