Saturday January 11, 2025
| |||
SNc Channels: HomeNews by DateSportsVideo ReportsWeatherBusiness NewsMilitary NewsRoad ReportCannabis NewsCommentsADVERTISEStaffCompany StoreCONTACT USRSS Subscribe Search About Salem-News.com
Salem-News.com is an Independent Online Newsgroup in the United States, setting the standard for the future of News. Publisher: Bonnie King CONTACT: Newsroom@Salem-news.com Advertising: Adsales@Salem-news.com ~Truth~ ~Justice~ ~Peace~ TJP |
Dec-05-2009 01:18TweetFollow @OregonNews Conservatives are Made, not Born.Daniel Johnson Salem-News.comConservatism is not what it used to be. The conservatism of Barry Goldwater died with him and has been replaced by a faction that has no interest in the commonweal.
(CALGARY, Alberta) - In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a political faction as a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. This fits the modern conservative definition of itself. Law professor John O. McGinnis once wrote in The National Review that: “The depiction of our species that is emerging from Darwinism—as composed of individuals who are basically self-interested yet capable of altruism toward family and friends; who are unequal in their abilities yet remarkably similar in their aspirations—comports with fundamental premises of conservative thought.” He only acknowledges “capable” of altruism, without suggesting it is a basic human trait. But, writes Nicholas Wade in the NYT, “biologists are beginning to form a generally sunnier view of humankind.” He writes: “The somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others. Of course every animal must to some extent be selfish to survive. But the biologists also see in humans a natural willingness to help.” He continues: “When infants 18 months old see an unrelated adult whose hands are full and who needs assistance opening a door or picking up a dropped clothespin, they will immediately help, Michael Tomasello writes in Why We Cooperate , a book published in October. Dr. Tomasello, a developmental psychologist, is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. “The helping behavior seems to be innate because it appears so early and before many parents start teaching children the rules of polite behavior.” -We May Be Born With an Urge to Help If this is an accurate finding, and it seems so to me, it suggests that infants are naturally helpful but, in some family dynamics, they are taught to be unhelpful or antisocial. Intentionally so or not, this appears to me to be the psychological origin of conservatism. As Dr. Tomasello writes: “Children are altruistic by nature”. Conservatives are not. Conservatism is not what it used to be. The conservatism of Barry Goldwater died with him and has been replaced by a faction that has no interest in the commonweal. Here are some of the basic attributes of contemporary conservatism. The below list is borrowed from “The Daily Dish” by Andrew Sullivan Leaving the Right, where he explains why he is no longer a conservative. Here are the things he says he cannot support in the contemporary conservative movement: “that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law, “that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt, “that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008, “that holds torture as a core value, “holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power, “that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful, “has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation, “sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government, “criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs, “would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism, “regards gay people as threats to their own families, “does not accept evolution as a fact, “sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy, “refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending, “refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck, “believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.” How many of the above points you agree with tells you how conservative you are. They’re not all equally weighted, so if you agree with 75% of them you can’t say you’re three-quarters conservative. But it tells you something about yourself. =========================================== Daniel Johnson was born near the midpoint of the twentieth century in Calgary, Alberta. In his teens he knew he was going to be a writer, which is why he was one of only a handful of boys in his high school typing class—a skill he knew was going to be necessary. He defines himself as a social reformer, not a left winger, the latter being an ideological label which, he says, is why he is not an ideologue. From 1975 to 1981 he was reporter, photographer, then editor of the weekly Airdrie Echo. For more than ten years after that he worked with Peter C. Newman, Canada’s top business writer (notably a series of books, The Canadian Establishment). Through this period Daniel also did some national radio and TV broadcasting. He gave up journalism in the early 1980s because he had no interest in being a hack writer for the mainstream media and became a software developer and programmer. He retired from computers last year and is now back to doing what he loves—writing and trying to make the world a better place Articles for December 4, 2009 | Articles for December 5, 2009 | Articles for December 6, 2009 | Quick Links
DININGWillamette UniversityGoudy Commons Cafe Dine on the Queen Willamette Queen Sternwheeler MUST SEE SALEMOregon Capitol ToursCapitol History Gateway Willamette River Ride Willamette Queen Sternwheeler Historic Home Tours: Deepwood Museum The Bush House Gaiety Hollow Garden AUCTIONS - APPRAISALSAuction Masters & AppraisalsCONSTRUCTION SERVICESRoofing and ContractingSheridan, Ore. ONLINE SHOPPINGSpecial Occasion DressesAdvertise with Salem-NewsContact:AdSales@Salem-News.com | |
Contact: adsales@salem-news.com | Copyright © 2025 Salem-News.com | news tips & press releases: newsroom@salem-news.com.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy |
All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.
