Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Ways I'm more Conservative than a Wingnut

  • I believe in higher standards. The incompetance and failure of others is never an excuse for you own flaws. Bill Clinton getting a blow job is not an excuse to BBQ Iraqi kids with white phosphorus.
  • I abhor moral relativism. We are right and the terrorists are wrong. But when you act like a terrorist to fight terrorism, then you become a terrorist too. You can't wiggle out of that one with cheap relativism.
  • Governments ought to fear their citizens. Elected officials are nothing more than public servants. And the smaller the government, the more power to its citizens.
  • The bigger the government, the greater its incompetance. For governments, size and power are unrelated. Just look at the Bush administration. There was nothing to stop them and their fall from grace was just the greater.
  • I don't believe in nation building. Citizens have their own countries to take care of. To suggest that you can impose democracy is to ignore the meanings of the words imposing and democracy.
  • I believe in vengeance. When terrorists try to kill you, you kill them in return. You don't lose interest and start building new countries. To do otherwise is a sign of weakness.
  • I believe in honor. When you form an alliance to fight terrorism, you don't betray your allies by using their support to further your pety political and financial goals.
It always bugs me to hear wingnuts refer to me as a 'lefty'. They see themselves as conservatives and I'm the liberal. It's a comforting picture. But with the list above, I just smashed this pretty picture to pieces and showed to wingnuts how in some aspects I am more conservative than they are. A vain attempt to put them to shame, if they still have any.
This dogmatic duality on their part makes the world easier to understand for the weak minded. But this duality is an illusion. This right/left demarcation doesn't exist. These wingnut might claim to be conservatives, but most of them only use the esthetics. Neo-conservative warmongers are closer to far-left communism with their imperialist nation-building and their permanant revolution (the War on Terror). Blinded by power, libertarian conservatives who cheered Bush basicaly peed on their own principles. The religious right made a pact with the big business conservatives (aka the devil), forgetting it is the eye of Ra on the dollar bill, not Jesus.

The thing about liberalism is it is undogmatic. Right-wingers try to paint all liberals as lefties. But the fact is, even though some liberals might be painted with the etiquette of 'lefties', it is often an oversimplification and usualy completly untrue. In most case, it is only 'left' in the context of an extreme right ideology (as they say, compared to Bush, Nixon was a socialist). When you view ideas liberaly, a conservative or moderate right-wing idea that works is acceptable. A socialist or moderate left-wing idea that doesn't work is unacceptable. And vice-versa. (For exemple, in Canada, no sane conservative pol would ever try to eliminate universal healthcare) Because of that, it is not inconsistant for some liberals to be pro-welfare and pro-capitalist at the same time. To paint liberals as dogmatic, or religious like Ann Coulter tried to do, is projection from far-right-wingers. When you are morally flawed, it is easier to accuse others of your own crimes than to face the reality that you are a dogmatic prick. It also shows the ignorance (perhaps faked, perhaps they really that stupid) of wingnuts. Communists, anarchists and the far-left hate liberals more than they hate right wingers. It's a common trait of extremists to despise liberals; just look at Bush and Ahmadinejad. The most dangerous thing for a dogmatic ideology is one (ideology) that isn't (dogmatic).

The things I have listed are not necessarely conservative. They are traditionaly associated with it, but really, that's bullshit. I guess another title could have been, "how I am different from contemporary conservatives", but it's not as catchy.

(Cross posted at Liberal Avenger)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should governments fear their citizens? Elected officials represent the citizens. And your contention that the smaller the government, the more power to its citizens doesn't necessarily follow. There are instances where government is vanishingly small where the people have almost no power, or live in fear of their government. Military dictatorships, I think, would follow this model. In addition, France's government bureaucracy is huge (per capita), and some might say that it is more efficient at delivering goods and services.

One might oppose moral relativism while still recognizing the problem “dirty hands.” “Dirty hands,” of course, refers to Machiavelli’s promise to teach the good how to be not good in order that they might do good. Should a morally good purpose be abandoned because it cannot be completed in a morally good fashion. Of course, I beg the question, if only because I have no particular example in mind. Sometimes it may seem that morally good ends are supposedly easier when morally questionable means are used, but I would think that dirty hands should only be considered when morally goods ends are impossible otherwise. The question is always whether the good end is worth the guilt of the compromise. What separates Machiavelli from the truly morally unhinged, or the amoral, is that, for Machiavelli, one knows one is doing evil and does it anyway, preparing to accept the full consequences of one’s acts. Not too long ago The New Republic had an interesting series of articles on this problem in the context of torture.

