The Blue "L's" and the Red "C"'s

[DanKroh]

Beavah writes:

"But I think one big difference between the Blue-L's and the Red-C's is that the Red-C's are more comfortable with the quest for objective, impersonal truth, that goes beyond what "I believe" to "What really works" or "what makes us us." In that way, they are more apt to use the language of objectivity or "common belief" like patriotism, even overbroadly. This drives many deconstructionist Blue-L's batty, as you illustrate."

 

Actually Beavah, it is my opinion that Red-C's are more likely to try to extole their personal beliefs and opinions as objective, impersonal truth. Perhaps the Blue-L's are just a little more aware of what "objective truth" actually is.

 

And just because something is "common belief" doesn't mean it's objective truth. Four centuries or so ago, it was "common belief" that the world was flat. Won't it be interesting to see what "common beliefs" of today will turn out to be complete horsepucky tomorrow?

[johndaigler]

Yah, JD, dat's a bit much, eh? Perhaps a separate thread for each topic?

Beavah, you start a thread where you address Lisabob's various ideas but you don't have the patience to read through other posters' responses?? Hmmmmm. . . so much for a dialogue of ideas. Give my comments about "skimming" another look.

 

 

One thing I think that's apparent in your postings that I didn't catch before is the insistence on presenting/categorizing things as personal opinion/belief, absent any group label. Of course whatever any of us writes or says is our own personal understanding. That's so obvious it doesn't merit comment.

Beavah, that's so obvious it's become a cliche' - accepted but no longer valid. Do you want each of us to assume that everything you say is just opinion and really has no factual basis? I doubt you want that little credibility. Opinions are not ideas.

 

But I think one big difference between the Blue-L's and the Red-C's is that the Red-C's are more comfortable with the quest for objective, impersonal truth, that goes beyond what "I believe" to "What really works" or "what makes us us." In that way, they are more apt to use the language of objectivity or "common belief" like patriotism, even overbroadly. This drives many deconstructionist Blue-L's batty, as you illustrate. Great, now I'm a special kind of Blue-L! You just can't get away from trying to throw me into some group that you can dismiss because you KNOW me. What drives me batty is posting thoughts/ideas without risking yourself. "My team thinks this, your team thinks that." Comments like that protect the writer from personal responsibility. Just, please, give it a try. . . What does Beavah think about Lisa's ideas and what makes him think that?

 

Red-C's are more comfortable with the quest for objective, impersonal truth,.. Apparently what you're saying is that Red-C's are more capable of intelligent, clear thinking and have a strangle-hold on truth. Therefore, the Red-C team is "better". To even consider such a statement about the "quest for objective, impersonal truth" is ludicrous. It's the kind of thing a "team" says - it's corpspeak. Individuals who need to be responsible for their own written words would immediately feel the inaccuracy, the foolishness inherent in such a statement. Using objective language and searching for objective truth are hardly the same thing. My point is that you, Beavah, limit yourself by speaking as anything other than Beavah and by judging me to be anything other than "johndaigler".

 

Deconstructing any argument to a matter of personal belief makes an argument much easier to dismiss - you believe that, I believe this. There is then no need to work together to find an objective truth. Everything is "belief sharing" or, in the media "belief shouting." At the same time, such deconstruction prevents runaway "common beliefs" like Islamists or Maoists which can be very destructive. Objective truths are based on objective facts - if that's where you wanted the discussion to head you should have tried using a few. You've twisted this backward. Your first post is nothing more than belief sharing - and that would have been fine, but you pitched it as some high-brow attempt at a respectful discussion of ideas.

 

But deconstruction and individual centeredness doesn't build community. People keep votin' for even weak "Red-C's" because they are using the language of objectivity, common belief and purpose which you seem to dismiss. It isn't a bad thing to define oneself in part as being a member of a group - an American, a Jew, a conservative, a Boy Scout, a Steeler's fan. That's genuine, it recognizes commonalities beyond individual differences, and it builds communities.

Identifying as part of groups is vital. . . To deny our individuality and give over our thinking and our responsibility for that thinking is a bit scary. Communities are based on commonalities, not on clones. You don't speak for the community and it shouldn't speak for you. You certainly can't label others as belonging to a community and then KNOW who they are and what they think.

What I dismiss is the acceptance of groupthink as objective truth and the dismissal of alternate ideas as different and therefore "less". What I dismiss is the pomposity of groups, the anonymous arrogance of Teamspeak, and the lessening of individual thought and personal responsibility.

 

So, we come back around to the original problem. Why don't you try addressing Lisabob as Beavah.

