thedrifter
07-07-05, 06:02 AM
Reborn on the Fourth of July
By Keith Thompson
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 7, 2005
A while back I received an amusing email from a reader of my essay Leaving the Left, a Bill of Rights devotee (“all ten amendments, no cherry picking”) who closed with these words: “Fly the flag — irritate a liberal.” I tried not to laugh when his advice came to mind the other day, as I was standing near the top of the ladder steadied by my 6-year-old son Skyler.
Our mission was to affix hardware to the surface of the house so we could fly the Stars and Stripes for the Fourth of July weekend. As household tasks go, this one was not exactly Iwo Jima. Even so, it didn’t seem like the right moment to find out whether laughter is an ally of precarious heights.
“What’s so funny, daddy?” Skyler knows that laughter is usually connected with something, and he invariably loves being in on the joke. Fiddling with my tools, I briefly consider responding with a casual “Oh, nothing.” Then I get a brainstorm. Suppose I tell him what actually has me laughing — the honesty option. Why not? “I’m laughing because I remembered a guy who told me that some people might be upset to see the flag flying,” I said.
“Why?” It’s the right question, and I can see where we’re headed. “Because flying the flag makes some people mad.” Recognizing this as a simple rephrasing of my first answer (nice try), Skyler quickly comes back with another why. Operation Candor, phase two. “Remember when we talked about the American Revolution? Well, it’s like there are two different kinds of people. Those who celebrate the American Revolution on the Fourth of July, and those who … don’t.”
My son thinks for a few seconds. “You mean they don’t like freedom?” Before I can answer, he adds: “Do they live in America?” By now I’m down from the ladder. We’re standing in front of our brightly unfurled liberal irritant. “Yes,” I respond. More silence. “Wow,” Skyler says. Then he cuts to the chase. “Can we go fly the remote control airplane now, before it gets too windy?” We put the ladder away and the rest is aviation history.
It strikes me later, after he has gone to bed, that maybe Skyler didn’t know which of his rapid questions his father had answered with “yes.” Then I realize I’m not sure myself. Yes, people who don’t celebrate the Fourth of July don’t like freedom? Or, yes, the non-celebrants live in America? Maybe yes to both? My son’s response seems right in any case. “Wow.”
“Two kinds of people” goes to the heart of how I now think about the political spectrum, a subject I implicitly raised by writing an essay about exiting one side of the equation: the left. Though I once subscribed to the conventional view of left and right as essentially political terms, about a decade ago it began to seem that these categories more accurately stand for two opposing views of human nature. Today I believe left and right actually represent fundamentally different ways of being in the world, each elemental and self-sustaining in an almost metaphysical sense.
I realize this is a large claim. Extraordinary assertions demand extraordinary evidence. In that spirit, let’s go back to a time before the New Deal, the Civil War, and America’s founding; an era prior to the Renaissance of the sixteenth century, even earlier than the remarkable cave drawings at Lascaux. Let’s think big. Looking ahead to the 230th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence next July, suppose we return to the singular moment, fifteen billion years ago, when the universe itself flared into being.
Blazing with primordial energy never again to be equaled, the cosmos billowed out in every direction, causing the elementary particles to stabilize. Yet this stunning instant was neither an event in time nor a position in space, for the realm or power or source that brings existence is the very matrix out of which the conditions necessary for existence arise in the first place.
If you’re a religious person, that source is God. If you’re not religious — well, the cosmos just happens. It’s all fundamentally random, it just is, it simply occurs, don’t ask. Philosopher Ken Wilber calls this “the philosophy of ‘oops.’” But that’s another story.
After a billion years of uninterrupted light the galaxies are born, including our own Milky Way. A supernova explosion creates our stellar system and most of the atoms in our body. Four million years ago, an amazing breakthrough takes place. A species called human stands up on just two limbs — on their own two feet, as it were. These became known much later as conservatives. Other humans, eventually known as liberals, wait to be lifted.
The conservative looks around and says, “What a remarkable place — how can I participate?” Surveying the same vista, the liberal declares, “This looks rigged, who can I sue?” (Of course I exaggerate; lawsuits are still a ways off. The liberal’s actual first words are more generic: “Who’s to blame here?” Followed quickly by: “Not me.”)
These strikingly different responses to the primary conditions of existence go to the seemingly metaphysical underpinnings of conservative and liberal worldviews. In one sense, the two stances can be described as ideal types. Even so, empirically competent observers must admit that the two types keep manifesting, recognizably, in the real world of time and space, department of humans.
