Systemic Aspects of Today's Political Climate

[sealchan]

I have been thinking about many things that seem to be in play in today's world and how those things may be influencing our highly polarized political climate. One great way to discover the main streams of political interest is to map out the great fears and challenges that are currently present. My political awareness grew in the age of the Cold War and had seen this war's collapse with a great sense of relief. Those of us who lived in the time when global nuclear war was very much "on the table" celebrated when the wall came down which divided Germany.

Today we see a different map...fear and change often go hand in hand and so I would like to list the following items as all, more or less, co-equal threads that have combined to create what I see is a deep polarity:

Climate Change - Science increasingly sees that in the not very distant future our planet will change significantly in the character of its climate and that such changes will drive any number of economic and political consequences. The impact of all this prophecy is hardest, perhaps, on those who remain closer to the life giving systems of the Earth and who supply us with food and other basic services. The cost of their way of life is now rising and the changes being legislated are give them a short term suffering that is meant to address a greater long term suffering which they feel inclined not to accept. So those trying to stop climate change systemically through government action are finding themselves fighting with those who feel they are having their way of life suppressed or even extinguished. It was relatively easy to address the hole in the ozone layer and learn to recycle, but carbon emissions are so deeply rooted in many people's way of life...this is truly a difficult time.

Sexual and Cultural Equality - The #MeToo movement and other efforts to recognize and incorporate a wide range of sexual orientations into the process of society has intruded on the cultural barriers of individuals used to living in relative isolation and the comfort of their traditional beliefs. The efforts to more deeply separate church from state have also intruded on long standing local cultural attitudes and communities who have worked hard to contribute to their greater nation but now are finding that some of their most cherished traditions are being judged harshly. Unfortunately, they are struggling to realize that their way of life does not exist in isolation but many have decided to push back for a more isolated nation in response to the fear of the changes that seem, to them, to be unfairly put upon them.

Internet Interconnectivity - The personal distance between us and become so small that in some ways our bedrooms are as public as our shopping malls. We share, argue, interact, laugh together through our internet connection and there is no longer any "place" to go to get away from such interconnections. Furthermore we are much more directly exposed to influencers of various kinds who can target their message more directly to individuals and more efficiently since we are all so readily available and categorically specifiable. Influencers, for good or bad, can reach right into local communities or even our private homes and speak to us as we can to them. As such the sense of local is greatly eroded. The stage for public discourse begins to expand well beyond national boundaries. Moral and cultural sensibilities for those who wish good will toward other peoples is now being trained up into a more global orientation. This whole reality brings a lot of change to what were relatively isolated communities.

The polarity that exists I think is being driven by an intense amount of change that is putting great pressure on individual and local cultural identities. The efforts of those who look ahead at these challenges and are prepared to shoulder some effort (at perhaps relatively little personal loss) seem to be running up against a backwards pressure from others who have no interest in such changes and who see changes imposed upon them by others who do not appear to be aware of the harm they are doing to their way of life. Addressing the basic needs of society in terms of agriculture and labor it seems that all of this is now becoming more and more an "evil" and they are having to "pay the price".

This sort of dichotomy in society is growing to such an extent that there exists a significant portion of the population (in the U.S. I believe this to be roughly 33%) of individuals who have fallen in for a variety of problematic attitudes in response to the lack of care and attention given to their particular circumstances. The attitudes that have arisen include:

• Science is disposable
• I/We have a right to our sense of superiority
• Might is right
• Conspiracy theory is acceptable

These sorts of attitudes have probably arisen due to an equally biased attitude on the part of those who wish to see change happen as rapidly as possible. The attitudes that have helped to give rise the above reactive ones are:

• Science supplants traditional/cultural truth
• Subjectivity/personal/local cultural identity is fundamentally problematic
• Ignorance is sin
• You/we are fundamentally racist/sexist/etc.

This is a battle which few have intentionally sought out to create but which is the combined efforts of each of us caught up in a great web of interaction in which each of our lives is enmeshed. I think that the way out is the same way we went in...let's individually open up to each other and learn to recognize more in what others are saying our common ground. If common ground is lacking then let's question each other about our shared values. I don't think we will find that we have fundamentally distinct values, only, perhaps, radically different "beliefs". An over attachment to our beliefs and a failure to check in with our hearts, our empathy, is as much as anything the single factor over which we each individually have the means to gain control of our situation and effect the change that is needed to reduce the waste of this polarity in our society.