 

jd

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, sure DanKroh.

 

The quest for findin' somethin' dat works, or for somethin' closer to "objective truth" is sure as shootin' going to lead to plenty of doozies of mistakes, and some over-reachin'.

 

That doesn't mean that the quest ain't worth pursuing.

 

[Beavah]

Beavah, you start a thread where you address Lisabob's various ideas but you don't have the patience to read through other posters' responses?? Hmmmmm. . . so much for a dialogue of ideas. Give my comments about "skimming" another look.

 

Yah, JD, der you go again.

 

Reading the posts of other scouting volunteers in the most negative light possible, and responding with a criticism of the person instead of the idea.

 

What I meant was what I said. Why don't you split up your long post into separate threads, which would enable more people to respond to individual issues that they were interested in, and in greater detail?

 

Beavah

 

[DanKroh]

Beavah writes:

"The quest for findin' somethin' dat works, or for somethin' closer to "objective truth" is sure as shootin' going to lead to plenty of doozies of mistakes, and some over-reachin'. That doesn't mean that the quest ain't worth pursuing."

 

First off, Beavah, I had to read your post three times before I understood what you were trying to get across. I'm not trying to be the grammar police here, but I think it's worth saying that I find your ideas harder to understand when you use non-standard English like this.

 

Anyway, to the point. I agree that the quest for truth is extrememly worthwhile. In fact, it's one of the principle doctrines of my religion (UU). However, when a person seeking truth stops at the first thing that works for the moment and declares "This is truth", that person is more likely to have found a belief or opinion, rather than a "universal truth".

 

It is my experience that conservatives are more likely to take their personal belief and opinions and declare that they are "universal truths". Now, here in the hotbed of liberalism that is Massachusetts, I may not encounter too many conservatives (although there are more than some people outside MA might think!), but I grew up in central PA, certainly a hotbed of conservative thought.

 

I have seen it frequently on this board, where some posters have declared their Christian beliefs to be "universal truths", rather than beliefs, based on faith. I think the reason you perceive "liberals" as speaking less in terms of "truth" and more in terms of their opinons and beliefs is that (again, in my experience) liberals are more cautious about declaring something a "truth" until other points of view have been considered. But to many conservatives (and especially those of the religious-right), other points of view, other beliefs, are not valid, and therefore not worthy of consideration. THEIR truth should be truth for everyone, and they are willing to ram it down the throats of everyone else.

 

You spoke of patriotism as one of the "objective truths" that conservatives speak about. Well, I can guarantee you that the definition of patriotism held by many conservatives (at least, the ones most vocal in the media) is NOT the same as mine. Their definition of moral is NOT the same as mine. How can these things be "objective truths" if they differ from person to person?

 

And I think johndaigler has some valid points. When you speak too much about ideologies (conservative vs. liberal, for example), you lose too many individual IDEAS. My ideology is the DanKroh ideology. Some ideas are liberal, some are conservative, some are in the middle. When you try to stuff all those ideas into a label, you lose their individuality. You presume that by labelling me "liberal", you know ALL my ideas, many of which don't fit into the "liberal ideology". I think that is what johndaigler is trying to get at, and I agree with him.

 

Edited to fix some typos, because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[GernBlansten]

Which political ideology is more likely to allow disent from the core ideals? If some of your positions are liberal and some conservative, are you either? I would think liberals welcome that diversity. Whereas conservatives tend to be an all or nothing crowd. One liberal thought and you are labeled a liberal and must atone to be brought back into the fold.

[vmpost]

I yam what I yam. Do I care what others think of me? Not a chance. As long as I am true to myself.

[Beavah]

First off, Beavah, I had to read your post three times before I understood what you were trying to get across.

 

Yah gotta go watch "Fargo", eh? Us folks from da northern Midwest really talk like dat!

 

However, when a person seeking truth stops at the first thing that works for the moment and declares "This is truth", that person is more likely to have found a belief or opinion

 

Yah, sure. But don't you think it's a pretty prejudiced view to ascribe to someone else that they "stopped at the first thing that worked for the moment" then shut off their brain? I haven't really met anyone like that.

 

It is my experience that conservatives are more likely to take their personal belief and opinions and declare that they are "universal truths".

 

I agree with that, too, which was my point. Conservatives are more comfortable with the language of universal truth and common, shared belief. They are more comfortable seeking it, they are more comfortable declaring it, talking about it openly, evangelizing. They are more comfortable viewing themselves not as strictly independent personal opinions, but as an integral part of a bigger society/group/church nation... and they are willing to sacrifice some of themselves for those bigger concepts.

