Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
[MENTION=3085]Red[/MENTION] I've read some Toqueville stuff. It's been a long time. I'll take a look at the stuff you posted. It looks like a huge article. What, specifically, did you want to discuss about it?
Conservative and Liberal. Nature or Nurture?
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
Sorry, we don't have to discuss it specifically. I just thought it was throwing light, for me, on the unconstitutional turn our government took with FDR's New Deal, and, in my youth, Johnson's Great Society. Just trying to see if I could better understand why I think the way I do, and expose myself to different thinking. So, really, it was something that I needed to read more then yourself. I look at the conversation as, in part, Americans trying to understand each other, and I guess I thought Tocqueville was a good follow up to reading the Constitution. And, in thinking of Americans trying to understand one another, I did think, well, who really knew us better then he? So, just wanted to share that with you; no more then that. You strike me as a thoughtful individual. I just wanted to expose you to one of the most insightful commentators on the American character, if you were not already familiar.
Red
Well-Known Member
Some of my favorite Tocqueville quotes:
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Letter to Ernest de Chabrol, 9 June 1831 Tocqueville Reader, p. 41.
Democracy in America, Volume 1(1835)
A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Chapter XIII.
The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.
Chapter XIII.
The pursuit of wealth generally diverts men of great talents and strong passions from the pursuit of power; and it frequently happens that a man does not undertake to direct the fortunes of the state until he has shown himself incompetent to conduct his own.
Chapter XIII.
In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
Chapter XV.
There are at the present time two great nations in the world—allude to the Russians and the Americans— All other nations seem to have nearly reached their national limits, and have only to maintain their power; these alone are proceeding—along a path to which no limit can be perceived.
Chapter XVIII.
Democracy in America, Volume 2(1840)
The public, therefore, among a democratic people, has a singular power, which aristocratic nations cannot conceive; for it does not persuade others to its beliefs, but it imposes them and makes them permeate the thinking of everyone by a sort of enormous pressure of the mind of all upon the individual intelligence.
Book One, Chapter II.
In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.
Book One, Chapter II.
Americans cleave to the things of this world as if assured that they will never die,… They clutch everything but hold nothing fast, and so lose grip as they hurry after some new delight. An American will build a house in which to pass his old age and sell it before the roof is on; he will plant a garden and rent it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he will clear a field and leave others to reap the harvest; he will take up a profession and leave it, settle in one place and soon go off elsewhere with his changing desires. If his private business allows him a moment’s relaxation, he will plunge at once into the whirlpool of politics. Then, if at the end of a year crammed with work he has a little spare leisure, his restless curiosity goes with him traveling up and down the vast territories of the United States. Thus he will travel five hundred miles in a few days as a distraction from his happiness. Death steps in in the end and stops him before he has grown tired of this futile pursuit of that complete felicity which always escapes him. At first sight there is something astonishing in this spectacle of so many lucky men restless in the midst of abundance. But it is a spectacle as old as the world; all that is new is to see a whole people performing in it.
Book Two, Chapter XIII.
In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.
Book Three, Chapter XXI.
If there ever are great revolutions there, they will be caused by the presence of the blacks upon American soil. That is to say, it will not be the equality of social conditions but rather their inequality which may give rise thereto.
Book Three, Chapter XXI.
When an opinion has taken root in a democracy and established itself in the minds of the majority, it afterward persists by itself, needing no effort to maintain it since no one attacks it. Those who at first rejected it as false come in the end to adopt it as accepted, and even those who still at the bottom of their hearts oppose it keep their views to themselves, taking great care to avoid a dangerous and futile contest.
Book Three, Chapter XXI.
There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult—to begin a war and to end it.
Book Three, Chapter XXII.
No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
Book Three, Chapter XXII.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
Book Three, Chapter XXII.
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Letter to Ernest de Chabrol, 9 June 1831 Tocqueville Reader, p. 41.
Democracy in America, Volume 1(1835)
A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Chapter XIII.