So, let’s explore their respective attributes.
Conservatives tend to see the world as a place teeming with freedom and opportunity, conditions best advanced by individual initiative and most impeded by governmental action. Liberals, by contrast, typically see a world made up of undeserved inequalities to be remedied, ideally through private service-providing elites and government agencies acting in concert.
As the cosmos continued expanding, the right became known for emphasizing the importance of order and stability (turns out freedom requires self-discipline), while the left championed change and progress (equality happens faster with social engineering). After a few million years, it became clear that conservatives and liberals had reached strikingly different conclusions about the primary causes of progress, success, happiness, and suffering. These conclusions are still widely held today.
In a nutshell: conservatives generally believe that what’s inside people holds the key, while liberals typically insist exterior factors matter far more. This is to say folks on the right generally usually underscore “subjective” factors like work ethic, character and creativity, personal responsibility and moral development. By and large, conservatives are given to suspicion that the “philosophy of ‘Oops’” doesn’t fully explain the origin and continuing existence of the cosmos, not to mention why taxes more often get raised than lowered.
It’s not much of a surprise that, when it comes to social interventions to reduce suffering and advance happiness, the typical conservative stands up (no pun intended) for equal opportunity for individuals, guided by the premise that every person deserves a fair shot based upon their potential, heart, and merit. Meanwhile, the left characteristically points to “objective” factors: economic conditions, social institutions, environment, and material development — all in the context of a powerful mantra, “History.”
The left regularly invokes this word to ensure that the offspring of formerly oppressed persons are entitled to declare themselves “historically” oppressed in present time, even when previous objective oppressive conditions have become “history” in the conventional (past tense) sense of the word. Accordingly, preferred left social interventions invariably aim to guarantee equal outcomes for entire demographic groups — with race, ethnicity and gender at the top of the list.
So far I’ve identified “liberal” as synonymous with “the left,” which is operationally true of contemporary American politics. Yet it bears remembering that the spirit of classical liberalism emerged out of the European Enlightenment ideals that eventually gave birth to the freedom quest of the American Revolution. In the same vein, what we today recognize as the political left likewise arose from Enlightenment thinking and gave rise to the French Revolution, a social upheaval that followed a distinctly different course than our own.
continued..........
By Keith Thompson
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 7, 2005
A while back I received an amusing email from a reader of my essay Leaving the Left, a Bill of Rights devotee (“all ten amendments, no cherry picking”) who closed with these words: “Fly the flag — irritate a liberal.” I tried not to laugh when his advice came to mind the other day, as I was standing near the top of the ladder steadied by my 6-year-old son Skyler.
Our mission was to affix hardware to the surface of the house so we could fly the Stars and Stripes for the Fourth of July weekend. As household tasks go, this one was not exactly Iwo Jima. Even so, it didn’t seem like the right moment to find out whether laughter is an ally of precarious heights.
“What’s so funny, daddy?” Skyler knows that laughter is usually connected with something, and he invariably loves being in on the joke. Fiddling with my tools, I briefly consider responding with a casual “Oh, nothing.” Then I get a brainstorm. Suppose I tell him what actually has me laughing — the honesty option. Why not? “I’m laughing because I remembered a guy who told me that some people might be upset to see the flag flying,” I said.
“Why?” It’s the right question, and I can see where we’re headed. “Because flying the flag makes some people mad.” Recognizing this as a simple rephrasing of my first answer (nice try), Skyler quickly comes back with another why. Operation Candor, phase two. “Remember when we talked about the American Revolution? Well, it’s like there are two different kinds of people. Those who celebrate the American Revolution on the Fourth of July, and those who … don’t.”
My son thinks for a few seconds. “You mean they don’t like freedom?” Before I can answer, he adds: “Do they live in America?” By now I’m down from the ladder. We’re standing in front of our brightly unfurled liberal irritant. “Yes,” I respond. More silence. “Wow,” Skyler says. Then he cuts to the chase. “Can we go fly the remote control airplane now, before it gets too windy?” We put the ladder away and the rest is aviation history.
It strikes me later, after he has gone to bed, that maybe Skyler didn’t know which of his rapid questions his father had answered with “yes.” Then I realize I’m not sure myself. Yes, people who don’t celebrate the Fourth of July don’t like freedom? Or, yes, the non-celebrants live in America? Maybe yes to both? My son’s response seems right in any case. “Wow.”
