It is common for the sequestered Leftist to fantasize about those who don’t agree with him, and to conjure the vile qualities that it must take in order for a person to have such unthinkable opinions. As Barack said, they must hold onto their religion and guns out of fear of change. To the Leftist, the presumed irrationality of anti-statism suggests not just supreme immorality, it also suggests insanity or at least horrendous stupidity.
It is from this point of view then, that De Dora writes,
“The conservative mindset tends to value traditional institutions and values because they are traditional.”There it is. There is no principled argument for conservatism. The conservative is merely a mindless obstruction to change. De Dora has pegged conservatives to a fantasized vile behavior. And this fabrication characterizes a category of opinion which he does not personally encounter or experience.
De Dora defines the liberal approach, on the other hand,
”… is that institutions and values are only worth following if they are correct or serve a worthwhile purpose. If they are false or outdated, they deserve to be thrown into the scrap heap and replaced with better and more worthwhile ways of doing things.”Here De Dora is claiming the moral ability to decide for society which values it should have and follow; which institutions are false or outdated and are to be scrapped. It is an accurate statement of elitism, the arrogation of moral authority. The statement is purely Consequentialist, a rejection of moral absolutes disguised as pragmatism.
De Dora even attempts to associate modern “liberals” with the benefits derived from the French Revolution. This is either from ignorance of the actual revolution and its historical consequences for France, or maybe he thinks that bloodbaths really are a good thing, as “more worthwhile ways of doing things”. Says De Dora,
”For example, Enlightenment thinkers did not call for an end to government (anarchy). They called for a change in government.”Yes, from tyranny A, to tyranny B which although massively bloody, failed, giving rise to tyranny C. Liberte’ was not achieved by the French Revolution: liberte' was guillotined along with all opposition members and suspected opposition including entire towns. No, the statist Left is not for liberte’. Nor is it for tolerance, free speech, and other iconic slogans, unless they apply strictly to themselves. Curse and threaten to kill Bush? Free speech. Criticize Obama’s programs? Racist.
As a matter of consistency with his previous history of writing about things of which he knows nothing, this essay appears to be a name-dropping defense of statist Leftism, based on the weighty premise that “Left is good; Right is bad.” And very little more. And he left out Hobbes, Hegel, Galton and Nietzsche as influences on the Statists.
De Dora again:
”For example, many American conservatives argue that the definition of marriage should remain the same as it has always been, thereby resisting its extension to gays. Yet, there has actually never been one universal definition of marriage. Rather, the concept has evolved and changed over the past few thousand years. As such, the “conservative” position simply reveals itself to be a mask for bigotry — a way for straight people who don’t like gays to display their abhorrence of a different lifestyle in a manner that is politically acceptable.”There is no behavior that is wrong or abhorrent to statists, except possibly behavior that limits the behaviors of the Left, which is the only immorality. It is society which is responsible for the bad behavior of its “victims”, those who are called criminals by the bigoted conservative. Any criticism of virtually any behavior is now “bigoted”, according to the statist. So privileges such as marriage cannot be denied anyone based on behaviors. Does this apply to man-boy marriage? Well, not yet. But the logic is in place to support it as “the concept of marriage evolves”. How about woman-donkey marriage? Father-daughter marriage? Cloud marriage of huge groups of non-defined types of organisms? That would eliminate bigoted discrimination once and for all. Marriage would be meaningless as it is already becoming.
De Dora concludes,
”But, while liberals ought to be willing and able to defend the need for change on a case by case basis, it is equally unacceptable for conservatives to defend the status quo simply because tradition is important above all else. If the conservative believes in the defense of a particular custom, he or she must have reasons beyond the fact that we have always done things in a certain way. They have an obligation to make their reasons clear or they risk defending tradition for its own sake — a rather sterile position.”De Dora seems completely ignorant of any actual principles that conservatives might have, and in fact seems unable to believe that such might exist. However, “sterility” seems most appropriately applied to the intellectual atmosphere that De Dora has chosen for himself. Actual research into conservative principles beyond the slant of the New York Times and wiki infobites are just not necessary in the De Dora’s statist world, where strawmen are made fresh daily and actual knowledge of opposing views is eschewed in favor of demonization of fabricated targets. In this regard then, De Dora is a shining example of Leftist intellectualism.
No comments:
Post a Comment