Protestantism

» pink101 - The Family Metaphor

In response to What do you think? posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Your comments relate directly to the problem of the family metaphor used to describe the state.
.
Civilized society has LONG compared the state to a family; the father land, the mother country, the queen mother, and the king as father of his monarchy's children. People in society and certain sociological groups refer to each other as brothers and sisters and we talk about country cousins. The idea that the state is a family pervades our political thinking. We think of the earliest Americans as our Founding Fathers.
.
Your statement, "The world is moving towards the New World Order - where secular fundamentalism will be the forced value - and all religion will be sanctioned by the state - atheism....This situation always leads to a totalitarian police state, where fundamental freedoms do not exist... ", expresses the idea of a strict father metaphor very strongly. But, you seem to see competing fathers rather than the nurturing parents that emanates from the liberal mind set. It looks like you're fixated on the Good Father versus the Evil Father. Too bad so many people are hooked on that metaphor--too bad.
.
At least three or four generations of Americans have been exposed to the nurturing parent model as a metaphor for good government. While at the same time, the retrograde thinking of the radical conservative wants to hold us all to the strict father imagery. Even so, there has been great progress in our personal relationships. The strict father is being shown up for what he is and the nurturing parent is being seen as the far better route to go. Progressive liberalism.
.
Guess which one will win out.
.

.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Understanding Conservatives

In response to Understanding Conservatives posted by pink101:

I used to grapple with what it meant to be a conservative.

The term STILL means different things to different people.

I think of myself as being so; but, I also express ideas that are--very much--considered as liberal.

Agreed

Persons with whom I might interact on social issues often see me as a liberal.

Indeed

I suppose myself to be a conservative; but, I advocate strong liberal ideas. So, what is the difference between the two?
.
No matter where conservatism is found (politics, religion, economics, education, or in the family) it is always the same thing and the same can be said of liberalism. There are distinct characteristics setting the two systems apart.
.
If you think about it, I'm sure you will agree with me on this.

I agree with you so far.

The defining characteristic of all conservatives is that they believe in the strict father model of whatever issue is at stake whether it is family, government, religion, economics, or education.

I've mulled this over for a couple days, and I think your statement is problematic. Particularly in light of the word "all." I would also take issue with the adjective "strict." I would also qualify this as dealing with social conservatives.

Here's how I would put it...

SOCIAL conservatives (as opposed to purely economic/fiscal conservatives) generally adhere to a patriarchal perspective (a "father-protector" kind of role) when it comes to family, government, religion, education, and economics as it relates to social/moral issues.

Of course, most social conservatives would prefer that the government not be required to take on the 'father-protective' role in society. They would prefer that societies morally police themselves via strong families, churches, community groups, and the private sector. However, when these institutions break down or become eroded, more is expected of the government.

And, the defining characteristic of all liberals is that they believe in the nurturing parent model in each case.

Hmmmmmm. If by "nurture," you mean "spoil," I couldn't agree more.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Then again, I'm only half-joking here, because the more liberal a person is (in today's understanding of the term and in its North American/western application), the more likely such a person is to advocate government-provided cradle-to-grave care for everybody. WITHOUT the requisite moral parameters.

For instance, some liberals want to hand out clean drug needles to prevent the spread of AIDS, but what signal does that send about doing drugs???? And isn't drug abuse a serious cause of health problems -- that the government often has to foot the bill for???? Not to mention crime problems, the damage drugs do to families, etc., etc., etc.

And, that is why Fundamental/Evangelical Religionists are almost always able to line up with every other conservative movement--no matter what.

Not sure I agree with this. Conservatives themselves are divided over many issues. Remember that the conservative movement contains both social conservatives as well as fiscal/economic conservatives. And the latter include those of a libertarian stripe. Libertarians and social conservatives do NOT agree much on policy matters. So, I think you're running into troubles by one-dimensionalizing conservatives.

But, I see myself as a conservative as well as being liberal in so many ways.

It's rare that your conservative side shows, though.

I think I am quite similar to the large majority of Americans.

Hmmmmmmm. Not sure about that one. Some of the views you've espoused here on the Suite are decidely NON-mainstream.

I also think that the conservative movement in the U.S.A. is attempting to divide us to either be members of the radical right as defined by Fundamentalist Evangelicalism.

Incorrect. Once again, you are lumping and one-dimensionalizing. And it's just not true.

But, I think they will ultimately fail in a major way.

Can anyone say "straw man"?

What do you think?

With the possible exception of Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and a few others like that, if we could bring back to life the Founding Fathers and inject them into today's political climate, they would almost certainly be TO THE RIGHT of the political spectrum of today.