 

[joe1776]

....
These sorts of attitudes have probably arisen due to an equally biased attitude on the part of those who wish to see change happen as rapidly as possible....

In a thread a few months back, I offered the argument that we humans are, and probably always have been, making moral progress. We are treating each other with more kindness than at any time in our history.

I see long term trends toward equality and fairness. While I don't embrace change for its own sake, I see that progress requires it. So, change can't happen fast enough to suit me.

I see conservatives resisting change because they will lose the unfair advantages their kind once held. For example, Western society was once dominated by white males. So, white males weak on empathy are more likely to adopt conservative positions resisting change as the white supremacist does.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Once again the liberal leftist high moral horse rides, triumphantly thinking it's the savior and hero of the people.

All that garbage that is being spewed about conservatives?

Look in the mirror.

 

[sealchan]

In a thread a few months back, I offered the argument that we humans are, and probably always have been, making moral progress. We are treating each other with more kindness than at any time in our history.

I see long term trends toward equality and fairness. While I don't embrace change for its own sake, I see that progress requires it. So, change can't happen fast enough to suit me.

I see conservatives resisting change because they will lose the unfair advantages their kind once held. For example, Western society was once dominated by white males. So, white males weak on empathy are more likely to adopt conservative positions resisting change as the white supremacist does.

I agree that the great irony here is that this is a sort of crisis that is aligning along the lines of the historically economically and politically powerful white male culture grasping for their lives as that power is approaching several crises as I have described above. The white male culture which has invested in winner take all, competitive, dueling knights make right attitudes just are not working for most of the world and the impact of that attitude is really coming back to bite those who felt it might be a forever status.

 

[sealchan]

Once again the liberal leftist high moral horse rides, triumphantly thinking it's the savior and hero of the people.

All that garbage that is being spewed about conservatives?

Look in the mirror.

At least I try to find fault on both sides. I want to get into a better place for compassion and for recognizing the legitimacy of everyone on both sides of the aisle.

That is my goal.

I hope that conservatives also have high moral pretensions and that those pretensions have compassion at their base.

 

[joe1776]

At least I try to find fault on both sides. I want to get into a better place for compassion and for recognizing the legitimacy of everyone on both sides of the aisle.

That is my goal.

I hope that conservatives also have high moral pretensions and that those pretensions have compassion at their base.

If you are saying that you want to find fault with both sides of the argument, we disagree on that. I respect people whether they agree with me or not but I don't have a high regard for opinions or beliefs when their proponents are unable to make a sound, persuasive argument for their position.

Political conservatives are adept at name-calling, sarcasm and ridicule. They excel at pinning derisive labels on the ideas of their opponents. And that's about it. They can't manage intelligent debate.

 

[Enoch07]

They excel at pinning derisive labels on the ideas of their opponents. And that's about it. They can't manage intelligent debate.

Sounds like some projecting to me.

You do realize that calling everyone nazis instead of allowing debate is exactly the tactic the left has been using for years, and now here you are projecting it on to them.

 

[Kenny]

We are treating each other with more kindness than at any time in our history....

I see conservatives resisting change because they will lose the unfair advantages their kind once held. For example, Western society was once dominated by white males. So, white males weak on empathy are more likely to adopt conservative positions resisting change as the white supremacist does.

It would appear that this statement is too slanted. Whites are conservatives? (implied). Conservatives don't have love? actually, you post seems very unloving and amoral.

As a conservative, I believe all people are created equal. That females are just as capable as men. Color goes only skin deep but heart makes the person.

What change do I resist? The muzzling of freedom of religion. The domination of government over personal freedoms and rights. Government spending monies that they don't have.

Is there something wrong with my position?

 

[shmogie]

In a thread a few months back, I offered the argument that we humans are, and probably always have been, making moral progress. We are treating each other with more kindness than at any time in our history.

I see long term trends toward equality and fairness. While I don't embrace change for its own sake, I see that progress requires it. So, change can't happen fast enough to suit me.

I see conservatives resisting change because they will lose the unfair advantages their kind once held. For example, Western society was once dominated by white males. So, white males weak on empathy are more likely to adopt conservative positions resisting change as the white supremacist does.

