Steve Re: Debate #2
While watching the style and tenor of this latest debate, I was reminded of the modern cultural foundation upon which both candidates had to build their respective arguments. In practical terms, the nation is philosophically oriented so as to look to these two, not simply as leaders, but also as saviors. As substantive Christian faith wanes, replaced by Secular Humanism with its balkanizing armament, ressentiment, the providence of God is usurped by Government-Jireh– He who sees and provides. Much of the country must have been looking at these two men thinking, ‘What will you give me?’
Under these auspices it is incredible that the more conservative Bush was able to hold his own so well against the more liberal Kerry. In general, a conservative must imply that he will work to establish an environment to assist people to provide for themselves. The liberal has more leeway to proclaim that he will provide it for the people. One doctrine of the Federal Government’s establishment of the religion of Secular Humanism is that Sugar Daddies are more attractive than co-laborers. ‘Hi, my name is Rockefeller, and I can buy your vote!’
Senator Kerry did not seek passage of ‘The Global Test’ before unleashing his primary rhetorical weapon, ressentiment. Ressentiment surpasses simple resentment in that it seeks harm or debasement of the target. His primary detonator is the abhorrent ‘rich’. Because of their success in ‘life’s lottery’, they should be taken down a notch or two. (Playing the race card is another commonly used example, as is anything that belittles beauty, talent, high character, or anything else that can be used to stir up envy, distrust, or hate.)
Modern liberals desire to promote ‘leveling’ by bringing down the successful laity. (They, themselves are not affected since they are clergy.) In much of our cultural character it is a marketable skill to demean and humiliate the accomplished, the achievers. Conservatism is more prone to assisting people to strive for their own success. Liberalism strives to give you (somebody else’s) fish; Conservatism, to teach you to fish.
For much of our culture it is far more preferable to be given something than to have to struggle and work to achieve it. So, for this fact alone, it is very surprising that Bush did so well.
5 comments:
"Conservatism is more prone to assisting people to strive for their own success. Liberalism strives to give you (somebody else’s) fish; Conservatism, to teach you to fish." You know something. This has to be one of the most cliched little pieces of political humbug that has ever shown its face to the light of day. The same statement can be used (as it originally was) to socialism vs capitalism. It can be applied to religion vs humanism. As a statement of truth it has no meaning for me, none whatsoever.
For a start, the attribution of the political labels is reversed. Conservatism is equated with progress, with freedom. Liberalism is equated with resistance to change and more latterly to socialism and the strictures on personal freedoms that implies. Well, guys and gals, just get out your dictionaries and political histories and take a quiet look.
In Australia, the Liberals are the right wing party; there is no Conservative party to speak of; the Labour Party would be considered far too right wing by half in a truly socialist system. The traditional right wing party in NZ, the National Party, has collapsed and is now frantically trying to reinvent itself. They have a major problem in this. The centre-right ground has been taken from them by the present Labour government.
So, rather than the stupid little homilies such as giving fish or fish hooks, I prefer to look at the realities of a situation and say to myself "What really is needed here?"
To illustrate this point, perhaps someone might like to enlighten me as to the purpose and value of teaching Sudanese refugees now living in camps in eastern Chad how to fish. I resist the temptation to point out that that is just what Conservatives would do... they are no more prone to such stupidities than are politicians of other breeds and colours.
The real truth behind all of this label business is the "10 second retention rule" that is prevalent in modern western society. If you can not make a point in a ten second "sound bite" then your message will not be understood.
Further, if you suddenly find you are losing an argument on the detail, you can trot out one of these little cliches and no one can argue with it. It is like the referendum that ran with NZ's parliamentary elections some years back. I can not remember the exact question but it was essentially "I am in favour of making the punishment fit the crime - yes/no". Ask a question like that and what do you expect? Some 97% said yes.
Turn that around to "Which would you give - fish / fishhooks?" and you can see my point.
Probe, Thanks for commenting. I'm always pleased to wrestle with ideas and contemplate on criticisms. That's one of my main reasons for Blogging and Blog-jumping.
