Blm signs all over yards here. Cori bush before but now Wesley bell. The country clubs are in ladue where the republicans who run businesses live and the town over is all the lawyers who work for them. Dems.
Dr Jill Loves Power
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Agree with this. But this really isn’t responsive to how the left uses and exploits class differences for political purposes.
Ok, first we have to work with the same definitions. I'm doubtful we'll get there, but here are mine:
Elitist
(1) someone who believes that some things should be controlled or owned only by the richest or best educated or "best" people:
(2) relating to or supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite.
(3) someone who thinks that the richest, smartest, etc. people should not only rule, but that they are also better than the rest in some moral sense.
In this sense, I think there is no doubt that the founders, who designed our Constitution and thought it would lead to our best and brightest being elected, were elitists.
Conservativism
Conservative philosophy, in general, is a realistic one and it considers it a matter of fact that some people are better than others because that's the way human societies have always been ordered. Maybe I'm operating off of a more philosophical view of what conservatism is, ala Oakeshott and Scruton, and you are focusing on the Tea Party and MAGA movements within the Republican party (which I would argue are not conservative, but right-wing radicals):
Given this philosophical definition, though, the founders were arguably not conservatives. I think elitism can exist in a liberal, Marxist, or conservative framework. They are independent of each other.
As for the Iron Heel and Marxism, Marx didn't invent class distinctions. The Iron Heel detailed socialist thought at the time--but it also detailed the societal conditions they were reacting to. Those people had reasons they thought like they did. The socialism discussed in that book, though, was utopian and certainly imagined a nearly perfect egalitarian society. Conservatives, by definition, are anti-utopian, though and so do not see egalitarianism in that sense possible and should not be strived for.
The way you are defining things here looks as if you're trying to put everything you believe is right and good under the banner of "conservatism" because you identify as a conservative. But of course I might be reading that into your brief messages. Are you doing that? Are there beliefs that are core "conservative" ones that you do not share or question?
Let's say that your Mom was asked to speak to the members of the School Board regarding some issue that she was passionate about. This would have nothing to do with medicine, so it wouldn't be a professional meeting, at least not in her field.
Don't you think that she would probably be introduced as "Dr.", whether she asked for it or not, before addressing the board? I think it would be highly likely. Basically, common courtesy by whomever was introducing her. Certainly in any situation where you would talk from a lectern. And this would be a lot like the speaking engagements for Jill Biden.
Now if she was instead chit-chatting with the neighbors at a 4th of July barbeque, taking offense to anyone not calling her "Dr." would be pretty weird. I highly doubt that happens.
Hoboy . . .now we are getting into the weeds.
First of all, my conservative mind ( such as it is) is formed by Burke, Hayek, Kirk, Chesterton, and Martin Luther. Maybe others. I have material from all of them (except Luther) stored on my Kindle and review it from time to time, including a few minutes ago. Your reference to MAGA and Tea Party is more than a little offensive. That said, I don’t see anything wrong with MAGA as an operating principle. As I’ve said a few times , Lincoln’s post war plans were heavily influenced by MAGA.
Off course conservatives believe that humans are imperfect and that egalitarian society is not a worthy objective. We are indeed anti-utopian. Why? Because a utopian society is a dead one. (Maybe we should read The Giver in book club). Differences among people is what drives achievement, improvement and evolution. That’s basic Darwinism. Class differences keep society vibrant.
My understanding of socialism comes from many sources too, including Marx who brought focus to the class struggle political vision that has stuck and is the basis for the identity politics of today. That is not how conservatives view class differences. Thus my comment that elitism and conservativism is an oxymoron. I’ll admit that is a big oversimplification, but the basic point is sound. Leftists exploit classism as a political objective to be fixed and conservatives accept class differences as a basis for positive evolution of society because it provides the incentive for mobility and improvement.
Thanks for the opportunity for this discussion.
I didn't mean the MAGA and Tea Party references to be offensive. But those two populist movements are the only time in the last 100 years or so you could say the Republican party was not the party of the economic and social elites.
Your theory regarding differences is interesting, but it's not "basic Darwinism." And I don't think the animating reason for conservatism is a diverse, different society. Nor am I certain that class differences keep society vibrant. I've never read anyone making that argument, have you? Do you have a link? Are the societies with the most or the most rigid class strata the most "vibrant?" I challenge that wholeheartedly.
Elitism and the difference between people and who deserves to rule and who doesn't is as old as mankind itself. Read the Republic for example; read about the Roman Republic. Marx didn't create that notion, he just commented on it. And Burke was an elitist, by the way.
Russell Kirk;
“Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.”
Thanks. Anything by him you'd particularly recommend?
