Conservatism = death

[Edward theurj Berge]

Yes, I'm being hyperbolic (slightly) but it gets the point across. Here's a link to a recent article by George Lakoff on the conservative worldview related to the oil spill. Following are some excerpts. Comments?

 

Conservatism is an ideology of death. 

 

It was conservative laissez-faire free market ideology -- that maximizing profit comes first -- that led to:

• The corrupt relationship between the oil companies and the Interior Department staff that was supposedly regulating them
• Minimizing cost by not drilling relief wells
• The principle that oil companies could be responsible their own risk assessments on drilling
• Maximizing profit by outsourcing risk assessment that told them what they wanted to hear: zero risk!
• Maximizing profit by minimizing cost of materials
• Maximizing profit by failing to pay cleanup crews and businesses for their losses
• Focusing only on profit by failing to test the cleanup methods to be used if something went wrong
• Minimizing cost by sacrificing the health of cleanup crews, refusing to allow them to use respirator masks to protect against toxic fumes.

[Edward theurj Berge]

One thing Lakoff notices is that the conservative worldview does not see systemic causes, i.e., economic or societal, always finding fault with an individual. In this case BP is the bad actor, not the system of capitalism that created the environment for this catastrophe. Wilber notes much the same in this article:

"What is the real difference between liberal and conservative? Well, if you ask the simple question-- Why do human beings suffer? --you will get two different, basic answers. The conservatives will say, You suffer because of yourself ; the liberals will say, You suffer because of someone else ."

[Edward theurj Berge]

In this article Lakoff talks about how empathy has been conservatively reframed as a bad thing, as an idiosylncratic personal feeling that disrupts the more accurate rational faculty. Reframed in integral terms, this is because conservatism cannot grasp a more developed moral code that embraces broader categories of people (and environment); it is stuck in the individualistic level. So it reframes this broader empathy as a lower-level emotion, personal "feelings" that get in the way of a detached, higher-level rationalism.

This is wrong on at least 2 counts. First it doesn't see that emotion isn't limited to one level, that it too develops along a spectrum and that there are higher emotions like empathy and compassion. Second, it assumes that rationality is devoid of emotion, as if it is transcended and excluded rather than included. Lakoff calls this false reason, a holdover from the Enlightenment, that doesn't understand the enfolded and included basis of thought in emotion.

[andrew]

sure edward! but from everything i've read the ussr was brutally mean to their environment over the years they ruled so i can't see capitalism as being the only culprit here, it seems most systems of economics are destructive to eco-systems........
i've been reading tramps and vamps by camille paglia and i've found myself agreeing with her libertarian views much more than not. she also has the common sense to see the good parts of the religious traditions, too!

and hears a quote from g. falks stripping the guru's which everyone on this forum should read:

With regard to transpersonal, integral
and parapsychological claims, however, if you simply keep reading
and thinking widely, beyond the field itself, the transition from
believer to skeptic is unavoidable.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I didn't say capitalism was the only cause, only that conservatives as a general rule cannot see it as one. I haven't read Paglia so cannot comment on anything specific but if she is a libertarian they too tend toward this rugged individual responsibility and that government is a hinderance to it, like conservatism not seeing systemic causes and solutions. Perhaps you can give us some of her specifics with which you agree. And as for Falk's book on Wilber, I agree with some of his criticisms but unlike him I'm unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Jungkela: Compassion can express at any moral "level," meaning how inclusive it can be. One can have compassion but only for one's own family, or this can extend to one's own religiious or political group. It can also extend beyond that to anyone including all beings and the environment. In that sense then the blatant destruction of the environment is not particular to capitalism; as you noted it's also a chacteristic of Soviet and Chinese socialism. Good arguments have been made elsewhere that all of those socio-economic systems are around the same level of development but differ in emphasis depending on their cultural and environmental situational matrices.

I would also submit that the next stage in moral socio-economics is already evident in social democracy as expressed not only in politics but in business. There are still markets with competition but done within democratically run businesses. And this isn't necessarily "green" according to kennilingus but can most certainly be within an integral agenda. That's why I've argued vociferously elsewhere that capitalism is unfit for an integral enaction, even with newly painted retro-fits.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I got to the edit after the 15-minute limit. My last sentence should read: That's why I've argued vociferously elsewhere that capitalism is defunct and unfit for integral enaction, with Integral Institute's retro-fits just more colorful lipstick on the same pig.

[Seth]

Hi Kela,

Robert Masters has written a really good essay on the subject of "idiot compassion". I'm sure you would agree with the traits that outline its existence. It would also be correct to say there is such a thing as wise compassion, but most who identify idiot compassion would simply call wise compassion, compassion or true compassion.

I don't want to attempt to hijack this thread by posting the full essay here, and though the original text is only available on pdf format, I have, in the past, retyped its content to a regular text format that can be viewed by visiting this dormant forum. Idiot Compassion by Robert Masters

[Edward theurj Berge]

We can see the conservative death fixation in their fillibuster to extend unemployment benefits, which was recently broken. Their excuse was that it added to an alredy huge deficit, yet none of them tried to block tax cuts for the rich or funding for several wars which deficit dwarfed unemployment benefits. And those on unemployment need those benefits to literally survive, eat and pay rent. Conservatives would rather let them die and give the money to the wealthy Wall Street bankers and war mongers than the most vulnerable people tettering on the edge of survival. But of course it's the latter's own fault because they're lazy and would rather live it up on those huge unemployment checks. That they lost their job and homes is their own damned fault, not the fault of a failed economy that gave huge bonuses to the rich for fucking up the entire system at the cost of literal death to the slave masses.

[Seth]

Hi Edward,

I would actually go further in the direction to call the current conservative ideology in the States to be more of a neo-proto-fascist ideology. I would argue it is only conservatively based because the ones that are benefiting from the current status quo don't want abrupt change to happen in their ill favor. The two traits that I feel make the current conservative party more of a proto-fascist ideology is their ability to stay in power seems largely dependent on having a large literate but unsophisticated population at their disposal that is easily swayed by propaganda. Secondly they subscribe to a large military and will stop at very little toward going to war to accomplish their national goals. Both traits are very fascist at heart.

I know my comments do very little to tackle any of the charges you place toward the current conservative party, mainly because I sympathize with them, but I think the distinction that the current party is one of distorted ideology rather than pure representation is important. Given a better government with healthier systems at play, conservatism might not be so bad.

[andrew]

i was watching david suzuki talk about the harpur conservatives recently and he said that they are really not conservatives at all if you use the word to 'conserve', in fact; he said they are the exact opposite of conservatives in their ' slash and burn' mentality! he also likened their policies to extreme radicals!
i just don't think 2 parties can some up the complexities of todays world, we need new political ideas and parties, imo......
i would be a complete libertarian if the corporations and banks could police themselves, which they so obviously can't; in fact, hiring wall st. p.r. firms seems to be the extent of their social responsibility, iow's, they think propaganda cuts the mustard!
anyway, paglia's first belief is in the necessity of free speech. and like mr. zappa, i would agree, there only words. censorship by the politically correct police is tiresome. reform of education in the humanities with art and human sexuality programs being a priority. that perhaps god is man's greatest idea and we should respect non-pathological religious traditions.....
on mr. falk: very smart guy! yet it seems to me that he may have some kind of personal quarrel with wilber as his arguments veer into adhominem's and i'm not sure that's necessary....call him on wrong ideas, don't attack his person, but i strongly agree that kenny errs in his endorsement of these bad boy gurus!