tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post4513773025437344611..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: Conservative HumanismJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-29735823479766482822014-08-30T09:09:44.048-04:002014-08-30T09:09:44.048-04:00I also wonder about the power of how we name our b...I also wonder about the power of how we name our beliefs. Consider Rick Perry, who became a "conservative" because he loves small Texas towns and the Boy Scouts, then decided that this means he must support bank deregulation and an aggressive foreign policy because those are parts of contemporary conservatism. A century ago he would probably have been an isolationist and ranted against Wall Street. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-19410192347366399492014-08-30T06:03:15.493-04:002014-08-30T06:03:15.493-04:00While I can respect the notion that there are peop...While I can respect the notion that there are people who identify as conservative who disagree with various thorny qualities attached to the complicated epithet, I have to laugh at the thought that Birzer is essentially invoking the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy as the basis of his argument. He's not <b><i>wrong</i></b> per se, in that the heart of conservatism is not truly based sheerly in the horrible behaviors that are the stereotype of the philosophy (at least within the US), but the fact is that being part of the "conservative" world of politics means being bedfellows with the good and the bad elements alike. Like it or not, horrible conservatives are still conservatives, in the same way that hate-spewing, ignorant, Fundamentalist Christians are technically still Christians - even if they completely misunderstand and go against the teachings of the Galilean Carpenter at nearly every turn.<br /><br />That said, I think a part of the problem is undoubtedly that language is weird, and it gets transmuted in bizarre ways. "Democrats" aren't truly democratic, in the sense that they don't have any problem with employing Representation over total suffrage and counting every single vote of every single citizen in every single matter of importance. "Republican" is technically accurate, in that yes, we operate in a republic - but really, we're a mixed Democratic Republic. And neither terms really tells you anything at all about the beliefs of the party involved.<br /><br />The same problems exist with "Liberal" and "Conservative". Despite being presented as opposites, they technically exist on two separate conceptual spectrums. The opposite of "Liberalism" is in fact "Authoritarianism", and the direct counter to a "Conservative" is actually a "Radical" or a "Revolutionary". Desiring freedoms and liberties, and wishing to limit or restrict change, are in no way mutually exclusive.<br /><br />Ultimately, what I think matters for anyone who is conservative is their <b> <i>reasons</i></b> for opposing change. A person striving to prevent change purely out of adherance to tradition or out of fear is entirely different that a person who bases their conservatism on rational thought and empirical evidence.<br /><br />I absolutely believe that the language used to describe philosophies does deserve more exacting divisions and terminology. I'd rather Birzer identify as a "Conservative Humanist" than a "Humanist Conservative", but at least the beginnings of proper naming conventions are clearly there. We could even subdivide our political parties in this manner, to more exactly represent differing viewpoints.<br /><br />But perhaps it is overly optimistic to expect people to properly understand and internalize all the different spectrums of thought they each fall into. There are just so many categories to keep track of, and our extant terminology is already so muddled and oversimplified.<br /><br />I mean, could the average person honestly be expected to make sense of someone who states they are a "Conservative Socialist Liberal Republican Humanist"? (Someone who advocates Reform over Revolt, Minimal Wealth Disparity and Non-Competitive Economics, Maximal Personal Freedoms, Representative Government, and Human-Centric Rationality) The Cynic in me points out that people already reduce discussion to the level of "Us Vs. Them" tribalism, while the Humanist in me wants to believe we can work to educate people and promote rationality and intelligence among even the least advantaged or obstinate amongst us.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com