North Carolina State University is changing some of its general education requirements, which annoyed Mr. Schalin, a self-professed conservative, to no end. So he wrote an article "attacking" (his word) those changes, saying they were necessary to create a "common cultural identity" in America.
I haven't read that article. But I have read his response to a reader of the first article asking how his idea of "common cultural identity" is any diffierent from the cultural "indoctrination" he and his conservative colleagues constantly throw at liberals (for example, Obama's volunteer program that includes "service training" -- about the Constitution, American history, the importance of volunteerism, etc.) in order for schools to qualify for some of the money.
In an nutshell, his response is this: It can't be indoctrination if it's the way things are. And the way things are is that we're not created equal, never mind what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, which means that some people will do well and others won't and we just have to depend on the goodness of the hearts of those who do well to take care of those who don't, regardless of the reasons for their failure.
It's true. Here he is, in his own words:
There is a fundamental difference between the two perspectives of left and right that has important bearing on this discussion. Those on the left usually believe in some grand vision of an idealized equality—there should be no rich or poor, all people should have their basic needs satisfied, there should not be justice in the ordinary sense, but 'social justice,' and so on. Achieving this vision would require a complete transformation of society and its institutions, with no ties to the previous culture and with the ends justifying the means.
But this vision of equality is frequently in conflict with the real world — people are not equally gifted or inclined. Some are ambitious, others lazy; some are bright or creative, others dull, for reasons beyond our control. If there is liberty and equality of opportunity, some inequality of wealth and achievement will result. What liberals don’t realize, or choose to deny, is that to achieve the vision, equality must be imposed at the expense of liberty, against humanity’s natural differences in abilities and ambitions.
Conservatism, however, does not begin with any such constructed ideal. Perhaps its most important guiding principle is that tradition represents the surviving wisdom of the past — people over time tend to adopt the ideas that enrich them and empower them, and cast off the ones that fail or weaken them. It views modern free society as the result of the grand trial-and-error experiment that is Western civilization, occurring over many centuries — the result of efficiency and justice winning out over the inefficient and divisive.
It is therefore a philosophy thoroughly grounded in real events and human nature—it is confined to the possible. There is no need to convert or coerce people to believe in a vision that is against their nature — it is about letting people do as they will, knowing that they will generally choose wisely, having the wisdom of past generations to draw upon. Despite a hard-edged pragmatism that is often mistaken for 'mean-spiritedness,' conservatism is a very optimistic outlook that places great faith in humanity to do what is right.
How's that for the American Dream? There there you poor deluded poor people and liberals who are so worried about them. Conservatives are perfectly rational, optimistic people, and we know everything's gonna work out just fine, but human beings aren't greedy sons of bitches who'd rather run the country into the ground than admit they might be wrong.
Rather than try to rehash what's already been written, here's what Phila said about it at Echidne of the Snakes:
How do you choose 'wisely'? Well, avoiding becoming a homosexual is a good first step, since doing as you will in that case will lead to having fewer rights, being persecuted, and so forth. Being a woman, by contrast, is an accident of birth for which you can't necessarily be blamed. But you can make the most of it by drawing on 'the wisdom of past generations,' and making the choices that time has proven work best for women. In other words, you're free to choose, as long as you make the right choice, and stick to it come what may.
We arrived at our present 'natural' levels of inequality through 'the grand trial-and-error experiment that is Western civilization.' But now that we're here, trial and error must end, lest some "constructed ideal" redefine what counts as human nature and get everyone all confused. In the worst-case scenario, different people might end up being enriched and empowered, which would turn the natural order on its head. The purpose of the past was to get us to this point, and keep us here: 'It is ... an organic process happening over time—an evolving mindset that adheres to the basic principles despite the changes.'
At this point, forming 'a common cultural identity' seems primarily to be a matter of stifling complaint. Schalin claims that there are no racial barriers to 'American identity,' except to the extent that one insists on one's grievances. Racial complaint is answered by the observation that 'Jim Crow laws are long over.'Does this mean that Jim Crow laws are part of 'the wisdom of past generations'? Or does it mean that we're not, in fact, confined to the possible, as defined by the dominant "cultural identity"? Who knows? Who cares? The important thing is that Clarence Thomas is a conservative even though he's black, and Irving Berlin wrote 'White Christmas' even though he was a goddamn Jew. Though these men are minorities, they were able to transcend that limitation, and provide a useful service to the people whom nature put in charge. That, in a nutshell, is what forming 'a common cultural identity' is all about. It's not indoctrination; it's our birthright.
So we have free will, which we can use to make the right choices, based on what's known to be possible, according to the winners who wrote the history books. And that's why America is unique in giving its citizens 'a focus on the future and not the grievances of the past; a feeling of limitless potential ... a sense of wonder, innovation and discovery; and the feeling that one is in control of his or her own destiny.'
The sky's the limit ... as long as you don't step outside the bounds of what's 'possible.'
I don't know about you, but I buy Schalin's bullshit about as easily as I buy creationism or intelligent design or whatever the hell they're calling it this week. In fact, they're about on the same level. This is how things are, and you can't change it, so shut the fuck up. And work three or four times as hard (at least) to get what I got for nothing.
Nope. If that's what conservatism is about, then no wonder I can't accept it. That's not American, and that's not even Christian. That's selfish and greedy.
Conservatives can't accept that times change. Hell, if they had their way we'd probably still be burning witches. They have a peculiar idea of what liberty means, when you come down to it. To them, liberty appears to mean "I can do whatever I want to whomever I want and fuck you if you don't like it."
Y'know, I don't think that's what the colonists had in mind with their "Don't tread on me" slogan.
And I think that what we have in common is where we live, and -- except for a few greedy bastards -- a desire for all of us to succeed.
Because what we deluded liberals realize that the conservatives can't seem to understand is that we all succeed when one of us succeeds. And when more of us succeed ... my god, what a wonderful world.
News Writer
AWOP Political Contributing Editor
Author of Stop the Press!
Cross-posted at Stop the Press!
**************************
Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.
Stumblers:
Thanks for supporting AWOP TeamZine when you click on our "Thumb This Up" button below..
Peace Y'all
No comments:
Post a Comment