Using today's terminology, we were founded as a conservative nation - both morally/socially and also economically. We need to remember that.

» pink101 - Understanding Conservatives

In response to Understanding Conservatives posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Well, I didn't expect such a lengthy attempt at a comprehensive response.
.
But, good. I'm happy your gave it so much thought.
.
Even so, back up a bit.
.
Perhaps the use of the word, strict was wrong. Maybe I should have used strictly which connotes the idea of a patriarch as leader.
.
Then, I might use the word, strict, to show the extreme extent to which the patriarch can go.
.
The societal model we're using is that of the family. In a certain sense the nation is thought of as a large over riding family. So, and example of conservatism is seen in those people who believe Americans should be submissive to the authority of the president. Conservatives look to authority figures in every aspect of life and that's where the connection comes in that causes Christians to so easily agree with them. Most Americans have a sense of family and most of us believe in a strong father for the family. So, in that sense, we're all conservative.
.
But, on another note, many Americans, through some movement in their life's experience, have come to accept the idea of progressive thinking. Maybe not to an extreme extent; but, most of us do have the ability to be influenced by some level of enlightenment or another. So, for the most part, we are in the main bulge of the bell curve--both conservative and progressive--both left and right.
.
And, while it is so easy to see the picture as black and white and as one way or the other, we need to learn to appreciate how much we are like each other than to judge each other through the polemics of religion and politics.
.
There is a form of progressive thinking that accepts radical extremes in social programs just as there is a form of conservative thinking that rejects government intervention in anything such as some far right radicals who believe they have a right to keep ALL the money they earn while living in our society.
.
So, you're right on the idea of one dimensional explanations of conservatism; but, that's true for the liberals as well.
.
My point here is to explicate the differences. And, I believe it is in how we view the idea of the family. I'm sure you will find that most conservatives have strong beliefs regarding the father's role in the family. And, they have similarly strong beliefs regarding the mother's role just as they have strong beliefs about the roles the children are to carry out. I'm sure you will find that the liberal families will be more apt to support a stronger role of partnership between the parents with the responsibilities shared fully. THAT is the trend and it is why I say that the liberals will eventually win out in any struggle between the two.
.
It's nothing about which we should be afraid. Instead, we should welcome the ideas of progressive liberalism. We definitely should discuss the ideas fully. Conservatives SHOULD exhibit restrained consideration so we don't run off into the wild and wooley every time someone comes up with a good idea. And in the whole, we should be slowly deliberate in our decisions to move forward.
.
I think most people agree with these thoughts when they stop and think about it. But, the radical right has been jumping up and down screaming for the last few decades. I think the sixties blew a lot of them away.
.
But, never fear, we will be a progressive people.
.
Jesus may have been the first truly progressive person in history.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Understanding Conservatives

In response to Understanding Conservatives posted by pink101:

WOW!

-- posted by redback

» redback - Understanding Conservatives

In response to Understanding Conservatives posted by redback:

The WOW factor may need reflection.

"...Instead, we should welcome the ideas of progressive liberalism."

I welcome the substance of certain ideas but methinks the label (conservative or liberal etc) covering the idea or the idea sharer, somewhat artifical or constrictive. But please bear in mind I come from a country where the conservative party is the Liberal Party.

I would have thought the imperative of an idea comes from its substance, not a desire to remain true to the shackles of conservatism, liberalism et al. A desire to remain true to one's ideals is another measure.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - The Family Model

In response to Understanding Conservatives posted by redback:
.
Perhaps living in Australia might be an impediment to getting a hold on the idea of conservatism? I don't know.
.
But, we can look at the different societal institutions here in the States and see that people totally separated from each other in those different venues share particular characteristics that qualify them to be known as conservatives. People in religious groups share conservative characteristics with people in other groups so that they are joined together in the big picture. That not only makes it easy for politicians to go after their votes; but, it makes in practical.
.
I'm saying that what joins conservatives together is their propensity to believe in the strict model of the family in which the father is the head role of authority; whereas, in the liberal mind there is a tendency to think of the family as being led by a more lenient and nurturing parent in which authority is shared. So, if one looks at this explanation with an eye toward the extremes, we see that the most conservative person believes in the idea of not questioning the authority of the strict father and in the most liberal extreme, the person goes all the way in the opposite direction.
.
Most of us are in between; but, we all lean in one direction or the other.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - The Point About Conservatism

