Name Lips
08-05-2010, 03:29 AM
To the modern liberal, "intellectual conservative" is an oxymoron. Conservatives are the illogical, un-intellectual, dangerous fanatics.
makes one wonder where the right-wing intellectuals went. they had them at one point. then they decided to start catering to the ignorant, the hateful, the religiously fanatic, and the xenophobic.
The conservative intellectuals are now considered moderates. And the politicians among them still play the "get elected" game, which means pandering to the extreme right to make sure they get their votes and don't split the right by introducing their own moronic candidates.
My dad is an intellectual conservative. He's a non-religious physicist and believes in logic and fiscal responsibility. He says he doesn't care if people want social programs, and vote for them. He just laments that they don't realize programs come with a cost. People keep trying to get stuff for free, more programs and lower taxes. Illogical! Absurd! If you want social programs or tighter regulation, you want higher taxes. That's ok, as long as you know that's what you want.
I think he's a small-government type simply because he doesn't trust the government to be able to think coherently about what is really needed versus what sounds like a good enough idea to get votes.
He is against things like Affirmative Action because it undermines logic. He doesn't care why you failed the entry exam. If you had social-economic factors holding you back, that's too bad. Your suffering is no substitute for academic ability.
He is for the death penalty on logical grounds. He doesn't care about vengeance or morality on the issue. He thinks society will be more streamlined and efficient if negative elements are removed.
He believes science can cure the ills of mankind.
It's a sort of ruthless utilitarianism. Most liberals (and fanatical right-wingers now that I think about it) have a moral imperative at the center of their philosophy. They believe in working towards what they see as a moral goal, and assume the pieces will fall together and form a functioning society if those goals are reached. Plan big, and the pieces will fall into place.
Intellectual conservatives think this is absurd. People whose hearts are in the right place, to them, frequently lose perspective and ignore obvious problems. Being a "noble goal" isn't a good enough reason to pursue it. There are always unintended consequences. You should instead choose a more realistic goal, carefully weigh the potential gains against the potential consequences, and only then pursue it, even if it doesn't have a resounding moral imperative behind it.
This is the sort of old-school pre-Reagan conservatism that used to be very popular. The cynical-beancounting-realist conservatism, versus the idealist-dreamer-harmony liberalism. It's a sort of icon of a bygone day, and their voices are largely shouted out by tea-partiers and fundamentalists. I like my dad's version of conservatism because you can have a conversation about it. You can debate it. And if you can out-logic him, he has a real chance of changing his opinion.
My brother and I are both fairly liberal. My dad doesn't care. We can have whatever opinions we want. That's why democracy works. But we also both believe that our opinions should be firmly grounded in facts -- we've just reached different conclusions than he has.
makes one wonder where the right-wing intellectuals went. they had them at one point. then they decided to start catering to the ignorant, the hateful, the religiously fanatic, and the xenophobic.
The conservative intellectuals are now considered moderates. And the politicians among them still play the "get elected" game, which means pandering to the extreme right to make sure they get their votes and don't split the right by introducing their own moronic candidates.
My dad is an intellectual conservative. He's a non-religious physicist and believes in logic and fiscal responsibility. He says he doesn't care if people want social programs, and vote for them. He just laments that they don't realize programs come with a cost. People keep trying to get stuff for free, more programs and lower taxes. Illogical! Absurd! If you want social programs or tighter regulation, you want higher taxes. That's ok, as long as you know that's what you want.
I think he's a small-government type simply because he doesn't trust the government to be able to think coherently about what is really needed versus what sounds like a good enough idea to get votes.
He is against things like Affirmative Action because it undermines logic. He doesn't care why you failed the entry exam. If you had social-economic factors holding you back, that's too bad. Your suffering is no substitute for academic ability.
He is for the death penalty on logical grounds. He doesn't care about vengeance or morality on the issue. He thinks society will be more streamlined and efficient if negative elements are removed.
He believes science can cure the ills of mankind.
It's a sort of ruthless utilitarianism. Most liberals (and fanatical right-wingers now that I think about it) have a moral imperative at the center of their philosophy. They believe in working towards what they see as a moral goal, and assume the pieces will fall together and form a functioning society if those goals are reached. Plan big, and the pieces will fall into place.
Intellectual conservatives think this is absurd. People whose hearts are in the right place, to them, frequently lose perspective and ignore obvious problems. Being a "noble goal" isn't a good enough reason to pursue it. There are always unintended consequences. You should instead choose a more realistic goal, carefully weigh the potential gains against the potential consequences, and only then pursue it, even if it doesn't have a resounding moral imperative behind it.
This is the sort of old-school pre-Reagan conservatism that used to be very popular. The cynical-beancounting-realist conservatism, versus the idealist-dreamer-harmony liberalism. It's a sort of icon of a bygone day, and their voices are largely shouted out by tea-partiers and fundamentalists. I like my dad's version of conservatism because you can have a conversation about it. You can debate it. And if you can out-logic him, he has a real chance of changing his opinion.
My brother and I are both fairly liberal. My dad doesn't care. We can have whatever opinions we want. That's why democracy works. But we also both believe that our opinions should be firmly grounded in facts -- we've just reached different conclusions than he has.