Aristotle recognized that “honor” was a dangerous concept, mostly because honor is bestowed by others, and is not a quality that exists objectively: it is the subjective estimation of another, who may or may not be a good judge, about one’s objective character and acts. In other words, honor can be cheaply gained by appealing to those of low character. Socrates has an example, early in The Republic. If a friend gives you his sword to hold you should, generally speaking, give it back to him when he asks. You made a promise, after all. However, there are situations where you ought to break your promise and withhold your friend’s property, especially where he might be a danger to himself or others. Is one less honorable for breaking the law (withholding another’s property perhaps constituting theft) and breaking a promise (acting in a morally objectionable manner)?

In addition, how do utilitarian calculations enter into the equation? Maybe there are no moral absolutes or moral rules. Perhaps there are only actions or propositions that increase or decrease happiness.

5:59 PM  
Blogger Sirkowski said...

Fritz, you Nazi motherfucker, I'm sure if I said something against pedophilia you would make an arguement in its favor.

This isn't Liberal Avenger, over her trolls like you only the right to shut the fuck up. Post on my blog again and you'll get deleted.

7:33 PM  
Anonymous zauddelig said...

i'm anarchico and i could not understad why you put anarchy as a leftwinged movement when anarchy is neither a political movement, at least the real anarchy, well i don't hate liberals (well in italy they aren't that much) and some of my best friend sleep with Mussolini poster next to the cross upside the bed...
in other hand i never seen a idea that works nor in leftwing neither in rightwing and i'm sure that italian leftwing governament next year will fall and there will be anticipated election and berlusconi wil led he governament for other five year but by now it's routine...
i believe in moral relativism or better if there was a terrorist act i search why, and when i whatch the bad use of power in middle east and all the intestinal war there and what americans do for it are in i'm not amazed and i think that if it's not completely right it's neither copletely wrong
if u whant i could give u a song of the italian artist Fabrizio De Andre(with traduction) "il bombarolo"(the bomber write in '70) that will help u to uderstand my point of wiew

5:38 AM  
Anonymous Heather said...

I agree with sirkowski.. His ideas make sense and, well, I can relate to them. Every "what side are you on?" political test I took shot me right in the middle. I'm not a lefty or a righty.

As for moral relativism.. I always hated it.. just because someone is on the other end of the battlefield, it automatically makes THEM "evil" and "wrong." That is fucking bullshit.

I remember during the cold war, all the movies that had terrorism in it were mostly russians. Kind of funny how hollywood is doing it once more with all of the 9/11 "tributes." I haven't watched any of them cuz I'm afraid it will cut to a scene showing two actors looking like devils in iraqi clothing and snickering at something gory, like people being eaten by wolves with the american flag taped to their backs or something. I don't think Hollywood would have to rethink trying that if this was still like the cold war.

As for everything else Sirkowski said, I do heartfully agree with... Except for the vengeance part.. that could be interpeted badly by a certain kind of people. *wink wink, nudge nudge*

1:51 AM  
Blogger Schuyler Thorpe said...

Same here!

But watch for the screaming to commence after election day from the fools who brought you George "We didn't foresee the levees failing" Bush, and Dick "We didn't foresee an insurgency" Cheney:

"The sky is falling! We are doomed! Democraps are going to get us all killed!"

(Have you noticed that those who claim will protect us end up doing the exact OPPOSITE?

Anyway...your site is cool and the animated short with the ass-kicking nun was fucking awesome!

3:07 AM  
Blogger Schuyler Thorpe said...

And oh, don't mind the errors. It's past midnight and my brain's fried...

3:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've always thought the dangers lie in extremes. Go too far toward the "ideal" left or right and you end up in Wing nut territory.

My moral compass is simple. Everyone has the right to maximum self expression, as long as they do not inhibit the self expression of another. The second you say, "that offends me, so you can't talk about it/ do it ANYWHERE"-- you're being a fucking moron and trampling my rights.

9/11 was mass murder, the silencing of hundreds of unique expressions of humanity. Anyone of them could have had something amazing to do.

The war in Iraq is an effort to impose a certain group's ideal for the area. Way to "impose democracy". And if you don't see why that's an oxymoron, you're a moron. Get a dictionary.

Governments should fear their people so they fucking remember we ARE people, and having an office on a certain drive or under a green copper roof doesn't mean you get to traet us as your fucking pawns.

10:16 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home