Your comment has generated several questions, explanations, and criticisms as well.
I really am looking to you to read the posting for understanding of its total content and meaning in context and critique that. Your comments did not deal with the ideas presented, but only with style and technical definitions of some of the words used. Frankly, you did an inadequate job even at that.
Your beloved fish (noun)/ fish (verb) and the Sudanese situation. In the context of the writing, '...work to establish an environment to assist...', has potential to adapt to the Sudanese situation as well as givin' li'l Opie a cane pole with hook and line an' fetchin' him to the crick. Context.
The technical/historical meanings of liberal and conservative. Yes, yes. I expect every reader would understand the general parameters of meaning in the way the words were used. You did, too. I could have used 'neo as opposed to classical' or 'right side of the aisle or left'. (Actually I did use the adjective 'modern' with liberal once with that very purpose in mind.)
'...if you suddenly find you are losing an argument on the detail, you can trot out one of these little cliches and no one can argue with it.' This statement describes itself. In the clicheopaedia, I found it right next to the fish/to fish one!
'What is really needed here?' You suggest looking at the 'realities', collecting details, facts, and statistics. You can come to no conclusion from this recipe without presuppositions; liberal, conservative, Christian, Pagan, Humanist, Pragmatist, Hedonist...
Probe, when you make a statement, what are the presuppositions that it evolves from?
Well, I guess that the first problem is that I had quite great difficulty in reading your piece. Call me dumb if you want, but there are a lot of words in there that I tried to look up in the dictionary. "Ressentiment" for example. It is not "resentment" mis-spelt as you have used that elsewhere.
Word gives me...
Reading ease 51.4
Grade level 10.3
Really that is not the main problem.
If you are trying to say that Kerry will win in the election because he makes the better electoral promises (for which read "bribes" and "pork") then why not say that.
If you are trying to say that Bush will win because of his record in Iraq, say it clearly..
Wrapping your package into long words, some of them inventions of your own, only makes for extremely difficult reading. Hence my comment on the use of labels and the fishing cliche. They are about the only bits that are immediately comprehensible.
I think too, that the general (not just you personally) desire to include religion in your politics I have great difficulty in understanding. It is incomprehensible from the POV that each is as bad as the other on its own, without putting them in the same basket.
Sorry, perhaps I should have said that clearly.
Probligo, Some of Nietzsche's and Scheler's work attempted to explain an attitude using a French word transliterated into German. When Holdheim translated the German into English he used (created) the word 'ressentiment' for that attitude. As I had written it means '... surpasses simple resentment in that it seeks harm or debasement of the target'.
Ressentiment could be considered a virulent cousin of the xenophobia that you and Al briefly discussed. It can even lift its backstabbing hand in action within families or other close associations. Another's characteristics or possessions, even if only by perception, that seem to be superior, fester a desire for their abasement through words or action. Even if there is no actual benefit to the 'ressentimentor??', he still rejoices.
Playing to this characteristic as it incubates within a culture, a politician can garner support. So what would seem to you and I as poor quality candidates may in actuality be culturally shrewd ones. They surpass you and I in keeping up with the cultural times and attitudes, even though they may be in decline.
The increase in these attitudes has been the natural result of a long and slow religious paradigm shift from Christianity to modernist/post-modernist humanism in our society.
Although often denied, religion is the basis for all statements containing value judgements.
Again:
"'What is really needed here?' You suggest looking at the 'realities', collecting details, facts, and statistics. You can come to no conclusion from this recipe without (religious) presuppositions; liberal, conservative, Christian, Pagan, Humanist, Pragmatist, Hedonist...
Probe, when you make a statement, what are the presuppositions that it evolves from?"
'What is really needed here?' Any answer will be a religious answer.
Thanks Steve for the explanation of the term, and I now better understand where you are coming from.
You have out your finger on another part too, that the religion can not be removed from the equation.
Perhaps that is where my "mis-read" what had been written. Being the simple person that I am, I tend to leave religion out more than see its ramifications.
Post a Comment