.
The point about conservatism in the United States today is that it is being used in the unending battle between those people who promote true democracy and those who would favor a strong monarchical form of government with a "Good" king at the helm.
.
It appears as though our current president, George W. Bush, wants a show down between the Legislative and Executive branches of government now that the Judicial Branch is so heavily conservative. If he is successful, conservatism will opt out for the strong role of the Executive Branch over the others, that is, the strict father will be in control.
.
There is a lot to this discussion that hasn't even come to the surface. Ideas such as the fact that the conservative think tanks have figured out how the progressive movement will create a revolution in many of our society's institutions once they have full sway in the three branches of government. Progressivism appeals to the broad base of the electorate and that is seen as largess by the conservatives. So, a strategic defense against such changes would be to give the Executive Branch strong control over the other two branches.
.
I think that is what Bush is shooting for--a superior Executive Branch of government in which laws can be created by edict. To break the Constitution, the Executive must have some excuse to over ride the regular procedures of government.
.
Our Founders were concerned about a military government. Let's give THAT a little attention.
.
The military acts according to the orders given it by the Commander-In-Chief, aka, the president of the United States.
.
Figure out the logic that might be used by such an intellectual as the highly skilled political strategist, Carl Rove.
.
Once the Commander-In-Chief has established his role in such a nebulous war as this War on Terror that Bush is trying to convince us that he is prosecuting, the United States itself can be seen as occupied territory.
.
This may be a radical explanation; but, it gives impetus to thought that helps us see the direction that will win the Executive Branch control over the other branches. After all, scholars have studied this process for over two hundred years now and it is reasonable to consider the way some powerful forces will take us down the river.
.
Do YOU trust the Bush Trust?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - And ...

.
And, we need to think about how conservatives and liberals differentiate between causative affects.
.
Conservatives tend toward thinking in terms of single force causation whereas liberals tend toward thinking about systemic causation.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - The Family Model

In response to The Family Model posted by pink101:

Your "... I think most people agree with these thoughts..." ended a broad range of issues and views that naive Brian had previously attempted to respond to.

"Perhaps living in Australia might be an impediment to getting a hold on the idea of conservatism? I don't know."

So, your fair dinkum purpose in asking the question anyway is....? ABC

I have no idea how any other Australian might "get a hold" of Pink's ideas on 'conservatism' let alone come to full agreement with your above posts on it. Maybe you can ask some Australians living in the USA. Or suggest the response you really wanted from me instead. Blind unthinking agreement coz I like ya?

As per your posts a (conservative) view of (whatever) does not fully describe the totality of that person. That's 101 stuff. But you suggest that if we instead look at those who have a belief in your 'strict-model-of-the-family' version one will see a conservative. All I see is a person who other things considered, may fit the 3rd definition of 'conservative' but what would I know, right?

"So, if one looks at this explanation with an eye toward the extremes, we see that..."

You and Brian use similar techniques eg if we accept proposition A then doesn't it make sense what follows. Of course it does but what if other valid propositions lead to other answers.

You dismissed my opinion about the difficulty in labelling here. Maybe I look through the other end of the telescope as the instrument intended?

IF "Most of us are in between; but, we all lean in one direction or the other." as you say then what does it do to the umbrella labels you use?

When we look to the 'conservative' and 'liberal' in the individual: politics, religion, family, finance and all else...please explain what being in between" means in terms of ascribing a real functional value to the label of 'conservative' and 'liberal'.

I mean it's not as if this is the very first time you bring these views to us and my memory aint all that bad...yet.

If you start at the family model and instead look outward, does your thesis still hold so that an in-between conservative be known by the family he keeps.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - The Family Model

In response to The Family Model posted by redback:

.
Maybe it's a good idea that you're questioning my method and purposes here.
.
My purpose is to get some discussion going on the idea of what it is that makes up conservatism. My method is to give some push to one idea and to go from there.
.
Rather than an umbrella, I'm looking at the bell curve. I see that, generally, people tend to think of certain kinds of groups as families. We often hear about the work, church, or club family. The whole idea of family connotes the roles played in any of those organizations. Sometimes we hear the reference to Mother Earth and Father Time.
.
I think the family model is relevant to any discussion about American society--not the only one.
.
The strict father model of the family brings up ideas about how people get to know they have the right (proper?) set of values and that they can depend on their inner conscience to do the right (proper?) thing in their daily walk and by what was handed down to them by a father who knew when to punish and when to reward. Whereas the nurturent parent model appears to bring up a shared set of values that are arrived at through a process of experimentation and discussion. The idea of a strict father seems to be involved with a child that was born sinful and needs reproving.
.
There is a lot more to discuss than merely the idea of a strict father. Much more is involved in the making of a conservative.
.
.

-- posted by pink101