could not open XML input Maikimo.net > tag
Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

Intertwingularity revealed

Articles filed under tag “labels”

Tags: , , , , , , , , On selective respect for authoritay

Posted in Weblog (filed under sociology, worldview)
—Mike @ Thursday July 13, 2006

When John Dean announced his new book, Conservatives Without Conscience, on the TV news program Countdown with Keith Olbermann Monday night (transcript), I experienced A Big Jell: a sense of everything coming together to make conservative behavior comprehensible*.

Thesis. Dean’s thesis (as presented in the book’s preface excerpt) is that modern conservative behavior is explained by “the growing presence of conservative authoritarianism”:

Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of American government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studies reveal, however, that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral.

Resonance. This finding resonates with Dean as he assesses its role in Watergate, about which he has unique historical perspective: “authoritarian thinking was the principal force behind almost everything that went wrong with Nixon’s presidency.”

This finding resonates with me because, as much as I’d like to hem and haw that conservatism correlates with authoritarianism but isn’t defined by it, I can’t think of a single hardline conservative person I know who isn’t authoritarian in outlook and behavior.

OMG. It’s not an insult to identify authoritarian thinking in someone, just a hard-to-miss observation: anyone’s behavior reveals whether he or she “favors unquestioning obedience to authority,” or else says “Hell, no” to the unquestioning part, or else is in an OMG transition from one point of view to the other.

(My earlier post, Why I became a liberal Christian, briefly recounts my own OMG transition from a conservative worldview to my current one.)

These days I swing anti-authoritarian. As a yute, I was extraordinarily compliant. But as a grownup, I think this is a vital part of being grown up: Always question authority. Is the authority sensible? Is it informed? Is it honorable? Is it just? Is its worldview internally consistent? Do its words and deeds cohere? If not, then no freakin’ sale.

Community. Then, what I thought was safety and responsibility — always complying with authority — I now realize is horribly dangerous. Obedience is not praiseworthy of itself; it must be discerning, it must be wise.

Now I’ve learned that the only sustainable wisdom is consensus wisdom. It is the priceless distillate of sweat, study, careful thinking, and apprehending the still, small communiques from the holy — averaged out over filtered through the hearts and minds of many people, over many years.

In contrast, the so-called wisdom of the “chosen few” — often characterized by secrecy and exclusivity and exercise of might, often led by a handful of authoritarian leaders who tolerate no dissent — is almost always shot through with bullshit.

So how do we make common cause again? How do we spread the viral realization that what we as humans have in common far outweighs the ways in which we differ? And that we should focus our time, talent, and treasure on the in common?

And that unquestioning obedience to unsound authority always leads to grief?

I believe God gives us conscience for a reason. It must never be switched off and checked at the door.

*I need conservative behavior to be comprehensible instead of how I normally perceive it, which is that it’s fscking insane incomprehensible, so that I can make progress rebuilding bridges back to my conservative friends, family, and community who got punked into blowing up the bridges.

2006-08-23 update: Glenn provides a thorough review of Conservatives Without Conscience, going into significant detail and well worth reading for further understanding.

2007-03-06 update: Today Glenn diagnoses Ann Coulter’s behavior (who recently called John Edwards “a faggot”) in the context of the larger conservative movement. This column was triggered by a conservative pundit’s observation of Coulter that “she’s very popular among conservatives.” (See Salon, March 6, 2007: The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity.)

As when I wrote this original entry, the groupthink behavior under discussion is otherwise incomprehensible to me, so for me Glenn’s explanatory opinions help build a framework for understanding the pathology. (I’d rather understand it than demonize it, which I guess outs me as a liberal right there.)

2007-03-19 update: Dean’s primary undergirding scientific research for his observations and conclusions about authoritarianism is that of Bob Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba, as he carefully credits in his foreward. I see that Altemeyer has taken the unusual step of publishing his own summary of his decades of research as a free online book, The Authoritarians.

Tags: , , , , , Why I became a liberal Christian

Posted in Weblog (filed under faith, politics)
—Mike @ Tuesday May 30, 2006 · 4 comments

I don’t think I’ve ever written down the basis of my religiopolitical conversion, at least not in succinct form …

My conservative worldview came to an end in 1994. Why? I enrolled in seminary and began studying scripture. My transforming realization:

  • The primary goal of conservatism is to preserve the status quo
    (e.g., ensure rich stay rich, poor stay poor, and powerful stay in power)

  • A primary goal of God in scripture is to turn the status quo upside down
    (a Bible theme start to finish, stated most famously by Jesus as “The last shall be first, and the first last”)

These goals represent opposite destinations. Hence, I infer that the conservative road and the kingdom road don’t ever converge.

Soon thereafter I had my own Damascus Road experience, wherein I was confronted head on, I believe, by the Holy Spirit, who said (paraphrasing):

It is not for nothing I am called “the liberating Spirit.”
Liberating people — setting them free — is what I do.