I see, white males are the enemy and Conservative white males are actually white supremacists

Weak on empathy ? Please explain how empathy is some how a critical element in in the makeup of the white male.

 

[joe1776]

Sounds like some projecting to me.

You do realize that calling everyone nazis instead of allowing debate is exactly the tactic the left has been using for years, and now here you are projecting it on to them.

Since I didn't "call everyone Nazis," your post missed its mark.

I made a general statement of opinion about conservatives from my experience.

 

[joe1776]

I see, white males are the enemy and Conservative white males are actually white supremacists

I'm a white male, so no -- that's not what I said.

NoWeak on empathy ? Please explain how empathy is some how a critical element in in the makeup of the white male.

I didn't say that either.

 

[joe1776]

It would appear that this statement is too slanted. Whites are conservatives? (implied). Conservatives don't have love? actually, you post seems very unloving and amoral.

I didn't imply that whites are conservative (I'm a white male). I gave a reason to explain why most conservatives are white males: they are losing their dominant position because of advances toward equality and fairness.

As a conservative, I believe all people are created equal. That females are just as capable as men. Color goes only skin deep but heart makes the person.

Your opinions aren't typically conservative. They represent attitudes aligned with moral change. If you are in favor of such change, you are progressive on those issues.

What change do I resist? The muzzling of freedom of religion. The domination of government over personal freedoms and rights. Government spending monies that they don't have.

Is there something wrong with my position?

Pointing out that you are an exception does not contradict my general statement about conservatives.

We don't agree but I'm sure we could debate our differences respectfully.

 

[Kenny]

We don't agree but I'm sure we could debate our differences respectfully.

Yes we can!!

I didn't imply that whites are conservative (I'm a white male). I gave a reason to explain why most conservatives are white males: they are losing their dominant position because of advances toward equality and fairness...

Pointing out that you are an exception does not contradict my general statement about conservatives.

.

Ok. First, of course, we have to establish a foundational data. I've tried to find a graph to support or counter you position but couldn't find one. Do you have one?

Certainly, I agree that equality and fairness is our goal! Whether I am an exception or not, I'm not sure.

Is it because of equality and fairness vs indoctrination of beliefs in University is another question. I have some info on that:

It would appear that University indoctrination may have an impact.

Your opinions aren't typically conservative. They represent attitudes aligned with moral change. If you are in favor of such change, you are progressive on those issues.

I would think that everyone has different views on a topic. Progressive on one issue and conservative on another.

 

[shmogie]

I didn't imply that whites are conservative (I'm a white male). I gave a reason to explain why most conservatives are white males: they are losing their dominant position because of advances toward equality and fairness.

Your opinions aren't typically conservative. They represent attitudes aligned with moral change. If you are in favor of such change, you are progressive on those issues.

Pointing out that you are an exception does not contradict my general statement about conservatives.

We don't agree but I'm sure we could debate our differences respectfully.

As a Conservative I believe your basic idea of Conservatism as a political movement is deeply flawed, you simply do not understand it.

You parrot the errors of those who are, in essence, the enemies of Conservatism.

I suggest you actually tell us specifically what you think the tenants of political Conservatism is.

 

[sealchan]

If you are saying that you want to find fault with both sides of the argument, we disagree on that. I respect people whether they agree with me or not but I don't have a high regard for opinions or beliefs when their proponents are unable to make a sound, persuasive argument for their position.

Political conservatives are adept at name-calling, sarcasm and ridicule. They excel at pinning derisive labels on the ideas of their opponents. And that's about it. They can't manage intelligent debate.

Conservatives and liberals have more in common than they do in differences. We ought to get back to that perspective if we can.

Human psychology has the characteristic of making a great big deal out of a small distinction. For those who like to argue, we are fine with throwing our passion into minutiae. This leaves both sides into the trap of saying things they dont really mean and making numerous gross over-generalizations.

We have got to dig our way out of this hole.

 

[joe1776]

...It would appear that University indoctrination may have an impact...

Most colleges are bastions of progressive thought but I don't see that as useful knowledge in our discussion.

I would think that everyone has different views on a topic. Progressive on one issue and conservative on another.

Yes, but which attitude dominates in the personality profile?

