Conservative Dinosaurs in Denial

Purrybonker · 08-23-2004, 07:32 AM

America is a strange place - particularily from the outside looking in. Most of the "free world" has marched pretty much lock-step in social liberalization since WW2. America - the nation that is leading-edge in so many fronts is trailing edge in this important aspect of cultural evolution. Why is that?

I don't think that even the most extreme conservative would argue that civilization is becoming progressively liberal over time. Each successive generation is generally more liberal (culturally/socially) than their predecessors. Politically though, because government power base is always held by the "outgoing" generation (60 year old white men in the case of America) - governments tend to trail the actual political leanings of the population.

But in America this condition is exagerated. The US two-party system further stiffles cultural evolution - exacerbating the detachment of the emerging generation from the political process. This isn't just rhetoric - it's a big part of the reason why the US lags behind the cultural evolution of the world and has amongst the lowest voter turn-outs on the planet.

Like it or not - the conservative of today will soon be extinct (and will to some extent be villified by subsequent generations) just like every generation of conservatives before him. It's just that the US system forestalls their extinction longer than it does elsewhere on the planet.

Wouldn't it be easier if all those hawks just conceded the game now - and save us all years of angst and political handwringing?

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Conservatives refuse to change because giving even the tiniest bit of ground erodes their power. See my previous post on the definition of conservatism.

tabs · 08-23-2004, 08:08 AM

Everybody thought I was a Troll..Purry I got notin on U....

And meanwhile back at the farm....mankind continues to slaughter each other wholesale.... cheaper by the Million... In other words so much for Progressiveness.....Civilization is just a thin venner disguising Man's brutish nature....

Burnin' oil · 08-23-2004, 08:14 AM

Hey Purry, I think the appropriate word is "entropy," the inevitable deterioration of a society.

gaijinda · 08:19 AM

Dear Mr. Bonker: Are outside looking in? Do not believe what you read in the press. I suggest you get on a cheap flight, get yourself a rental car and drive around this large country that you really do not understand.. I am afraid you have spent too much time in books, media and hanging with your peers. Come on over, find out for yourself. If you are here, get out of whatever box you are living in..

As for "each successive generation is generally more liberal (culturally/socially) than their predecessors" - that is a broad statement that simply is not true. But do not make the poli sci major's mistake of thinking the world revolves around politics, because it does not. Look at the economic liberties and opportunities that American's enjoy today. Entrepreneurs across a broad range of activities continue to remake America every day. This creates wealth on a scale never seen in human history, but with risks and social dislocations that so called "liberal democracies" like Norway or Japan would never allow.

As for the other kind of "liberal" - be reminded their are many young Americans who look on the politics and cultural values of their "baby boomer" parents as being some sort of hypocritical joke.

Regarding the two party system, that is grounded in the geography and demographics of this United States. You should study and understand the history of this a little more. I hope you are not in Italy..

The American conservative will not soon be extinct, we are just waiting for those of the next generation with half a brain to grow up...

joeclarke · 08-23-2004, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Everybody thought I was a Troll..Purry I got notin on U....

Naw - you're still the undisputed leader. But thank the Lord for Mr. Bonker's enlightened post - we need more trolls like him to counter the daily drivel from the tightie righties on this board.

But he does pose a very interesting question about US voter participation. Why is it that the youth of America (say under 30's) are staying away from the polls in such unprecedented numbers?

It is probably reasonable to assume that greater participation by x and y generations would likely yield more liberal governments, no?

Superman · 08-23-2004, 08:31 AM

Nice try Gaijinda, but no banana. Successive generations do indeed seem to be becoming more liberal over time and, while there was a brief spurt of conservatism among our youth roughly ten years ago, it seems clear to me that the young people in our nation are not exactly in love with those principles. Like I say, nice try. I especially liked the part where you pretended that no one with a brain could possibly disagree with you. It would've worked if not for the facts.

Purrybonker · 08-23-2004, 08:33 AM

Aw come on, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. But seriously, over-time, at a high level, no one can argue that cultural liberalization is an unstoppable rolling stone...

I mean - half the stuff that we take for granted today is the "liberal initiative" of yesterday, right?

What makes anyone think that the social conservatisms (gay rights, socialized medicine, etc) of today won't become the amazing-but-true history vignettes of tomorrow? .

gaijinda · 08-23-2004, 08:55 AM

Purry - but I just love to "stir it up" as Bob Marley used to say.. 8^)

And "Tighty Righty" - I am going to use that!

Not so long ago - folks saw communism unstoppable - just the way of the world, inevitable. The old joke went something like - optimists studied Russia and pessimists studied Chinese.

A lot of this burning issues are not much more than fads. I am not all that old, and I have seen these things come and go..

Hugh R · 08-23-2004, 08:56 AM

Here's what I don't get from Purrybroker, CamB, and all those from other countries, since you don't live in the US, why do you seem to be so concerned about what we do in our country. I'm not particularly concerned (or care) about your internal social programs in Canada/New Zealand, or where ever your from. Not trying to be mean or confrontational here, just wondering why? I even have duo-citizenship with Canada and while I've been there a bunch of times, I still consider myself to be an American.

928ram · 08-23-2004, 09:14 AM

Purrybonker, so many ways I wanted to reply to this, but, perhaps you should come inside and look out. I'll take my induviduality over lock-step any day, thanks.

Purrybonker · 08-23-2004, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh R
Here's what I don't get from Purrybroker, CamB, and all those from other countries, since you don't live in the US, why do you seem to be so concerned about what we do in our country. I'm not particularly concerned (or care) about your internal social programs in Canada/New Zealand, or where ever your from. Not trying to be mean or confrontational here, just wondering why? I even have duo-citizenship with Canada and while I've been there a bunch of times, I still consider myself to be an American.

Well Hugh, if Canada and New Zealand went around bombing the crap outta people an' stuff, you'd probably care about the internal workings of their political systems too. But you've probably hit an important nail on the head.

Maybe America is somewhat immune to the cultural evolution in the rest of the world simply because Americans have less reason to look outside their own borders than other people have.

Hugh R · 08-23-2004, 10:05 AM

Purry, I don't disagree with what you said about bombing the crap outta people and stuff. I don't want to start a political war here (again), but maybe we should have stayed out of Iraq, and let Saddam, and his boyz continue to run the country, would that have been OK with you?
Remember, Canada, the UN, England, Germany, France, Russia and just about every other country believed that Saddam had WMD, and that it was a bad thing for the world. The US chose to do something different that passing yet another resolution by the UN. You can't have it both ways, there we either let Saddam stay in power, or we (the US or the UN) remove him. Yes or no, which one do you think was the better (not necessarily the best) choice? For that matter, in your opinion what would have been the "Best" choice in dealing with Iraq?

Moneyguy1 · 08-23-2004, 10:05 AM

Hugh

I think part of their concern is the "elephant in the livingroom" syndrome.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Purry:

Pat Buchanan has written a book on what the neocons have done to 'true' conservatism, and it ain't pretty.

There are quite a few things he says that I completely agree with -- scary.

joeclarke · 08-24-2004, 05:46 AM

That's a fine piece of work there Noah, my man. Impressive example of the pervasive possibilities of cognitive thought and reason not to mention a fine display of the "parry and thrust" of the debate. You slipped a bit in your closing jab - "inane" was a bit over-the-top in context of the mood of your dissertation and that whole "chagrin" and "recall in horror" business earlier on didn't quite seem to fit either.

Otherwise a nice, tidy essay. Well done. Very entertaining. In fact I'm still chuckling.

Now that's just plain funny.