The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.
Chapter XIII.
The pursuit of wealth generally diverts men of great talents and strong passions from the pursuit of power; and it frequently happens that a man does not undertake to direct the fortunes of the state until he has shown himself incompetent to conduct his own.
Chapter XIII.
In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.
Chapter XV.
There are at the present time two great nations in the world—allude to the Russians and the Americans— All other nations seem to have nearly reached their national limits, and have only to maintain their power; these alone are proceeding—along a path to which no limit can be perceived.
Chapter XVIII.
Democracy in America, Volume 2(1840)
The public, therefore, among a democratic people, has a singular power, which aristocratic nations cannot conceive; for it does not persuade others to its beliefs, but it imposes them and makes them permeate the thinking of everyone by a sort of enormous pressure of the mind of all upon the individual intelligence.
Book One, Chapter II.
In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.
Book One, Chapter II.
Americans cleave to the things of this world as if assured that they will never die,… They clutch everything but hold nothing fast, and so lose grip as they hurry after some new delight. An American will build a house in which to pass his old age and sell it before the roof is on; he will plant a garden and rent it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he will clear a field and leave others to reap the harvest; he will take up a profession and leave it, settle in one place and soon go off elsewhere with his changing desires. If his private business allows him a moment’s relaxation, he will plunge at once into the whirlpool of politics. Then, if at the end of a year crammed with work he has a little spare leisure, his restless curiosity goes with him traveling up and down the vast territories of the United States. Thus he will travel five hundred miles in a few days as a distraction from his happiness. Death steps in in the end and stops him before he has grown tired of this futile pursuit of that complete felicity which always escapes him. At first sight there is something astonishing in this spectacle of so many lucky men restless in the midst of abundance. But it is a spectacle as old as the world; all that is new is to see a whole people performing in it.
Book Two, Chapter XIII.
In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.
Book Three, Chapter XXI.
If there ever are great revolutions there, they will be caused by the presence of the blacks upon American soil. That is to say, it will not be the equality of social conditions but rather their inequality which may give rise thereto.
Book Three, Chapter XXI.
When an opinion has taken root in a democracy and established itself in the minds of the majority, it afterward persists by itself, needing no effort to maintain it since no one attacks it. Those who at first rejected it as false come in the end to adopt it as accepted, and even those who still at the bottom of their hearts oppose it keep their views to themselves, taking great care to avoid a dangerous and futile contest.
Book Three, Chapter XXI.
There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult—to begin a war and to end it.
Book Three, Chapter XXII.
No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
Book Three, Chapter XXII.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
Book Three, Chapter XXII.
Red
Well-Known Member
If I thought a paternalistic government were needed to protect the vulnerable in society, this cannot be what I had in mind:
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
That makes you conservative and sensible, not "conservative". It also makes you a progressive liberal, not a "liberal". This was pretty much the essence of my response to fish in the other thread about our 2 party system.
There is obviously a spectrum here with moderates in the middle and those sensible enough to relate to a variety of issues, but there is clearly a divide that at minimum 20-30% of the population lines up on with regularity. That's about 50 million voters on either side of divided sides. From my anecdotal evidence they seem to be the ones who are most active in the voting process.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm going to be unplugged until next week so this will probably be my last post for a while. I'm sure I'll find myself thinking about this stuff quite a bit, though. I admire your willingness to consider all sides of the issue. I never imagined you'd be taking the conservative position in this conversation. While I'm away I'm going to see if I'm capable of arguing the liberal side. I'm not sure I am. I think there's some merit to the idea that conservative and liberal brains work differently.
Regarding Toqueville, he has a lot of great sounding quotes, but it seems to me like a lot of them don't really jive with many of the others. These issues are complex so I guess that's to be expected.