“Two kinds of people” goes to the heart of how I now think about the political spectrum, a subject I implicitly raised by writing an essay about exiting one side of the equation: the left. Though I once subscribed to the conventional view of left and right as essentially political terms, about a decade ago it began to seem that these categories more accurately stand for two opposing views of human nature. Today I believe left and right actually represent fundamentally different ways of being in the world, each elemental and self-sustaining in an almost metaphysical sense.
I realize this is a large claim. Extraordinary assertions demand extraordinary evidence. In that spirit, let’s go back to a time before the New Deal, the Civil War, and America’s founding; an era prior to the Renaissance of the sixteenth century, even earlier than the remarkable cave drawings at Lascaux. Let’s think big. Looking ahead to the 230th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence next July, suppose we return to the singular moment, fifteen billion years ago, when the universe itself flared into being.
Blazing with primordial energy never again to be equaled, the cosmos billowed out in every direction, causing the elementary particles to stabilize. Yet this stunning instant was neither an event in time nor a position in space, for the realm or power or source that brings existence is the very matrix out of which the conditions necessary for existence arise in the first place.
If you’re a religious person, that source is God. If you’re not religious — well, the cosmos just happens. It’s all fundamentally random, it just is, it simply occurs, don’t ask. Philosopher Ken Wilber calls this “the philosophy of ‘oops.’” But that’s another story.
After a billion years of uninterrupted light the galaxies are born, including our own Milky Way. A supernova explosion creates our stellar system and most of the atoms in our body. Four million years ago, an amazing breakthrough takes place. A species called human stands up on just two limbs — on their own two feet, as it were. These became known much later as conservatives. Other humans, eventually known as liberals, wait to be lifted.
The conservative looks around and says, “What a remarkable place — how can I participate?” Surveying the same vista, the liberal declares, “This looks rigged, who can I sue?” (Of course I exaggerate; lawsuits are still a ways off. The liberal’s actual first words are more generic: “Who’s to blame here?” Followed quickly by: “Not me.”)
These strikingly different responses to the primary conditions of existence go to the seemingly metaphysical underpinnings of conservative and liberal worldviews. In one sense, the two stances can be described as ideal types. Even so, empirically competent observers must admit that the two types keep manifesting, recognizably, in the real world of time and space, department of humans.
So, let’s explore their respective attributes.
Conservatives tend to see the world as a place teeming with freedom and opportunity, conditions best advanced by individual initiative and most impeded by governmental action. Liberals, by contrast, typically see a world made up of undeserved inequalities to be remedied, ideally through private service-providing elites and government agencies acting in concert.
As the cosmos continued expanding, the right became known for emphasizing the importance of order and stability (turns out freedom requires self-discipline), while the left championed change and progress (equality happens faster with social engineering). After a few million years, it became clear that conservatives and liberals had reached strikingly different conclusions about the primary causes of progress, success, happiness, and suffering. These conclusions are still widely held today.
In a nutshell: conservatives generally believe that what’s inside people holds the key, while liberals typically insist exterior factors matter far more. This is to say folks on the right generally usually underscore “subjective” factors like work ethic, character and creativity, personal responsibility and moral development. By and large, conservatives are given to suspicion that the “philosophy of ‘Oops’” doesn’t fully explain the origin and continuing existence of the cosmos, not to mention why taxes more often get raised than lowered.
It’s not much of a surprise that, when it comes to social interventions to reduce suffering and advance happiness, the typical conservative stands up (no pun intended) for equal opportunity for individuals, guided by the premise that every person deserves a fair shot based upon their potential, heart, and merit. Meanwhile, the left characteristically points to “objective” factors: economic conditions, social institutions, environment, and material development — all in the context of a powerful mantra, “History.”
The left regularly invokes this word to ensure that the offspring of formerly oppressed persons are entitled to declare themselves “historically” oppressed in present time, even when previous objective oppressive conditions have become “history” in the conventional (past tense) sense of the word. Accordingly, preferred left social interventions invariably aim to guarantee equal outcomes for entire demographic groups — with race, ethnicity and gender at the top of the list.
So far I’ve identified “liberal” as synonymous with “the left,” which is operationally true of contemporary American politics. Yet it bears remembering that the spirit of classical liberalism emerged out of the European Enlightenment ideals that eventually gave birth to the freedom quest of the American Revolution. In the same vein, what we today recognize as the political left likewise arose from Enlightenment thinking and gave rise to the French Revolution, a social upheaval that followed a distinctly different course than our own.
continued..........