Alan: For deeper understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. and the American civil rights movement, I encourage you to see the last episode in the six part Frontline series, "God in America."
***
Alan: Conservatives believe that every important value has already been voiced and that humankind's fixed goal is to return to a Golden Age.
Liberals believe that change is inevitable and can be guided toward greater goodness.
The value of Conservatism is its cautious modulation of change which, in the absence of good guidance, can result in significant harm.
However, the overall thrust of The Human Condition is forward along the time-line of history.
By definition, "time is that within which change takes place."
In essence, time is a measure of change.
No time, no change. No change, no time.
How do things change for the better?
Throughout antiquity, slavery was a social, political and economic norm.
Notably, St. Paul himself did not oppose slavery, instead counseling slaves to accept their lot.
Notably, St. Paul himself did not oppose slavery, instead counseling slaves to accept their lot.
It is good that humankind chose a higher standard than that expressed by the tent maker of Tarsus.
It is also good that abolition was conceived and advanced by Christians who read scripture without being constrained by Paul's fatalistic acceptance of a towering injustice.
It is also good that abolition was conceived and advanced by Christians who read scripture without being constrained by Paul's fatalistic acceptance of a towering injustice.
Conservatism's innate bent toward stasis tends to result in "temporal blockage," which - like intestinal blockage - prevents proper "digestion" of change, thus precluding the real benefits of growth.
On the other hand, the foresighted directionality of homo sapiens -- like the direction of Time itself -- is the underlying propellant of political liberalism.
Liberalism approves change-and-growth because there is no alternative unless the paralysis of "impossibly pure principles" is deemed viable.
There is no going back.
There is no standing still.
There is no standing still.
Despite Conservatism's intrinsic urge, the indwelling impetus of time/change cannot be stopped any more than "the clock" can be turned back.
Essentially, biblical "literalism" is a conservative impulse that would freeze humankind like a bug in amber.
That said, it is essential to cherish the past.
Only when we learn from history can we insure personal and political well-being.
That said, it is essential to cherish the past.
Only when we learn from history can we insure personal and political well-being.
But biblical literalism is, by nature, an imprudent position, a disproportionate obsession that ends in bibliolatry.
Making allowance for hyperbole, Benedictine abbot, Dom Aelred Graham observed that "the bible is the most over-rated book in the world." http://www.
Making allowance for hyperbole, Benedictine abbot, Dom Aelred Graham observed that "the bible is the most over-rated book in the world." http://www.
"Literalism" believes that biblical values are demonstrably inerrant, immutable, eternal and that they catalogue every value needed for human guidance.
At the same time, bliblical "literalism" is neither plausible, likely nor provable.
Within the four canonical gospels, for example, we find clear-cut chronological differences in the events of Holy Week.
Conservative Christianity's passion for biblical inerrancy is not grounded in objective truth but arises from a psychological predisposition to believe that inerrant truth was embedded -- once and for all -- in the biblical past.
The liberal outlook -- which does not attempt impossible reconstruction of history's directionality -- dominates the political process because it acknowledges The Reality of Time and the need to accord with changing circumstances such as the obsolescence-of-slavery-through-automation.
"The arc of the moral universe tends toward justice" because "the heart leans to the left."
The upshot is that Liberalism will always lead while Conservatism will discharge its appropriate function in a supporting role.
The upshot is that Liberalism will always lead while Conservatism will discharge its appropriate function in a supporting role.
***
"The Case For Liberalism: A Defense Of The Future Against The Past"
George McGovern
***
"The Physiological Underpinnings Of Political Ideology"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-physiological-underpinnings-of.html
***
"Republicans For Revolution: A Study In Anarchic Apocalypticism"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/10/republicans-for-revolution-study-in.html
***
"Republicans For Revolution: A Study In Anarchic Apocalypticism"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/10/republicans-for-revolution-study-in.html
***
"Liberalism: Satanic Rebellion Against God" (The Thinking Housewife)
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/11/liberalism-satanic-rebellion-against-god.html
***
"Biblical Literalism and The Cultivation of Hatred"
***
"Bibliolatry... and how to live happily ever after"
***
U.S. policy has gone liberals’ way for 70 years
By ,
Matt Grossmann is a political scientist at Michigan State University and author of “Artists of the Possible: Governing Networks and American Policy Change Since 1945.”
