"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." – Frank Wilhoit
Jay, perfect timing for the topics you have raised today, I practiced law for over 30 years, which means when you get a License you accept deep fiduciary duties to the Clients, the Court & even Third Parties sometimes. One has to be out front with a shield or sword as necessary but, sometimes you must take a spear direct in your chest. I don't see much bravery these days except in Ukraine.
This may be your best essay yet. I would note that it's the conservative who originally turned up the rhetoric and it's on them to lower the temperature. I keep waiting for liberals to respond in kind, and that day may come if liberals listen to what the conservatives are actually saying and realize that the MAGA folks pose an existential threat, not only to democracy, but to the liberals' very personhood.
I agree with everything you write with one exception. I disagree with your characterization of equitable taxation as a redistribution of wealth. Of course, technically all taxation is a form, one way or another, of wealth redistribution. But liberals, progressives, Democrats, however you define yourself, believe that equitable taxation is the best way to pay for the things that make life livable on our planet. Be that roads, schools, social security, or environmental stewardship, it is not wealth redistribution, it is paying for the things we all need. And of course, therein lies the dilemma. What I believe we all need differs from what true conservatives believe. But the conservatives of days gone by have been virtually replaced by a huge minority of people who care not a bit about defining what we all need, much less paying for it.
The "huge minority of people who care not a bit about defining what we all need" have no sense of community or civic duty. They only care about their personal needs not universal needs that don't affect them. I know people who think they shouldn't have to pay school taxes because they have no children in school. Others don't think they should pay for public transportation because they don't use it. I for one, want to have the best educated population that money can buy because those kids are the ones who will be the future voters to decide how life will be run. I don't want stupid people running the government. I also rarely use public transportation but I want it to be the most efficient and safest form of travel for those who use it to go to work and for shippers who transport all our consumer goods. I am willing for my taxes to support it.
I'll have to get both books. I hate being so angry at my inlaws. I would like to appeal to them better and help them to understand that I'm not that different.
Conservatives prefer a black and white world, and the more conservative you are the less open and accepting you are of gray nuances. Any deviation from or compromise with what they see as "God's law," or the natural order is a slippery slope that leads to anarchy. A concept like gender fluidity is anathema to such a world view, as is any wiggle room on abortion. It will take much pain, suffering, and litigation related to sex, race, and other hot issues - no doubt involving their own families and friends - before these folks recognize that the world is not as binary as they'd like it to be. And on the "woke" side, there will need to be far more *real* openness and acceptance, as well as recognition that people are people, and not weaponized poster-children du jour. In the meantime, we will all suffer the consequence of their short-sightedness, but I also believe we will all grow as a result. This is the Hegelian Dialectic applied to our morally tested times.
Yes! Your headline so resonated with me at this critical moment. I have been following your writings for almost 2 years, shortly after COVID hit. After being an activist in the realm of getting money out of our elections, I took a break from my political immersion and focused on more metaphysical discussions and teachings. Your line of thinking and writing today is so important. Carry On!
Obscene Wealth is trying to take over the whole of USA, Canada, and indeed most of Europe as well as will be seen as Davos soon to be in Session. What can be done to prevent this??
Brilliant, apropos essay. Conservatism has undergone a radical transformation since the 1950s. Gone are the days when the pillar of fairness was embraced by political conservatives and liberals alike in an environment which encouraged political adversaries to respectfully work together to craft negotiated, fair policy. In the intervening years, the conservative mindset hardened and it seems a steamroller was applied to fairness, as that tenet no longer meshed with their narrow ideology and “greed is good” mentality. The liberal and conservative ideologies/agendas have become so dichotomous and entrenched that one is left to wonder if the concept of working together for the common good is even possible without some seismic societal shift.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." – Frank Wilhoit
Jay, perfect timing for the topics you have raised today, I practiced law for over 30 years, which means when you get a License you accept deep fiduciary duties to the Clients, the Court & even Third Parties sometimes. One has to be out front with a shield or sword as necessary but, sometimes you must take a spear direct in your chest. I don't see much bravery these days except in Ukraine.
This may be your best essay yet. I would note that it's the conservative who originally turned up the rhetoric and it's on them to lower the temperature. I keep waiting for liberals to respond in kind, and that day may come if liberals listen to what the conservatives are actually saying and realize that the MAGA folks pose an existential threat, not only to democracy, but to the liberals' very personhood.
I agree with everything you write with one exception. I disagree with your characterization of equitable taxation as a redistribution of wealth. Of course, technically all taxation is a form, one way or another, of wealth redistribution. But liberals, progressives, Democrats, however you define yourself, believe that equitable taxation is the best way to pay for the things that make life livable on our planet. Be that roads, schools, social security, or environmental stewardship, it is not wealth redistribution, it is paying for the things we all need. And of course, therein lies the dilemma. What I believe we all need differs from what true conservatives believe. But the conservatives of days gone by have been virtually replaced by a huge minority of people who care not a bit about defining what we all need, much less paying for it.
The "huge minority of people who care not a bit about defining what we all need" have no sense of community or civic duty. They only care about their personal needs not universal needs that don't affect them. I know people who think they shouldn't have to pay school taxes because they have no children in school. Others don't think they should pay for public transportation because they don't use it. I for one, want to have the best educated population that money can buy because those kids are the ones who will be the future voters to decide how life will be run. I don't want stupid people running the government. I also rarely use public transportation but I want it to be the most efficient and safest form of travel for those who use it to go to work and for shippers who transport all our consumer goods. I am willing for my taxes to support it.
I'll have to get both books. I hate being so angry at my inlaws. I would like to appeal to them better and help them to understand that I'm not that different.
Conservatives prefer a black and white world, and the more conservative you are the less open and accepting you are of gray nuances. Any deviation from or compromise with what they see as "God's law," or the natural order is a slippery slope that leads to anarchy. A concept like gender fluidity is anathema to such a world view, as is any wiggle room on abortion. It will take much pain, suffering, and litigation related to sex, race, and other hot issues - no doubt involving their own families and friends - before these folks recognize that the world is not as binary as they'd like it to be. And on the "woke" side, there will need to be far more *real* openness and acceptance, as well as recognition that people are people, and not weaponized poster-children du jour. In the meantime, we will all suffer the consequence of their short-sightedness, but I also believe we will all grow as a result. This is the Hegelian Dialectic applied to our morally tested times.
Yes! Your headline so resonated with me at this critical moment. I have been following your writings for almost 2 years, shortly after COVID hit. After being an activist in the realm of getting money out of our elections, I took a break from my political immersion and focused on more metaphysical discussions and teachings. Your line of thinking and writing today is so important. Carry On!
Obscene Wealth is trying to take over the whole of USA, Canada, and indeed most of Europe as well as will be seen as Davos soon to be in Session. What can be done to prevent this??
Brilliant, apropos essay. Conservatism has undergone a radical transformation since the 1950s. Gone are the days when the pillar of fairness was embraced by political conservatives and liberals alike in an environment which encouraged political adversaries to respectfully work together to craft negotiated, fair policy. In the intervening years, the conservative mindset hardened and it seems a steamroller was applied to fairness, as that tenet no longer meshed with their narrow ideology and “greed is good” mentality. The liberal and conservative ideologies/agendas have become so dichotomous and entrenched that one is left to wonder if the concept of working together for the common good is even possible without some seismic societal shift.
Everybody rock'n!
Are you recommending the Brooks book or not?