(Above: go googling progressive conservative, and marvel at what you find).Conservatives (the so-called Liberals or Nationals of Australia, call them what you will) have three things in common (a consistent political philosophy, I argue below, is not one of them).
The first characteristic is hubris. Conservatives are confident that any human or earthly problem can be solved – by them. Their hubris is firmly rooted in what psychologists have described as the ‘overconfidence effect’ - a person’s unjustified confidence in the objectivity and accuracy of his judgement.
As a result, they believe that if Conservatives control Government, Government can engineer positive change. So a will-to-power is another characteristic, disguised, self-reassuringly, of course, as a desire to serve the common good.
The third characteristic is a willingness to trump any discussion with the term ‘Liberal' or 'National agrarian socialist' or 'conservative’ – if you are not Liberal, or conservative, or a National socialist, and yours is not a Liberal/conservative position, legitimacy is denied, we need say no more.
When a Liberal/conservative so describes his own position, however, he is not pointing to a stable or coherent set of policies. He is merely evincing what in ethics is called ‘moral expressivism’: he is not describing anything objective, but merely expressing a positive evaluation of his own position, and in doing so, derogatively dismissing yours.
Meaningless, dumb blather? Stupid ill-informed rhetoric? Incoherent, incompetent sloppy analysis? A bunch of inept platitudes merely designed to show a hatred for conservatives, or in antipodean nomenclature, Liberals?
Oh yes, yes, yes. I plead guilty on all counts. And also to plagiarism. You see I lavishly borrowed from Chris Gardiner's On being 'Progressive', in The Punch, Australia's most forlorn gathering of squawking loon conversations (except for that initial apostrophe):
Progressives’ have three things in common (a consistent political philosophy, I argue below, is not one of them).
The first characteristic is hubris. Progressives are confident that any human or earthly problem can be solved – by them. Their hubris is firmly rooted in what psychologists have described as the ‘overconfidence effect’ - a person’s unjustified confidence in the objectivity and accuracy of his judgement.
As a result, they believe that if Progressives control Government, Government can engineer positive change. So a will-to-power is another characteristic, disguised, self-reassuringly, of course, as a desire to serve the common good.
The third characteristic is a willingness to trump any discussion with the term ‘progressive’ – if you are not progressive, or yours is not a progressive position, legitimacy is denied, we need say no more.
When a Progressive so describes his own position, however, he is not pointing to a stable or coherent set of policies. He is merely evincing what in ethics is called ‘moral expressivism’: he is not describing anything objective, but merely expressing a positive evaluation of his own position, and in doing so, derogatively dismissing yours.
Progressives’ have three things in common (a consistent political philosophy, I argue below, is not one of them).
The first characteristic is hubris. Progressives are confident that any human or earthly problem can be solved – by them. Their hubris is firmly rooted in what psychologists have described as the ‘overconfidence effect’ - a person’s unjustified confidence in the objectivity and accuracy of his judgement.
As a result, they believe that if Progressives control Government, Government can engineer positive change. So a will-to-power is another characteristic, disguised, self-reassuringly, of course, as a desire to serve the common good.
The third characteristic is a willingness to trump any discussion with the term ‘progressive’ – if you are not progressive, or yours is not a progressive position, legitimacy is denied, we need say no more.
When a Progressive so describes his own position, however, he is not pointing to a stable or coherent set of policies. He is merely evincing what in ethics is called ‘moral expressivism’: he is not describing anything objective, but merely expressing a positive evaluation of his own position, and in doing so, derogatively dismissing yours.
What a dumb cluck. Why I think I'd rather be reading David Cameron:
Progressive Conservatism
Our philosophy of progressive Conservatism – the pursuit of progressive goals through Conservative means – aims to reverse the collapse in personal responsibility that inevitably follows this leeching of control away from the individual and the community into the hands of political and bureaucratic elites. We can reverse our social atomisation by giving people the power to work collectively with their peers to solve common problems. We can reverse our society's infantilisation by inviting people to look to themselves, their communities and wider society for answers, instead of just the state. Above all, we can encourage people to behave responsibly if they know that doing the right thing and taking responsibility will be recognised and will make a difference. (here).
Our philosophy of progressive Conservatism – the pursuit of progressive goals through Conservative means – aims to reverse the collapse in personal responsibility that inevitably follows this leeching of control away from the individual and the community into the hands of political and bureaucratic elites. We can reverse our social atomisation by giving people the power to work collectively with their peers to solve common problems. We can reverse our society's infantilisation by inviting people to look to themselves, their communities and wider society for answers, instead of just the state. Above all, we can encourage people to behave responsibly if they know that doing the right thing and taking responsibility will be recognised and will make a difference. (here).
Progressive conservatism? Guess Chris Gardiner doesn't get out into the world much. Why, the very concept of progressive conservatives makes all his blather seem even more like ... blather.
Feel free to read the rest of Gardiner's screed, which some might think closer to blithering idiocy than to god, because the lad seems not to have caught up with Humpty Dumpty's notion of the flexibility of words, especially if you pay them overtime, and if you happen to be a canny politician of the David Cameron kind.
Instead Gardiner seems to think that progressive means anybody Gardiner doesn't like, or anything he doesn't agree with. He provides a list, as half-baked as his main argument, to support his world view.
Well name calling is the lowest form of debate, which is why we're perfectly happy to call him an effete ponce, for failing to define a word and then flinging it about freely, as if there's no price for such abuse of words and their meaning.
How else to respond to this kind of hectoring misery?
If a person inserts the term ‘progressive’ into an argument or claim, know that he doesn’t really want dialogue. He is not seeking further information. He is sure he is right and that you are morally misguided or malevolent.
It seems to me that the designation ‘progressive’ no longer serves a helpful role in democratic deliberation – but then ‘Progressives’ would see me as a ‘conservative’.
Poor David Cameron. He broke the rules. He inserted progressive into an argument. Clearly the conservatives of Britain don't really want a dialogue, aren't seeking further information, are sure they're right, and talk as if the Labor party are morally misguided or malevolent.
Or Chris Gardiner is a twit.
Whatever. Here's my thought of the day:
It seems to that the designation 'conservative' no longer serves a helpful role in democratic deliberation - but then 'conservatives' would see me as a 'progressive conservative'.
Oh it's fun isn't it, this mindless and hearty flinging about of words to make them mean what you want them to mean.
Well amen, and impenetrability to that.
Dear me, perhaps I need a new year's resolution to come early.
Must stop reading The Punch. The cost in brain cells and logical thinking is getting exorbitant. Is free worth it, even if it comes free courtesy of Chairman Rupert and his minions? Especially if it comes with high fructose corn syrup arguments, lashings of salty spleen, and plenty of artery clogging saturated fatty debates, not to mention a good dose of the partially hydrogenated gluggy, oily conservative thinking we all know and love.
Think of Chris Gardiner as a trans fat, think of The Punch as a large vat of oil stored out the back of MacDonalds, and next thing you know you'll be munching on an Angus burger, without realising you've stumbled into Hungry Jacks.
I know, I know, I'm incoherent, sinking fast. Reading dipsticks can do that to you. Time for a restorative burger full of goodness, and fresh, sharp thinking.
What's that you say? It's no good for me? (here). But surely it's healthier and tastier than reading Chris Gardiner's lumpen thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.