 

 

But to many conservatives (and especially those of the religious-right), other points of view, other beliefs, are not valid, and therefore not worthy of consideration. THEIR truth should be truth for everyone, and they are willing to ram it down the throats of everyone else.

 

I think again that this is an unkind characterization. If you really care about understanding another's viewpoint, then you would recognize that what you speak of as "ramming down the throats of everyone else" is an act of charity. It is the necessary consequence of universal truth. If you are certain that using illegal drugs is harmful to a child ("universal truth"), then you stop the child from using them. If you are certain that shooting students in Tiannamen Square is wrong, then you stand in front of the tank or cut off economic support. You are both willing to intevene with others (a sacrifice of your time and resources), and willing to sacrifice yourself.

 

Conservatives are more comfortable with that language and those consequences... of pledging their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the "universal" cause. Is it just "their belief?" Maybe. But it's very effective at building communities, resisting millenia of oppression, and freeing slaves. Can it be corrupted? Yep, just like everything. Patriotism can become nationalism can become National Socialism.

 

You spoke of patriotism as one of the "objective truths" that conservatives speak about... How can these things be "objective truths" if they differ from person to person?

 

Easy. Some people can be wrong.

 

But my point was different. My point was just that the conservatives were more comfortable with the language of patriotism and self-sacrifice; more willing to speak in public in terms of universal truth. I made no claims about them being "right," just "effective." In rejecting the notion of groups and the language of shared values, liberals/democrats/people who talk like JD lose the ability to persuade people to give up something so as to join/build a community.

 

When you try to stuff all those ideas into a label, you lose their individuality.

 

Exactly. You go from being a Babel of individuals into being a community... just like when you stuff a bunch of boys into uniforms and teach them to live by common values of duty to God, and nation, and neighbor, and self.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

" I would think liberals welcome that diversity. Whereas conservatives tend to be an all or nothing crowd."

 

Unfortunately the extremes at both ends seem to fail to objectively consider the positions of the other. And there seem to be certain bellweather positions that one side or the other are not willing to overlook. For example, it is hard to believe a pro-life Democrat would get very far within the Democratic Party and we've seen what Republicans are capable of when dealing with a pro-choice Republican.(I refer way Republican Governor Bill Weld was treated when nominated for an Ambassadorship. Anyone who thinks Republicans have some special stake in the moral high ground should review that little affair.)

 

SA

 

 

[Rooster7]

Beavah,

 

Again - I'd like to congratulate you on another well constructed post, which eloquently and intelligently addresses conservative thought. You've quickly made my short list of favorite folks on this forum. Of course, now that I have identified you as such, you will no doubt become the focus of liberal scorn, which abounds on this board as of late. Your mission - ignore the babble and press on. Good Luck.

 

[johndaigler]

Beavah, can you please give some background, explanation or evidence for the following sections of your post. I'm trying to read your posts with a more friendly, kind, and courteous eye. Unfortunately, these statements seem like typical, agenda-ed rhetoric. You say that's not your intent, so if you could help me, I'd appreciate it.

 

jd

 

 

Conservatives are more comfortable with the language of universal truth and common, shared belief. They are more comfortable seeking it, they are more comfortable declaring it, talking about it openly, evangelizing. They are more comfortable viewing themselves not as strictly independent personal opinions, but as an integral part of a bigger society/group/church nation... and they are willing to sacrifice some of themselves for those bigger concepts. "

 

. . .

 

Conservatives are more comfortable with that language and those consequences... of pledging their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the "universal" cause.

 

. . .

 

Exactly. You go from being a Babel of individuals into being a community... just like when you stuff a bunch of boys into uniforms and teach them to live by common values of duty to God, and nation, and neighbor, and self.

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

Hi all,

 

Sorry to come late to the party. I've been huddling under the covers with a box of tissues and a cup of tea for the last few days. Just beginning to feel human again.

 

jd is certainly correct that labelling causes all sorts of problems. Still, we have to have something or other to use as an organizing schema or we risk becoming overwhelmed by all the details and small differences, and not seeing any larger patterns or truths. With that in mind, when I said most conservatives tend to see government as part of the problem and not the solution, I was thinking of the Nixon/Reagan "new federalists" and Reagan's quote (which TheScout supplied - thanks) in particular. This has become the rallying cry and touchstone for a large percentage of today's conservative movement. It is also traditionally one of the clearer dividing lines between "liberal" and "conservative."