By the way, I've been reading the Stanford Encylopedia link I posted earlier and found this formulation of a way of looking at "tradition" as I never had before:
Hampsher-Monk comments that Burke
For Scruton (1980), liberals tend to make present members of society dominant over those who went before, and those who come after; some conservative commentators fear that the cross-generational contract is now being broken by
Last edited:
Good to know.
No matter how little of a man I am, I'm sure you have some accomplishments to be proud of, too, just like 76. And no matter how other people prefer to be addressed, it won't make you less impressive. 👍
"liberals tend to make present members of society dominant over those who went before, and those who come after;"
Couldn't agree more. It's all about them and the present. Future consequences be damned.
Seems to me that both Dem and Pub pols focus mainly on the next election which puts emphasis on the present. So in this respect, blame the system.
Same might be said of many CEOs in the business sector who are concerned about short run gains to boost their current personal perks and earnings.
Maybe she'll be the Surgeon General...
She could be. There isn't a formal requirement that the US Surgeon General be a physician. They do need to be chosen from members of the public health corps, but there's no time requirement for service there. She could be appointed to a role there, then nominated for Surgeon General a week later. So yeah, she could be SG.
I'm not really a Jill Biden fan, since she seems to be a bit about herself. Which is standard in politics, so not really unique. But it makes one wonder if getting her assistance in getting Joe out of the race is contingent on finding something suitable for her. Assuming that the title of this thread is accurate at all.
I have Kirk’s The Conservative Mind on my Kindle. It’s good.
Tradition to me means continuity.
Breaking News:
Jill has decided to stay in the race...
Jill has decided to stay in the race...
Love tradition and continuity up to a point.
The point being when a failure to accept change has more downsides than upsides. On the other hand, changes should be monitored as not all changes work out as anticipated.
CoH, curious about Kirk's resistance to change.
I think the notion that conservatives oppose change is a bum rap. Change is essential for a health society.
Russell Kirk about change
“Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.
Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.”
CoH, appreciate your sharing some Russell Kirk philosophy with us.
Reading Kirk isn't easy lifting and requires the reader to stop and think.
Far cry from today's political sound bites and negative put downs which have become the traditional political dialogue as they fit perfectly with the social media platform found on our cell phones. Cell phones which have replaced old fashioned books and newspapers as our source for information.
Writings of great thinkers are easily accessible on a cell phones. Cell phones also enable shallow and short term thinking. One more reason why education is so important.
In critiquing my own post, realized my enjoyment in reading CoH's quotes by Kirk were via my cell phone.
So it isn't the fault of the change in our using the cell phone for information. It is more about
Completey agree.
Just want to add that education, thanks to the cell phone, can now be a lifetime experience thanks to the internet. Learning is no longer limited to K through 12 and college.
Curiosity, an open mind, and a willingness to explore can open up new worlds. This happens when it comes to seeing education as a lifetime experience.
Having said all that, I maybe curious but am also intellectually lazy and not really all that smart.
Oh well.
It seems that Pres Jill, will not allow a peaceful transfer of power.
www.nbcnews.com
'I'm not leaving': Biden expands effort to tamp down calls to step aside
The president met with Democratic governors Wednesday evening as the White House and his campaign held separate all-hands calls during the day.
www.nbcnews.com
I worked with a bunch of PhDs and still go to lunch with some of them monthly even now and not one wanted to be called Dr. All wanted to just be called by their first name. My wife's boss for years was known far and wide but wanted to be called by his first name.
Yeah I'm seen rallies where a Democrat candidate was talking about taxing the rich more and people clapping. The audience was not smart enough to know that the candidate was talking about taxing them more.Well in today's world.....
Democrats being party of the rich could cost them 2024 election
A growing body of research shows wealthier Americans flocking to the Democratic Party. The working class, meanwhile, has been forgotten.www.newsweek.com
Now they aren't Socialists, at least not when it comes to their own wealth. The perception I have of the typical Democrat is that they always tend to believe that the "rich" are going to be the ones that need to spread the wealth and they typically don't view themselves as "rich". Everyone should pay their fair share and they just so happen to already be paying that amount.
Anywho, in the 2024 version of that movie, the wealthy people would likely be Democrat voters.
Warren Buffett says the rich should pay more taxes yet he's fought the IRS for years to keep from paying taxes the IRS says he owes. I've yet to see them say what "their fair share" is... it's always just more. I'll bet they were saying that when the top rate was 90%.
Well any time you have a speaker on a subject I would want to know their credentials so I could determine if I put much faith in what they said.... that would apply to about any profession. For example, I would want to know a lawyer's credentials before speaking about stuff that pertains to the law. Just telling me that the person speaking is a lawyer, CPA, or any other profession wouldn't cut it with me. Just because a person has a PhD in X doesn't mean they are any more of an expert in Y than I am so just introducing someone as Dr. Joe Blow doesn't mean anything to me UNLESS I know what the doctorate is in.