Conservatives in Congress are the prime suspects in Washington’s dysfunction. Veteran congressional watchdogs Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann called the previous session the “worst Congress ever,” and they did not hold back in assigning blame: “The Republicans are the problem,” they said. After a fruitless government shutdown last fall, even House Speaker John Boehner lashed out at conservative groups and passed bills over the opposition of his caucus.
In response, conservatives make two simple claims: Most policies under debate are liberal, and Republican leaders sacrifice conservative principles when they compromise. History shows they are right on both counts.
I combed through hundreds of history books covering American public policy since 1945, tracking the most significant domestic policy changes that made it into law and the actors that historians credit for those changes. Of the 509 most significant domestic policies passed by Congress, only one in five were conservative, in that they contracted the scope of government funding, regulation or responsibility. More than 60 percent were liberal: They clearly expanded government. The others offered a mix of liberal or conservative components or took no clear ideological direction. When significant policy change occurs in the executive branch, it is even less likely to be conservative; only 10 percent of the executive orders and agency rules that policy historians cited were conservative.
Even labeling as conservative policy government expansions in pursuit of conservative goals, such as traditional values or tougher sentencing, makes little difference in this conclusion; few significant policy changes fall into this category, though we hear about them often in campaigns.
Not surprisingly, liberals play a greater role in bringing about new policy. Historians credited twice as many liberal interest groups as conservative groups with policy change. Democratic politicians also played more frequent roles. The most active Republicans, such as President Richard Nixon and Sens. Jacob K. Javits and Bob Dole, supported mostly liberal and mixed policy changes, rather than conservative changes. Republican involvement in policy has meant compromising with liberals to expand government or trading contraction in one place for expansion in another.
There is a good reason why conservatives are often charged with obstruction. When government is more active, it is usually moving policy to the left. When Congress has doubled its normal productivity, many more liberal laws pass but not necessarily more conservative laws. There was only one session of Congress, the two years after the Republican takeover in 1994, that was both active and conservative, but it did not last. Under President Ronald Reagan, the executive branch made more conservative policy changes only during the first two years of his presidency. Productive policymaking means more domestic spending, more business regulation and wider government responsibility.
These trends are not a product of the unique perspective of policy historians. Other scholars’ analyses of major laws identified by journalists find similar results but even less conservative lawmaking. Liberal policies are self-reinforcing because they create beneficiaries who act as constituencies for their continuation and expansion. Policy debates center on what additional actions government should take, not whether to discontinue existing roles.
Tea party godfather Jim DeMint left a prime policymaking role in the Senate last year to run the Heritage Foundation, calling it a “big promotion.” Indeed, DeMint gains little from cutting deals in Congress. The view that normal legislating and bipartisan compromises lead to expanded government is no tea party illusion; it is an accurate reading of the past 70 years.
To be sure, the conservative failure to shrink government does not imply constant liberal victory. No change is still the most likely outcome in any legislative battle. Obstruction is strategic: shared powers, checks and balances and multiple veto points make policy change difficult to achieve. Some liberal policies, such as the minimum wage, lose effectiveness if they are not regularly updated. A few conservative successes, particularly in tax policy, can overwhelm more numerous liberal laws.
But the federal government has continually expanded its role in education, civil rights, the environment and health care — and Republican presidents have played large roles in this. Nixon entrenched the Great Society and oversaw the environmental revolution. Reagan was less active domestically but signed more government expansions than contractions. President George H.W. Bush brought us landmarks such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, and his son brought us No Child Left Behind and a new Medicare entitlement.
This history does not bother some Republicans, who see opportunities to fashion new ideas and bargain in pursuit of conservative objectives. But even past policymaking designed to promote markets, safeguard morality and protect the homeland usually expanded government. If contraction is the goal, a positive policy agenda is unlikely to succeed. Conservatives like DeMint mean it: Their priority is a smaller government that does less — and it may not be achievable.
The arc of the policy universe is long, but it bends toward liberalism. Conservatives can slow the growth of government but an enduring shift in policy direction would be unprecedented. History shows that a do-nothing Congress is a conservative’s best-case scenario.
No comments:
Post a Comment