 

Watching the conservative movement these days I'm increasingly fascinated by the divisions within, between those who are traditionally "hands off" when it comes to defining gov't role in society, and those who see an opportunity to engage in social reorganization via gov't. The difference between the latter and many liberals these days appears to be more about the content or focus of that social engineering rather than about the desirability of using govt in such a way. Makes me wonder which branch of the movement will end up dominating the Republican party in the 2008 election cycle.

 

So does President Bush fit the "new federalist" mold? Well he seemed to when he first campaigned and won in 2000. But since then he has overseen the largest expansion of national government power in recent memory, created a whole new cabinet department (Homeland Security), presided over the largest expansion of an entitlement program (prescrip drugs) in at least 40 years, and taken on an entire policy area that was traditionally the domain of state and local gov't (education).

 

Before someone cries "foul" and runs up the wounded colors from 9/11 - yes, there are very good arguments in favor of some, or perhaps all, of the above. Objectively though, this does not look much like the "new federalist" doctrine of smaller government that recent conservative movement leaders have embraced.

 

As for me personally, it is my belief that government is uniquely situated to ameliorate a lot of social problems because

a) only gov't can legislate - and legislation is frequently used to force society to take a face-on look at social ills, and

b)only gov't has the legitimate authority to speak on behalf of the population, by virtue of having won election, and

c) gov't provides a vehicle for sifting through and aggregating 260+ million individual preferences and I can't think of any other organization that is capable of doing this on such a scale, and

d) gov't has the money (thanks to our tax dollars) to tackle problems that could not be dealt with at all, or that couldn't be handled evenly all across the country, if left up to local resources, and

e) gov't has the ability to take a big picture view, whereas most of us don't have the time, info, or inclination to really see what's going on and what the potential effects of local actions are, outside of our own communities.

 

Now there are liberals who won't agree with this and conservatives who will. It seems like it depends on the specific issue too. Whereas many liberals oppose national gov't handling of education policy (lots of joking about "No Child Left Behind" actually being "Every Child Left Behind" etc.), there are also many conservatives who support extended national gov't involvement in this area. While lots of liberals see the current prescription drugs program as a botched job, many conservatives support it. While many liberals oppose a national constitutional amendment defining marriage or the beginning of life, many conservatives support these extensions of gov't power.

 

But what a lot of liberals don't support or understand about the current Republican platform is this: Why say you're for smaller gov't and then go out and do all of the above? And if you're going to create a lot of new government programs, or create a bunch of new mandates that state & local gov't will have to deal with (like NCLB and the prescription drug issue) then pay more attention to the feedback you get from those who have to actually implement the program on the ground. In other words, many liberals, myself included, might favor gov't involvement in improving public education and providing better, more uniform access to good health care and strengthening of nat'l security. It is the way that the current admin. is goiing about it - plus repeated rhetoric about small gov't, local control, individual(or states') rights, etc. - that is hard to reconcile.

 

Unfortunately I have to admit as well that the Democratic party has done a poor job thus far of articulating that opposition, as well as a realistic alternative agenda. Howard Dean and Teddy Kennedy seem more intent on sounding off than coming up with a serious platform for change. The guy who gave the Democratic response to the State of the Union (VA governor) sounded to me as though he couldn't find a coherent message with two hands and a flashlight. So I'm waiting for a Dem. to come along who can articulate a clear alternative. Or maybe I'm waiting for John McCain to run on the Republican side?

 

Anyway I hope this is at least somewhat coherent too. If not I'll just blame it on the cold medicine (grin).

 

Lisa'bob

 

 

[Rooster7]

Lisa,

 

Thanks for a well reasoned reply. That's something that I have found to be rare coming from your side of the political spectrum. And frankly, your argument is so well presented and unemotional, I cannot offer a rebuttal at this time. Most in your party like to stoop to claims of racism, imperalism, capitalism, and the like. I find your response to be refreshing, if not enlightening.

[Kahuna]

Lisabob, congratulations on a very well reasoned and logical argument for your point of view. Also, congratulations on surviving whatever evil bug had you under the covers.

 

My counter argument to your feeling about government is simply this: In my experience, both in and out of government, over more years than I care to recall, government just doesn't work very well. In fact, it is almost the model for how not to get things done efficiently.

 

As to why the Republicans and this administration are busily expanding the government: I am totally baffled.

[TheScout]

I would go with Kahuna on this one. Though Lisabob's reasons for government activism sound good in theory in reality, government action is often riddled with partisanship, corruption, and waste. The private sector does things so much better. Compare the waitng times and quality of care in the Canadian pubic health care system and ours and there is no comparison. For these reason many countries have privatized or partially privatized their mail systems such as Japan and Sweden. Even the United Kingdom is debating selling off Royal Mail.