Dr Jill Loves Power

[mcmurtry66]

Lots of BLM/Marxist types among them? (this is sarcastic)

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.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If we are categorizing by party, each has its share of elitists, egalitarians, extremists, and morons.

As for today’s Caddyshack, I’d dispute that. I’d say 75% of the people I know who belong to a country club—even in Cook County—are either outspoken Republicans or closeted ones.

Agree with this. But this really isn’t responsive to how the left uses and exploits class differences for political purposes.

 

[snarlcakes]

If we are categorizing by party, each has its share of elitists, egalitarians, extremists, and morons.

As for today’s Caddyshack, I’d dispute that. I’d say 75% of the people I know who belong to a country club—even in Cook County—are either outspoken Republicans or closeted ones.

How many of them are Bitcoiners?

 

[BradStevens]

Class differences is a necessary, in fact a vital, part of leftist ideology and politics. This takes many forms but the general leftist theme is to divide all of us into victims and perpetrators
using various ways of division. This point is my primary take away from the Iron Heel.

Conservative politics does not divide people in to classes in order to pursue its objectives. This is the reason for my somewhat glib remark that “elite conservative” seemed like an oxymoron.

Of course classes exist in society and we are likely to find people of any political belief in any class. But only leftists tend to exploit 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):

Conservatism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

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?

 

[outside shooter]

My mom was an MD. She was referred to as Dr. only in a professional context/setting. Otherwise, she was Mrs. or Fran or Mom.

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.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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):

Conservatism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

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?

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.

 

[mohoosier]

It's okay. You don't have to be threatened by smart, accomplished women. I'm sure you have your own accomplishments that you can feel good about. 👍

I bet she's not as smart as Kamala! But now we know the secret!

 

[DANC]

I bet she's not as smart as Kamala! But now we know the secret!

View embedded media

I cannot love this post enough!

 

[BradStevens]

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.

 

[Indyhorn]

Why would I talk about those things? None of that has anything to do with conservatism.

Do you only converse about your political affiliation?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.”

 

[BradStevens]

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:

Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father (Chesterton 2012: 29; see also section 4 of this entry)

Hampsher-Monk comments that Burke

sublimates the contract’s ideological power whilst draining it of radical potential: a contract involving the dead and unborn could hardly be renegotiated. [This rhetorical figure] expresses his deepest beliefs about the status of political establishments. Our social institutions cannot (like ordinary contracts) be the product of any individual’s calculation or insight (Hampsher-Monk 2012: 202–3)

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

enormous inter-generational transfers [from future to present generations] implied by current fiscal policies. (Ferguson 2012)

 

[hoosboot]

No, but your trolling makes you less of one.😉

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. 👍

 

[DANC]

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

"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.

 

[hoot1]

"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.

 

[mattndallas]

Maybe she'll be the Surgeon General...

 

[Hank Reardon]

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.

 

[stollcpa]

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.

Read the Vogue article.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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

I have Kirk’s The Conservative Mind on my Kindle. It’s good.

Tradition to me means continuity.

 

[76-1]

Breaking News:

Jill has decided to stay in the race...

 

[hoot1]

I have Kirk’s The Conservative Mind on my Kindle. It’s good.

Tradition to me means continuity.

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.