Defining terms: The words progressive and conservative refer to a person's overall attitude toward change. If change is welcomed, the person is progressive. If the person resists change by wanting to keep things as they are or turn back to an earlier time, that person is conservative on the issue.

For example, progressive Catholics welcomed the ecumenical changes in their church made by Vatican II in the 1960s. Conservative Catholics would, if they could, return their Church to its old doctrine which held that the Church was the only path to Heaven.

I explain the conservative position like this: We humans have an unconscious need to feel superior to others which drives many kinds of arrogant behavior. We also have an unconscious need to join with others in spirit (the way soldiers bond in war is the best example). This drives us to treat others fairly, as equals.

Obviously, these two needs conflict. In the Catholic conservative, the arrogant need to feel superior is stronger than the need to treat others as equals. The notion that Catholics are God's favorites and that Heaven is a country club reserved for Catholics makes a strong appeal to the arrogant side of human nature.

In Vatican II, the Church moved toward treating other religions as equals. The abolition of slavery, the rights of women and homosexuals...all these are moves toward equality.

Why do conservatives resist these moves toward equality and fairness? They feel like they are losing their position of superiority.

 

[joe1776]

Conservatives and liberals have more in common than they do in differences. We ought to get back to that perspective if we can.

Human psychology has the characteristic of making a great big deal out of a small distinction. For those who like to argue, we are fine with throwing our passion into minutiae. This leaves both sides into the trap of saying things they dont really mean and making numerous gross over-generalizations.

We have got to dig our way out of this hole.

I regard debate as a useful activity when it is done respectfully and intelligently. Friendships can develop between two people who excel at debate but disagree on almost everything.

We commonly hear people say that we should respect the beliefs of others. That's not possible. Beliefs are true or false. It's not possible to respect a belief you think is false but you can respect the person even when you disagree if they treat you with respect when debating your differences.

 

[joe1776]

...I suggest you actually tell us specifically what you think the tenants of political Conservatism is.

I don't think of conservatism as having tenets.

Societies change. Conservatives resist the change. They want to maintain the status quo or return to an earlier time.

IMO human societies are making moral progress -- progress toward equality and fairness. Conservatives resist that progress.

 

[Enoch07]

Since I didn't "call everyone Nazis," your post missed its mark.

I made a general statement of opinion about conservatives from my experience.

That's the thing with generalized statements. Doesn't matter what you did specifically, you're still lumped in with the group.

After all it is my generalized statement of opinion about my experiences "debating" with progressives. Usually doesn't take too many facts that disrupt their fairy tale narratives before they start start throwing muck and name calling.

 

[Kenny]

Most colleges are bastions of progressive thought but I don't see that as useful knowledge in our discussion.

It's useful in the sense that the reason for the "why" there is a change of thought would have nothing to do with white people loosing control because of conservatism but rather the indoctrination by biased bastions.

Defining terms: The words progressive and conservative refer to a person's overall attitude toward change. If change is welcomed, the person is progressive. If the person resists change by wanting to keep things as they are or turn back to an earlier time, that person is conservative on the issue.

OK... however, we must realize that not all "change" is good. Going back to an "earlier time" may be beneficial.

So if in "earlier time" people respected the opinions of others as a conservative (however contrary it would be to one's beliefs) - it may be good to go back to conservatism. Or, one could say, changing back to conservatism in respect may actually be a progressive moment for today.

In Vatican II, the Church moved toward treating other religions as equals. The abolition of slavery, the rights of women and homosexuals...all these are moves toward equality.

Why do conservatives resist these moves toward equality and fairness? They feel like they are losing their position of superiority.

Why does it have to do with "superiority"? Or, to say it better, the abolition of slavery may indeed have to do with superiority but does that translate that it is always about superiority? Women's right (or lack thereof) may indeed be about "superiority" but that doesn't translate that one's view of the lifestyle of homosexuality has anything to do with "superiority".

Or to say it another way... I may not agree with people just "living together" and act like they are married but would hardly hold onto a stance that in any way or form it has to do with superiority. Superiority would have nothing to do with it.

I guess it's your wording that I am dealing with. Conservatism, IMV, doesn't have to do with a "superiority" issue. That isn't to say there are no conservatives that have a superiority complex. But, then again, there are progressives that have a "superiority complex" too.

So I think your parameters are wrong.