It is not for nothing that the root verb for what I do, to liberate,
is also the root verb of the word liberal.

You therefore know where my heart is.

And I have been a liberal Christian ever since.

Nothing is ever as simple as labels imply, conservative and liberal included. However:

  • Night, while not always dark, tends toward darkness.
  • Day, while not always sunny, tends toward light.

Look for trends in the cloud of variables.

Are night and day meaningless labels? Or reasonable (if imperfect) descriptions of trends?

Similarly, I assert that

  • Conservatism, while not always destructive, tends toward destructive outcomes
    in part because of its adherents’ tendency to believe that ends justify means, a belief that invites immoral behavior. [I wrote about this phenomenon in ^EJM.] I see nearly every outcome emanating from the last six years of conservative stranglehold in the U.S. as supporting this assertion.

  • Liberalism, while not always constructive, tends toward constructive outcomes
    in part because the verb to liberate often explicitly informs and undergirds its adherents’ motives

Conservative and liberal, while indeed labels and therefore imperfect, I think do reasonably describe trends.

So. Is this revelation true across the board, equally applicable for everyone? I’m not certain.

Does it shape every aspect of my thinking? To the uttermost.

2006-07-01 update: I’m pulling the first two comments to this entry into its body because I think they’re an important illustration of the (mis)understanding of conservative adherents.

Commenter Phinster writes:

Phinster: Brother, co[n]servatism seeks not to preserve the status quo, but to cultivate the individual’s spirit and allow each to actualize their own God given potential. Conservativism means (con-with) (serv)to be servant to your fellow man. Man’s purpose is to actualize their own perfect creation in our Creator’s own image.

To which I reply:

Mike: Phinster, I understand the idealism of your assertions, as I am an idealist myself, but the dictionary disagrees with you:

con·ser·va·tism n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. …

Building an argument for conservatism on your definition, which is roughly the opposite of what the word means, doesn’t work very well; it brings to mind Jesus’ warning about the foolishness of “building one’s house on sand.”

Conservative thought’s valuing of the individual isn’t as God values individuals; it instead extols individualism, which sets one individual against the other. [This tendency manifests collectively as “us vs. them,” a stance that characterizes Bush’s America yet is antithetical to the Gospel.] Hence in practice conservatism offers very little “serving with” and quite a lot of “ruling with (others like me)” and its corresponding “ruling over (others not like me).”

I agree that actualizing our potential as bearers of the Imago Dei is indeed our highest calling. But conservatism as I’ve witnessed it is not built to get us there.

2006-07-13, 22 update:
Further related thinking in new entry, On selective respect for authoritay. In it, I think about John Dean’s new book, Conservatives Without Conscience.

Dean divides conservatives into “the good, the bad, and the evil.” Then he explains the bad and the evil for the possible benefit of the good. I applaud this, and want to draw this kind of distinction, too, instead of lumping all together. But I’m not yet able: all I can do is divide conservatives into “the punch, the turd, and the radioactive bowl.” I’m sure the punch is delicious, but its proximity to the [turd and the depleted uranium] makes me no longer thirsty.

Tags: , , , , , , Clarifying labels: The conservative pilgrims regress

Posted in Weblog (filed under politics)
—Mike @ Saturday December 6, 2003

I’ve been struggling to stop overly lumping in genuine, honest conservatives — with whom I have much in common — with the festering, malodorous sore on the face of democracy that is right-wing, extremist, neoconservative Bush Republicanism.

In this clarifying effort I can probably put to use Lefty’s semantics suggestion in a Daily Kos comment:

I’ve stopped using the term “conservative” as much as possible, preferring the term “regressive” instead. First, I feel it is a more accurate description of the debate to frame it in terms of regression and progress. Second, “regressive” sounds uglier and more undignified, much as the right wing has done with the term “liberal” in common usage over the last 20 years.

Sounds fair — regressive extremism is ugly and undignified. Thanks, Lefty.

[Lion hiding eyes with paw, copyright unknown]But mostly, I’d rather live in a world that doesn’t need labels. How long, O Lord? Maybe when the lion lies down with the lamb? (popular reference, I think, to Isaiah 11 and 65)

Until then, though, as Martin Luther quipped, “If the lion lies down with the lamb, the lamb must be replaced frequently.”

As an Enneagram Nine I am often the lamb in conflictive situations. So for now accurate labeling — Crap! That’s a lion! — helps me lessen the frequency of my replacement.

And sometimes — on my good days — an accurate label reminds me to respect and engage the lion as a splendid fellow creature, even though all I see is him licking his chops and drooling.

In the interest of precision, I note that the text actually couples wolf with lamb, leopard with goat, and calf, lion, and yearling. No lion and lamb AFAIK. The message for me is clear enough, though: one day we’ll all get along.