And my estimation of Doctorow continues to decline. It varies by 'flavor' of conservatism, of course, but Russell Kirk-esque conservatism recognizes that reality and human society are complex and that changes must be introduced slowly so that society can assimilate them while at the same time remaining both free and orderdly -- a precarious balance to strike in the best of circumstances. Conservatism properly approached is the opposite of childish -- it is adult prudence, the recognition that good things are quite easy to disrupt and we should tread carefully rather than move with abandon. (To borrow from Chesterton -- before removing a fence, we should at first take measures to undestand why it was erected to begin with.) By this measure, very few GOPers (to say nothing of MAGA people) are actually conservative in the Kirk sense. There is nothing remotely conservative about Trump: that's the reason National Review published that 'NEVER TRUMP' edition. What doctorow misses is the fact that people can have an array of different political sensibilities, and that Trump's national populism is touching on those aspects within people who would be very much opposed to his approach if The Other Guys were doing it. I've noticed the same even with libertarians, kind of a "when your opponent is holding all the aces, the only thing to do is kick over the table" kind of mentality.
Haven't read him (yet) but I do have one of his coming up 'soon'(ish)
I think he's essentially talking about the nostalgic element of Conservativism - looking back to an idyllic 'golden age' that never existed beyond faulty childhood false memories. Plus there's some truth to the idea that it *was* actually less complex in decades gone by. Part of that is also the lack of the immediate 24-hour news cycle that makes it seem that *everything* is happening all at once (which, in a sense, it is of course).
Personally I've never been a believer in the idea that it was objectively better in the past. The more History I read the more I'm convinced on *that* point! Naturally this doesn't mean that the future will always be better. So-called 'Progress' just doesn't work that way. The future is *potentially* better it just doesn't need to be so.
I don't think that things should be preserved because they've been around a while or because 'we've always done it that way', but I also don't believe that we should throw the baby out with the bath water and burn everything down and start again. Change can, and to an extent should, be managed to minimise temporal whiplash. But that's far from easy without an excessive and unacceptable level of societal control.
4 comments:
And my estimation of Doctorow continues to decline. It varies by 'flavor' of conservatism, of course, but Russell Kirk-esque conservatism recognizes that reality and human society are complex and that changes must be introduced slowly so that society can assimilate them while at the same time remaining both free and orderdly -- a precarious balance to strike in the best of circumstances. Conservatism properly approached is the opposite of childish -- it is adult prudence, the recognition that good things are quite easy to disrupt and we should tread carefully rather than move with abandon. (To borrow from Chesterton -- before removing a fence, we should at first take measures to undestand why it was erected to begin with.) By this measure, very few GOPers (to say nothing of MAGA people) are actually conservative in the Kirk sense. There is nothing remotely conservative about Trump: that's the reason National Review published that 'NEVER TRUMP' edition. What doctorow misses is the fact that people can have an array of different political sensibilities, and that Trump's national populism is touching on those aspects within people who would be very much opposed to his approach if The Other Guys were doing it. I've noticed the same even with libertarians, kind of a "when your opponent is holding all the aces, the only thing to do is kick over the table" kind of mentality.
Haven't read him (yet) but I do have one of his coming up 'soon'(ish)
I think he's essentially talking about the nostalgic element of Conservativism - looking back to an idyllic 'golden age' that never existed beyond faulty childhood false memories. Plus there's some truth to the idea that it *was* actually less complex in decades gone by. Part of that is also the lack of the immediate 24-hour news cycle that makes it seem that *everything* is happening all at once (which, in a sense, it is of course).
Personally I've never been a believer in the idea that it was objectively better in the past. The more History I read the more I'm convinced on *that* point! Naturally this doesn't mean that the future will always be better. So-called 'Progress' just doesn't work that way. The future is *potentially* better it just doesn't need to be so.
I don't think that things should be preserved because they've been around a while or because 'we've always done it that way', but I also don't believe that we should throw the baby out with the bath water and burn everything down and start again. Change can, and to an extent should, be managed to minimise temporal whiplash. But that's far from easy without an excessive and unacceptable level of societal control.
Not wrong. It's the same thing they always want to shout about making America 'great' again. Great, as in when? We've never been great.
1950's....? 1890's....? [grin]
Post a Comment