 The right-wing appropriation of conservatism
|
Sep. 15th, 2011 @ 11:46 am 
|
|---|
Something occurred to me the other day: By rights, I should be able, without giving people serious misapprehensions about my political leanings and opinions, to call myself a left-wing conservative. A left-wing conservative Christian, even.
Because really, that would or should be a pretty accurate summation of my political leanings. I am left-wing on many major issues - I'm pro-science, pro-environment, pro-choice, anti-racism, and I think that the correct reaction to problems with crime should include serious efforts to understand and correct the fundamental societal ills that lead to crime. I think more of the prison system should be like Yetta Dhinnakal Correctional Centre - relatively petty crime is a symptom of other problems, and you need to treat those problems.
I'm also in favour of government regulation of commerce and industry, socialised medicine, and welfare.
This, in American-style political parlance, makes me a liberal.
However, I am also deeply, profoundly conservative by nature. I don't like change. I object to change, pretty much universally, where change is not clearly, demonstrably needed. For example, I am a constitutional monarchist; I am thoroughly hostile to the idea of Australia becoming a republic. Constitutional monarchy has worked sufficiently well for us so far that I see no need to change, especially when the world's premier example of republican government, the USA, is a hellscape of political paralysis.
The reason why I'm so damn progressive on social issues is that they're areas where change is necessary.
And yet, the very concept of conservatism has been taken over by the people who don't even want the status quo, so much as they want to bring about comprehensive change - it's just that they want to change things to the advantage of a privileged minority, rather than in an attempt to bring about broader social improvement.
Desiring the amplification of social injustice doesn't make you more conservative than wanting to increase social justice - but the people who wave the "conservative" banner want exactly that.
It's infuriating not just because of the appropriation of "conservative", of course - the appropriation of "Christian" tempts me to incandescent rage, because of the degree to which it is wrong. Really, Muslim and Christian people of this world have so very much in common, including the outright betrayal of people who claim to be our co-religionists.
Consider this about Islam: the Koran forbids activities like fasting (even during Ramadan) when unwell or pregnant, fasting past the requirements of Ramadan, and other activities which will harm one's health, as a demonstration of piety. This is the degree to which Islam is not about martyrdom.
When Mohammedan conquest was sweeping the known world, it is worth noting that the Muslim armies were so bound by their faith that they were required to feed surrendered opposing forces - which was not precisely common behaviour of conquerors of the era.
Jihadist terrorists are betraying Islam utterly.
Meanwhile, so-called Christians are defiling the word of Jesus in the name of hatred every day. In all likelihood you've heard discussion of this before, and you may well have heard it from me, so for today I will hope that this passage will suffice to make my point (I don't have quotations from the Koran to hand, because, I confess, I do know the Bible better).
For Jesus said (Matthew 5):
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
While the specific Aramaic term of contempt is no longer current, I'm pretty sure Jesus was just using it as an example. The hatefulness spewed by people who claim to be Christians is so ridiculously, utterly anti-Christian.
Oh, actually, I'll throw this one in too:
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Public displays of "righteousness" sicken me.
I am a Christian; my love is given to Jesus. But this is a question of faith, not knowledge, and so I cannot condemn people whose faith has taken them along a different path from mine. I have no problem with people who adhere to religions other than mine, or no religion at all.
What disgusts me is hypocrisy. If you murder in the name of the Prophet Mohammed, if you preach hatred in the name of Jesus - or vice versa, not least because Jesus is still viewed, in Islam, as a prophet of the Lord and therefore some of this stuff counts for Muslims too regardless and Jesus was also really not in favour of the whole murder thing - then, and only then, will I loathe you for religious reasons.
The one time I've ever been deeply, truly, and profoundly offended as a Christian remains the time the Daily Show featured some Tea Party types, one of whom wore a holster with a crucifix in it. I like to think I'm able to be pretty live-and-let-live about my faith, but desecrating a representation of Christ our Lord that hard is kind of angering to me.
|
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/128060/186503) |
| From: | ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) deird1 |
|---|
| Date: |
September 15th, 2011 05:14 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Well said.
I'm pretty sure I'm a left-wing conservative too...
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/254881/16290) |
| From: | willow |
|---|
| Date: |
September 16th, 2011 03:28 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I haven't thought of the term left-wing in so damn long. I remember as a child, familial adults trying to explain to me the difference between the left-wing labour parties and the conservative labour parties and the non labour parties, as elections for the country went along.
The US system continues to confuse me, because the two party system seems so set up for, well, failure. One party wins everything! Less diversity in the political system. Among other things (like one issue voters, etc).
![[User Picture Icon]](https://v2.dreamwidth.org/3974986/75896) |
| From: | sami |
|---|
| Date: |
September 18th, 2011 06:49 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I think the problem comes in partly because they have a lot of stuff that should be non-partisan that's either partisan or "bipartisan". Including things like running elections. The Australian Electoral Commission is rigidly non-partisan and I really think that's how it should be. And then you get gerrymandering oh lord what.
I think the thing is, to me, that there are multiple axes of political alignment, and people sometimes forget. Left wing and right wing or liberal and conservative - they're not equivalents, you can't just assume a liberal is also a lefty.
I think it's more in mind here because Australian politics are fairly centrist/conservative, but leftist vs rightist is quite a significant conflict. Although I'm starting to confuse myself.
Currently, as far as America is concerned, I'm kind of hoping that the march to Tea Party radicalism sinks the Republican Party as is, and it either gets vehemently reformed or else disappears completely, and a new party gains strength. The Republican Party was formed out of the total breakdown of the Whigs - if the Republican Party is becoming a mess, which it is, clearly America needs a new Lincoln to form a new party.
|
| From: | willow |
|---|
| Date: |
September 18th, 2011 06:58 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I am not oppimistic. I think the Repulican party will become The Tea Republicans. And the Democrats will become The Old Republicans, and people who'd call themselves liberal conservative labour, in another system, will jump to pick a side, and get shafted, along with everyone else.
I think the thing that confuses me the most about the American two party system, is that as a child I picked up very clearly that the adults around me could vote for someone they didn't like, but who had other people in their party noted for getting along with x party or y party, and who had z thing to reccomend them. So they were promoting a ZX alliance, or a ZY alliance.
Here. There are no alliances, or so it seems. And if someone has other thoughts and wants to vote for a non two party individual for ANYTHING, that's seen as 'throwing away your vote'. So, you're standing there thinking, 'Huh, a Green Minister of Education' (I am totally mixing things up here, but it's for an example) with a 'Conservative Treasury Official' but a 'Non Leftist Liberal Head of State - I want to throw them in a pot and see wht government I get'. Except in the US it's all grouped together in saran wrap and so to me, it feels like the reason the electoral process is a bloody 2 years long, is because that's how long it takes to convince citizens to give in and choose a lesser but still disliked evil.
|
|