Thomas December 9, 2009 9:50 am (Pacific time)
"Engle: I’ve got a couple of pieces coming out shortly. I deal in facts, not opinions. I invite you to read them before you jump to any more conclusions." I see essentially mere opinions coming from you Daniel Johnson and/or plenty of cherry-picked quotes that support a very clear animosity driven anti-American agenda. I looked back in some of your articles and saw one where you claim to factually state that the majority of Americans were against the 2nd Amendment, obviously an abundant amount of "facts" which refute that supposed factual statement. Opinions are fine, but if you did stick with just the facts and/or debated with those, then you would be unable to get what ever pleasure you derive with your misleading opinions. Considering the major problems Canada has, and getting worse, maybe you should get your own house in order before attempting to deride my country. No, you will never be able to document how Canada is a better place to live and raise a family than here in America. Seems with all that land area up there, people around the world would be coming there in greater numbers than here. In due time, those problems we have here because of our uncontrolled border situation, Canada will also have, then you may sing a different tune. In the mean time I also would be interested in some comprehensive facts, which I expect you to manipulate in your obvious misleading agenda.
If you think I’m cherry picking and misleading, I challenge you to present a fact that I’ve reported wrongly. Go beyond Canada's alleged higher rate of violence, which several posters have alleged, but none have been able to document.
Engle December 8, 2009 2:41 pm (Pacific time)
This article pretty well reflects the writer's disappointment with their own life I assume. Why do you feel the need to insult the view held by a plural majority of Americans? Is the Canadian educational system and your media so deficient that you misread us so badly? Why not come here to Oregon and we can have an eyeball conversation DJ, peaceful and academic of course. I could come up there after the xmas season and we can chat. I was able to secure your address from a former Vietnam buddy who lives near you. Yeah, Carl went up to those stampede days, met a lady and settled down there. What say you DJ, want to talk straight up with a no-nonsense combat veteran who has American patriotism running through my veins? Peaceful of course, like a balmy day in the tall grass of SE Asia. Peace young man.
Engle: I’ve got a couple of pieces coming out shortly. I deal in facts, not opinions. I invite you to read them before you jump to any more conclusions.
Kilgore December 7, 2009 11:23 am (Pacific time)
Your comment is insulting, abusive and because it makes no contribution whatsoever to a meaningful dialog, it has been deleted.
Thomas Fitch December 6, 2009 12:05 pm (Pacific time)
The second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Looks like consevatives in Canada hold a 37% lead, thus making them the largest political group there (link below). They are increasing in size as they are all over europe and here. James Carville, former opposition researcher for Bill Clinton measured conservatives in the states at 45%, i.e. 5% higher than Gallup. Must have been really painful for him to go off his propaganda message. Conservatives are the lead political ideological viewpoint in all 50 states. There is a strong movement in a number of family value issues like abortion. If you have noticed one possible monkey wrench for the current healthcare legislation is abortion. Those who vote for it in the final bill will be out if they are in a so-called "red" or "purple" congressional district. Plus other factors such as unemployment, war and poor decision-making will continue to peel away the independents to vote for a values party. Regardless of how one feels about that issue, or other value-type issues, it is what it is. Note: Many democrats want to see a third party to handle the unhappy conservatives. This will not happen. The 2010 and 2012 elections will be handled and campaigned the same way Reagan did. He won 49 states and of course all the radicals said he was just so stupid. Link to Canadian party breakdown: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/25/ekos-poll025.html
So, you’re back with more nonsense. I went to the CBC link you provided and discovered...
