Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Morning Edition; July 17, 2012 (pro-Liberal)

Democracy is a liberal idea. Who is it that favors democracy? Liberals. Assuming the two groups, left and right, are the way things are, what if it was the conservative persons, that trend, that had power or authority? Most of them would not be in favor of democracy. A few might be in favor, not others. There would be no definitiveness about the idea. Democracy would not dominate. A few of them might find a reason to be in favor of it, but they would have no power over others and idea would not dominate.It is liberals who solidly favor democracy; conservatives do not.
     This is not something I am making up. It is history. Go back to the beginning, the Founding era. Conservatives are not universally in favor of democracy or always aligned with this idea. The idea has no real power amongst conservatives, nor are all of them in favor of cutting ties to the mother country.
     Historically of course, democracy is truly a major idea in US/America. The idea dominates our thought, our history, our politics. But among the most well-known figures in our early history, Jefferson was strongly in favor, Adams was drawn reluctantly along, Washington would go either way according to how others felt, and Hamilton was deeply cynical about it. But agreed to create a new country based on this idea anyways.   
     Not everyone agreed with democracy. It was a tool of rebellion and it was used to inspire the Revolution. Those who were both conservative and on England's side certainly tended to be opposed to the idea of democracy as well. I cannot imagine that there were pro-England Americans, in the 1760s or 70s that were simultaneously promoting democracy as their cause. Democracy was what differentiated the American colonies, and it was mostly liberals who were going to favor it. Conservatives tended to be against (see Arthur Schlesinger jr.'s "Age of Jackson" for a depiction of the New England conservatives who thought humanity was divided into a "better sort" and a commoner variety.)
     What happened when the Revolution won? Conservatives thereafter pretend to be in favor of democracy.
     Anyway, my point originally was that democracy is a liberal idea, and conservatives, if we can divide the world into those two groups, are not major supporters. Then they are faking it. They do not even have any foundation. They will be left behind by the march of history. And that worries me. Because they are people too, and they have important ideas and we badly need to respect them a little. But when they participate in politics, they must be faking it, all along. They aren't even genuinely in favor of this idea of democracy. So, if conservatives are not in favor of democracy, what is their point? Why are they there?
     And this is why the WSJ makes up arguments, out of thin air. If you look at my post for yesterday, there it is. Their funny reasoning. By Jaxon or Jason.
     There isn't any basis there. They have no ruling philosophy. History has left them behind. What hope is there for such a group? What are we supposed to do with these people? Oh! I feel such compassion!! These people are going nowhere, they believe in is private property, they have their little money pots, they want to collect their winnings from the hedge funds. What they want is their little individualistic pots of money (or big, if from Texas but I still need to get Gail Collins' volume) ----- They are like squatters in democracy.

     I agree however that they need their private sector or there own privacy. But not in public life, please. They certainly have no place in politics or in leadership in this country. Our job, actually, is to treat them with a little more compassion.

No comments:

Post a Comment