Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
The person you are quoting here (and not giving him credit for it) is applying the general denotational aspect of the word "conservatism" (a conservation of something) to an aristocratic society. And so, if a society is being dominated by an aristocracy, "conservatism" would conserve that domination.
Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Here he narrows the definition into a specific political label. The problem with applying this to his aforementioned "aristocracy" is that not all political systems are aristocracies. So, in those that aren't, "conservatism" would not conserve the domination of an aristocracy.
If the political system were a "democracy" (whatever he means by that) then "conservatism" would conserve a "democracy." Ergo, I presume, he would not consider it "destructive" and it would have a place in his notion of the "modern world."
For thousands of years, conservatism was universally understood as being in opposition to democracy. Having lost much of its ability to attack democracy openly, conservatism has tried in recent years to redefine the word "democracy" while engaging in deception to make the substance of democracy unthinkable.
Here he is transporting the political labels "conservatism" and "democracy" via wdmso's time machine into "thousands of years" ago where his current, mostly undefined, notion of what they mean did not exist. And back into a time when there was no universal understanding.
And he speaks of this thousands of years old "conservatism" attacking "democracy." But doesn't really define either. In fact, somewhere in the long essay from which you quote, he says something to the effect that democracy has not yet been fully realized and that we are still striving to grow a democratic culture. He doesn't say how conservatism has tried to redefine the word democracy--but how do you redefine something that is still in progress?
Almost all of the early immigrants to America left behind societies that had been oppressed by conservatism. The democratic culture that Americans have built is truly one of the monuments of civilization. And American culture remains vibrant to this day despite centuries of conservative attack.
|
Philip E. Agre, whom you are quoting (without the proper attribution) can't seem to wrap his mind around the notion that American "conservatism" as it expresses itself is all about preserving that monument of civilization rather than attacking it for "centuries."
He doesn't get that American so-called "conservatism" is not the same as European conservatism. Nor the same as his reputed thousands of years of what he calls conservatism dating, presumably, back to the pharaohs, or maybe even before that.
The reason I don't like to use the term "conservative" and usually put it in quotes when I do, is because it is more a vague political label that means different things to different people. Usually, the context, tells what it is supposed to mean. But it is not a useful political term when speaking in general or "universal" contexts, such as how Agre did in the essay you were quoting from.
And, BTW, that essay was written 17 years ago, and the Democrat party was still evolving then and has done so precipitously since then into the authoritarians that would not fit Agre's notion of "liberal" nor even, I presume (since I don't know exactly what he means by the word), his idea of "democratic." The present Democrat party would, in many respects, fit Agre's notion of "conservatism." Glenn Greenwald has been pointing that out over the past five or so years. And I believe Greenwald would pretty much agree with most of Agre's ideas on creating a democratic culture.