The question asked was “If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?"
The numbers are: Conservatives 36.9%, All others 63.2%. The story goes on to say: “For the last six months, opinion of the government's direction was generally more positive than negative. But those polled in the last week were split on whether they thought the government was moving in the right direction or the wrong direction. If this change in perception holds in the coming weeks, there could be changes in voting intentions, EKOS said”.
You’ve supplied the evidence to refute your own statement. I recommend you stay with what you know.
stephen December 5, 2009 7:25 pm (Pacific time)
interesting..as a person just watching, I see both conservatives and liberals the same. They lie, they cheat, anything to keep their beliefs in a system that does not even exist. Thus, the Constitution. Look back 100 years. 11 terms Republican, and 11.1 terms democrat. It just goes back and forth, while the same agenda continues. If you cant see it with the obushma right before your eyes, I simply dont understand where you are coming from. The left/right paradigme, the conservative/liberal ideology is a hoax. The main goal of world domination continues, while ya'all are fighting over something that does not exist. Canadians are already slaves, same with the majority of Americans, but there are millions in the U.S. that are not. 1776 only had 5% patriots. It is not about left/right, or conservative/liberal, it is about the truth. And the strength of the truth shall prevail.
Stephen: So Canadians are already slaves and some Americans aren’t? Pretty insulting post, suggesting that Americans are better than Canadians. I’m a Canadian. Am I a slave? You, I take it are one of the Americans who are free? This is your last chance. Another out of line post like this and I’ll just delete you.
Ersun Warncke December 5, 2009 1:49 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel, I read your pieces on conservatism. The third was especially good. It addresses many misconceptions about Adam Smith and "free market" economies. I don't disagree with your points about modern American "conservatism," but conservatism itself is a transient thing, as you point out. It is defined by preserving the status quo. The status quo may me more or less deserving of preservation. For instance, in Europe, "liberalism" is free-markets, unregulated trade, etc, while "conservatism" is social stability, which of course also entails stability of the land owning aristocracy, monarchy, etc. The free market b.s. of American conservatism is liberalism for Europeans.
Ersun: We seem to be in basic agreement. My assessment of conservatism is that it has two components. The first is the normal human urge to maintain the status quo. The second has the same urge but it’s pathological in that the status quo it aims to preserve is one of greed, class privilege and dog eat dog—as McGinnis argues. Divide and rule is a political style that goes back to the Babylonians and probably before. Rulers and those in political control are still using it and most people are still falling for it. Look at the health care debate now going on. The welfare of the citizenry has been lost in the battle for political supremacy. The Dems are no particular heroes in this situation.
Ersun Warncke December 5, 2009 12:54 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel, I don't disagree with the assertion that "conservatism" as espoused by the Republican party and its shills is an "anti-human" philosophy. I wholeheartedly agree. However, there has been a lot of false association created between the Christian religion and the Republican brand of conservatism. My comments are intended to draw a distinction between the true philosophy of Christianity, and the fake one that has been adopted by Republicans. I view this as an important distinction, because I have no objection to the philosophy of Christianity. Personally, I would like to make it clear that while I am criticizing fake Christianity I am not criticizing the real thing.
Ersun: Here are the links to the first three pieces I've done on conservatism for SN. I note you made no comments to any of them, so it might have been before you started read SN.
Here is my first piece on conservatism Conservative Dilemma 1
Here is my second piece on conservatism Conservative Dilemma 2
Here is my third piece on conservatism Conservative Dilemma 3
Ersun Warncke December 5, 2009 12:34 pm (Pacific time)
I agree that "conservatism" in the political realm is totally bankrupt. I actually don't think this is due to an inherent defect with conservatives, but to a defect with the political system. "Liberalism" in the political realm is just as bankrupt as "conservatism," which indicates to me that the flaw has nothing to do with espoused ideology. The media may project conservatism as an ideology of selfishness, but the ideology of altruism promoted by the media in the liberal guise is so deceitful it is impossible to take seriously. The Republican argument that Democrats are happy to be altruistic with other people's money is fundamentally accurate. Nobody in the political system advocates true social unity, responsibility, and collective care for the needs of the entire society. For a "Christian" nation, it is bizarre that there seems to be no recognition of the most fundamental law of Christianity: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Let it be clear, the U.S. is objectively not a Christian nation, because its government and people in some part do not follow the laws of their own espoused religion. Sullivan is right when he says that Republicans use a fake version of Christianity in order to further their own political ends. Democratic politicians have largely jumped on the band wagon of espousing religion while violating every law of the religion they claim.