The idea that a form of government like ours was eventually going to result in more and more social programs was predicted even by some of the founding fathers. It's easy to understand why this happens, especially if segments of the population quit dreaming the American Dream. You really can't blame people who don't see a way to improve their lives for voting in politicians who promise social programs. The irony is that every time we implement a social program we give up a little bit more freedom in exchange for security, and doing so makes it just a little bit harder (and less logical) for an increasing segment of the population to chase the dream. America, without the dream, simply won't work.
I believe Thomas Jefferson said that every nation needed a revolution every couple of generations. If not, that's a quote my dad often attributes to him. It feels like we're on the verge of a revolution of sorts (hopefully more ideologically than physical). The success of the Sanders and Trump campaigns sure point to that. It's going to be fascinating to see where things go from here.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
for real? I mean Cy already mentioned discrepancies in sentencing between cocaine and crack. A quick google search will give you tons of examples.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I'm of the opinion that Reagan was firmly average. Some of his policies were good, some were structurally racist in their ramifications. He wasn't out there saying blacks are inferior, but that isn't the point. This is not a #hottake it's literally acknowledged in probably every circle outside of the Fox News bubble. Even Bill Clinton is now getting heat for his policies that disproportionately affected blacks. I'd use the same language on him as I would with Ronald, and Bill is a "Democrat" (and a widely cherished one, at that).
I'm shocked anyone would use the war on crack for political advantage, whether for party line push, "war on drugs" cliches, libertarian mumbo jumbo or what have you.
That was one of the best accomplishments this country has seen in the last 30 years. We fought through an escalation of extremely violent crime rates and reversed it. Crime has been in decline ever since the war on crack. You really want to argue that it was racist to save black women from the violent rape and murder culture? Such a shameful take in trying to build some talking point advantage.
That was one of the best accomplishments this country has seen in the last 30 years. We fought through an escalation of extremely violent crime rates and reversed it. Crime has been in decline ever since the war on crack. You really want to argue that it was racist to save black women from the violent rape and murder culture? Such a shameful take in trying to build some talking point advantage.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
This
Through the bastardization of words and the murder of concepts the political elite has molded our minds. I don't think it's a big conspiracy so much as a system that encourages little manipulations of concepts that perpetuate the system until eventually it becomes almost impossible to think outside it. It's very difficult to have an intelligible conversation about politics. It's very Orwellian.(after all it was the real world that was the inspiration for 1984 not Orwell's imagination)
The most recent offender has been Bernie Sanders. Despite his claim, he is not a democratic socialist. Socialism is at it's heart the social ownership over the means of production. He has not ever advocated for this(to my knowledge). He is a social democrat. Which one is the adjective and which is the noun ****ing matters. System education ensured that no one even noticed or cared.
Most self styled conservatives would probably be shocked to realize that what Reagan was endorsing was economic liberalism. Concepts have become so muddied by politicians and partisans that when you ask a person their position they will awkwardly stumble in their attempt to tell you. They haven't the language to express their positions and we wouldn't understand them if they did.
Red
Well-Known Member
It's been my impression that Jazzfanz has a much above average number of posters who are very thoughtful in their responses, in terms of obviously putting a lot of effort into presenting their points of view. I'm a denizen of many Internet forums, and that is just not always the case on average. It's something to be proud of as a community, I think. People here really put in an effort, and the diversity of well thought out opinions is great, in my own humble opinion.
Red
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that sentiment is attributed to Jefferson. Forget the exact wording, and sometimes those things turn out to be more anecdotal then literal, but so it is said, and I agree that we seem to be on the verge of something that may make this a pivotal time in our history.
I had seen some articles recently exploring the subject of "OK, so exactly when was the last time America was great?" All those hats, might as well ask, lol. So, under those circumstances, I thought this observation was interesting.
