- In Spain the word "conservative" means moderate liberal, the way for good conservatives is reject liberalism and promote and join to some kind of neoreactionary movement.
- Liberalism (the progressive liberalism) is in general pro-market, that explains the supporting of globalism (the main interest of economic liberalism), and of course there's a marxist influence also (68 May, class struggle).
still too ideological for my taste, and too abstract. The question of liberalism and conservatism needs to be considered as a dialectic most often resolved as reasoned compromise, not a cage match between absolutes. As a contest applied in specific contexts to address specific questions, matters of practical import.
Consider the extremes of social liberalism and social conservatism in regard to the visibility of women: the extreme conservative position can be represented by Wah'habbi Pathans, where women are literally neither seen or heard by strangers to the household; they stay behind a curtain in the kitchen and cook. Males are required to avert their eyes in the presence of any woman who happens to appear, especially if unveiled. Proper dress in public is the burqa, a garment which not only conceals the female form and hair, but conceals the entire face behind a screen that renders even her eyes invisible. That's the Conservative extreme of social modesty for women in Pathan society; their presence is practically erased.
The extreme social Liberal position means that anything goes; that not only are women allowed to parade naked on the street, but their bodies are available for fondling by anyone who finds them desirable--because, after all, any provision of personal restraint is by definition Conservative!
The modern dialectic in the West has currently resolved to a compromise: women have the right to wear revealing clothing in public, but stop short of nudity. Those who find their bodies alluring are nonetheless forbidden from wantonly groping. Women also have the freedom to dress as modestly as they choose. In my experience and observation, the compromise is satisfactory, and not socially destabilizing. In the public places where that latitude applies, the rules are negotiated by the prevailing social Zeitgeist.
I do agree with you that the negotiation between liberal and conservative attitudes really doesn't work as an alliance; the relationship is uneasy and unstable, until a mutual balance is settled on. The alliance of social cohesion is only possible when the dynamic of the dialectic arrives at some semblance of compromise, as a real-world local community social consensus. It seems to me that such a consensus is also settled relationally; the community center deserves more modesty, and tolerance of the demimonde and the libertine is confined to the margins, or to the realm of personal privacy. Tolerance for the more outre expressions of the margins is not to be misconstrued as a message of immorality on the part of political authority and government power; it's more like a
practical acknowledgement of the practical limits of the ability to police morals. We really don't need bedroom or living room police; that level of coerced morality is both ineffective and corrupt. It has a way of compounding perversity and immorality, and making it worse. But that doesn't mean anything goes in the public sphere. Strangers and visitors are Guests, and need to conform to the local social expectations and standards of moral behavior of the territory hosting their presence. That is not a Human Rights justice cause, and especially not a Universal Human Rights justice cause.
That's my opening ante of my thesis in the dialectic, anyway.
I agree with most of what you have written! Indeed quite often the golden mean between two extreme positions is best- for example true courage as midway between cowardice and foolhardyness, or the question of female clothing in public. What I contest in the post is that Conservatives if they consider Liberals to be allies, then perhaps in the tactical but not the strategical scopes.
Conservatism isn’t enough. Conservatism aims to slow the march of so-called progress, but it needs to be reversed. Any sincere, anti-liberal Conservative should become a Reactionary.
First we should invade Britain! And then, let those poor people sign up for X and ,meanwhile here, have USAID employees pick fruit. All federal judges should sit in empty rooms and be forced to listen to Taylor swift. Soon a new zeitgeist will appear..
A good view in general.
Some notes:
- In Spain the word "conservative" means moderate liberal, the way for good conservatives is reject liberalism and promote and join to some kind of neoreactionary movement.
- Liberalism (the progressive liberalism) is in general pro-market, that explains the supporting of globalism (the main interest of economic liberalism), and of course there's a marxist influence also (68 May, class struggle).
- Thanks for the mention of Donoso Cortés.
still too ideological for my taste, and too abstract. The question of liberalism and conservatism needs to be considered as a dialectic most often resolved as reasoned compromise, not a cage match between absolutes. As a contest applied in specific contexts to address specific questions, matters of practical import.
Consider the extremes of social liberalism and social conservatism in regard to the visibility of women: the extreme conservative position can be represented by Wah'habbi Pathans, where women are literally neither seen or heard by strangers to the household; they stay behind a curtain in the kitchen and cook. Males are required to avert their eyes in the presence of any woman who happens to appear, especially if unveiled. Proper dress in public is the burqa, a garment which not only conceals the female form and hair, but conceals the entire face behind a screen that renders even her eyes invisible. That's the Conservative extreme of social modesty for women in Pathan society; their presence is practically erased.
The extreme social Liberal position means that anything goes; that not only are women allowed to parade naked on the street, but their bodies are available for fondling by anyone who finds them desirable--because, after all, any provision of personal restraint is by definition Conservative!
The modern dialectic in the West has currently resolved to a compromise: women have the right to wear revealing clothing in public, but stop short of nudity. Those who find their bodies alluring are nonetheless forbidden from wantonly groping. Women also have the freedom to dress as modestly as they choose. In my experience and observation, the compromise is satisfactory, and not socially destabilizing. In the public places where that latitude applies, the rules are negotiated by the prevailing social Zeitgeist.
I do agree with you that the negotiation between liberal and conservative attitudes really doesn't work as an alliance; the relationship is uneasy and unstable, until a mutual balance is settled on. The alliance of social cohesion is only possible when the dynamic of the dialectic arrives at some semblance of compromise, as a real-world local community social consensus. It seems to me that such a consensus is also settled relationally; the community center deserves more modesty, and tolerance of the demimonde and the libertine is confined to the margins, or to the realm of personal privacy. Tolerance for the more outre expressions of the margins is not to be misconstrued as a message of immorality on the part of political authority and government power; it's more like a
practical acknowledgement of the practical limits of the ability to police morals. We really don't need bedroom or living room police; that level of coerced morality is both ineffective and corrupt. It has a way of compounding perversity and immorality, and making it worse. But that doesn't mean anything goes in the public sphere. Strangers and visitors are Guests, and need to conform to the local social expectations and standards of moral behavior of the territory hosting their presence. That is not a Human Rights justice cause, and especially not a Universal Human Rights justice cause.
That's my opening ante of my thesis in the dialectic, anyway.
I agree with most of what you have written! Indeed quite often the golden mean between two extreme positions is best- for example true courage as midway between cowardice and foolhardyness, or the question of female clothing in public. What I contest in the post is that Conservatives if they consider Liberals to be allies, then perhaps in the tactical but not the strategical scopes.
Conservatism isn’t enough. Conservatism aims to slow the march of so-called progress, but it needs to be reversed. Any sincere, anti-liberal Conservative should become a Reactionary.
Trouble is, many don't want a new system because it is an old one that worked and people are scared of that one. Monarchism.
First we should invade Britain! And then, let those poor people sign up for X and ,meanwhile here, have USAID employees pick fruit. All federal judges should sit in empty rooms and be forced to listen to Taylor swift. Soon a new zeitgeist will appear..