Ersun: My argument is that conservatism is an anti-human philosophy. The political system, as you say, has its defects. But when you add in the defect of conservatism... I develop this idea more fully in the first three pieces I did for Salem-News back in April. I see you made no comments on any of them, so maybe it was before you started reading this site. I'll put the links in my next post, here.
Thomas Fitch December 5, 2009 10:06 am (Pacific time)
Daniel Johnson what an interesting article, plus Sullivan's list of conservative values is quite illuminating and displays your level of research skills and how you interpret your environment. Of course you are in conflict with the majority of American citizen's ideological values and mores, but considering past comments, that is not unexpected. Note: Canada is also trending conservative (see below link). I have to give you kudos for displaying your opinions in such an unsubstantiated format. Possibly you would enjoy updating your inaccurate viewpoints and get back into the light? "A new Gallup poll shows that conservatives outnumber moderates for the first time since 2004. Gallup’s breakdown shows that 40 percent of Americans call their political views conservative, 36 percent moderate and 20 percent liberal. Last year, conservatives were tied with moderates at 37 percent. While Gallup first documented this trend in June, the finding has been sustained through the third quarter. {Note: Gallup is just one of many pollsters that show these kinds of numbers. Not a snapshot, but a very long established trend. Have you reviewed what the polls are saying about who is ahead in our generic ballot and what is happening to the major party membership counts. So what put conservatives into the lead? Independents, apparently. Now, 35 percent of them are self-proclaimed conservatives, up from 29 percent last year. Meanwhile, the portion of independents who call themselves moderate dipped to 43 percent from 46 percent."http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx ///http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/gallup_poll_conservatives/2009/10/26/277020.html Canada is also trending with conservative values. " Last week's issuance of the Harper government's new citizenship guide came as a fitting capper to the first decade of the new century. With its emphasis on the military, law and order, the monarchy, with expressed limits on cultural tolerance, this was a document that affirmed Canada's new conservative way.Rarely, if ever, have the Tories had it so good. For the Liberals, the past decade has been the lost decade. For the Conservatives, it's been gold. Trends of all sorts are working for them – political, demographic, media, geographic."http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-only-been-a-decade-but-the-conservative-way-is-redefining-us/article1368762/
I’d already read Lawrence Martin and he writes like you—opinions without facts. He's a political conservative so I always take his bias into account. Harper has had two minority governments with the political left outnumbering his ideology by a wide margin (like 60-70%). That’s a fact. Just because the Greens, NDP and Liberals are fractured and unfocussed right now, doesn’t mean we’re becoming like the U.S. Not becoming like the U.S. is the one thing that unites Canadians.
Winder December 5, 2009 3:18 am (Pacific time)
You've summarized today's Conservative melt-down nicely, Daniel. Mr. Sullivan's list is comprehensive and, sadly, quite accurate in its every detail. How some of these characters can even stay on the air gives me dire misgivings about how many folks there must be in this country who will identify with many of those qualifying points. I would argue that agreeing with a majority of those "values" and beliefs could constitute a sociopathic mindset precluding even the 'capability' of altruism. Our society is in trouble, and we all need a brisk slap-in-the-face wake-up call to head it off. Thank you for providing it.
Frances December 5, 2009 2:11 am (Pacific time)
Boy, this is going to upset a few people. Now, who was it that said, "the truth hurts"? Wait, that's probably the wrong quote, so I'll quote myself, "This is going to p!ss some people off!" Yaaaay
[Return to Top]©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.