“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers – and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce – and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Red
Well-Known Member
One of the ways in which I am very liberal is I love living in an environment where there is a melting pot of ideas. I always thought the Hellenistic Period in the eastern Mediterranean would have been hog heaven to me because of the great mix of cultures and religious beliefs at that time and in that region. So, it was no surprise to me to react with alarm at the whole "cultural appropriation" movement. It seems like the epitome of narrow mindedness, whereas cultural diffusion and borrowing is the norm throughout history, and far more conducive to the birth of new ideas, and sharing ideas. It's not something to be afraid of, or discouraged. It's OK to borrow from other cultures, and even introduce changes to what is borrowed. Evolution that way is OK. Put me somewhere where every idea under the rainbow will cross my bow, and I'm ecstatic. Academia was like that, and just in terms of the world of the mind, I will always be extremely liberal.
And, although there may be a great deal of truth to there being fundamental psychological differences between liberal and conservative brains, nurture has to play a role. If the countryside, rural America, is more conservative on average, and cities, urban America, more liberal, where you are born and raised is bound to play some role. Certainly that distinction between city and farm is right there in our history as a nation.
We tend to plug the terms into political discourse, and for obvious reasons, but politics is not the only venue, obviously, and most of us should expect to have a mix of liberal thoughts and conservative thoughts in something as complex as life. Americans have often been described as a pragmatic people as well, and pragmatism probably makes for easier transitions from one side to another of the liberal/ conservative divide. Usually what works is more relevant then which philosophy it reflects.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
A rising Crime rate in the 80s started dropping after the war on drugs?
You're fact-free rhetoric has honestly brought you to the point where you're not even worth engaging anymore. And I'd bet you don't even believe this stuff, you're just trying to rile ppl up.
*yawn*
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I have no problems with people holding different opinions than mine. I'm calling it as best I see it, and I don't take offense of ppl (like Dr. Jones) are thinking I'm being off-base. Maybe my posts come across as militant, but that isn't the intended effect. I'm just passionate in my convictions.
What I truly don't ****ing understand is when posters like franklin antagonize strictly for the sake of antagonizing. For some, Jazzfanz is an escape to their otherwise extremely difficult life (examples including posters who've had children killed/a wife suffering from cancer, posters going through failed marriages, Trans posters, the list goes on). At the end of the day, idgaf about his trolling directed towards me-- but I just can't understand why someone goes out of their way to make this community more inhospitable. It's pretty childlike, for a poster who constantly refers to me as one.
What I truly don't ****ing understand is when posters like franklin antagonize strictly for the sake of antagonizing. For some, Jazzfanz is an escape to their otherwise extremely difficult life (examples including posters who've had children killed/a wife suffering from cancer, posters going through failed marriages, Trans posters, the list goes on). At the end of the day, idgaf about his trolling directed towards me-- but I just can't understand why someone goes out of their way to make this community more inhospitable. It's pretty childlike, for a poster who constantly refers to me as one.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Yes, this little ditty just clarifies everything so well and, thus, should be used as the basis for all public policies in the future.
Government by trite cliche, nothing beats it.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
And you put your finger on an inherent contradiction (hypocrisy) of the small government right. Opposition to government intrusion in the affairs of private citizens is offered as a foundational principle of the right, yet, it is selectively applied, particularly in the realm of social policy.
Why not start from the fact-based agreement that we have a mixed system involving a combination of private/state involvement and have a rational, grown-up discussion about what the appropriate mix is, along with trade-offs?
I realize this is a pipe dream, but I do so tire of inflexible ideological positions. Politics is a wasteland of vacuous, slogan-based rhetoric and policies played to largely ignorant/ill-informed (often willfully) voting population done with an eye to political advantage than anything related to, say, the public good. Instead we get insipid slogans (e.g., "Government is the problem not the solution) and shallow, often fact-starved partisan talking points.
Fanatic,
I don't know what ax you are trying to grind here. You obviously have not researched the war on crack. At all. You are a complete fool if you don't acknowledge the effects that the war on crack had on inner city violence.
You spout off some seriously dumb **** out of naivete and hate but this loafer trumps them all by far.
I'm sure @elroach will be along in short order to root on your alchemistish pseudo-intellectual takes. Enjoy his pathetic grasps at relevancy as much as your own are.
Sincerely,
frank