A couple of years ago I read a book entitled the Cash Nexus written by Niall Ferguson. The subject of the book, as outlined on the jacket, was about money and power in the modern world. However, that’s beside the point. In it Ferguson asked an intriguing question that has stayed with me: “Are capitalism and democracy [liberal democracy] - to borrow an analogy from the field of genetics - the ‘double helix’ of the modern world?“
Ferguson’s question was provoked by a grand theory postulated by Francis Fukuyama in his book “The End of History”, written ten years earlier. Fukuyama came to the conclusion that with the collapse of communism , ‘liberal democracy‘, its only rival, was now the only form of government left in the world. Why it triumphed over communism and all other forms of government, Fukuyama explained, is because it only can fulfill humankind's needs and aspirations in and for the modern world. Humankind has inherently two great needs to satisfy, its economic well-being and its desire for recognition and freedom. Fukuyama concluded that the ‘liberal’ part of liberal democracy satisfied humankind’s economic needs and the ‘democracy’ part the desire for freedom and recognition. With his question Ferguson was wondering if Fukuyama had truly discovered the holy grail, the secret, the DNA of modern human governance.
With the term ‘liberal democracy’ Fukuyama was talking about the two aspects of human governance known to western Democracy; capitalism and democracy. He used the term liberal instead of capitalism because, he explained, it sounded less negative. Some intellectuals, though, regard capitalism and democracy as two opposing philosophies of governance, incompatible. However, Fukuyama concluded differently. He sensed that in combination they are both necessary in order to have a legitimate and viable form of governance that can and will meet the needs of modern humankind. Communism obviously didn’t have these two branches of governance, hence its collapse.
Ferguson’s question is intriguing because it points to something profound, that everything in the universe, the world, nature and humankind is composed of, two halves or aspects of itself. Everything has a ‘double helix’. However, the concept of a double helix or DNA has never been associated with human governance. Why hasn’t it? I wondered. Human governance should be no exception. It’s not removed from the natural world or its fundamental laws. It is also an organic system which requires a binary system to keep it alive and functioning.
The discovery of the double helix in human governance is a coming of age for humankind. Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ is a metaphor for this coming of age. However, his idea of the end of history shouldn’t be interpreted as the end of history as such because as long as humankind is around, history will still be made. For example, there is still history to be made in the fine tuning and in the full implementation of the double helix of liberal democracy so that all of humankind can benefit from it.
Next I will explain what makes liberal democracy the double helix I think it is.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
Democracy
I have had Democracy on the brain for several years. It also happens to be one of the big issues of our times. There is something satisfactory in knowing I am being current and topical.
Democracy is not unlike what a judge once said of pornography: I’m not sure what it is, but I know when I see it. Most of us know democracy in much the same way. I also think of Democracy as something akin to driving a car. We can drive a car without necessarily understanding the mechanics involved, or how to maintain it. The same goes for Democracy. We can do it and be it without necessarily knowing or understand how or why it works. I think knowing the full nature of Democracy is on par as difficult as knowing the nature of consciousness.
The other night I was watching a televised discussion on the prospects of democracy in Iraq. I heard something very interesting. One interviewee said, as a way of explaining the difficulties that were being encounter there in establishing it, I don’t think we really understand Democracy, or how it works. On hearing that I immediately understood what he was talking about. We really don’t understand it. Also, I think we generally are pretty naive and delusional about it, especially when it come to implementing it in places that have never practiced it before, like in Haiti or Iraq.
I remember reading about a professor of Democracy who was quite exited about going to Iraq to help establish it. I can imagine how he felt, exhilarated at the prospects of having a chance to create something from scratch and being on the cutting edge. At first be found the endeavour very promising. However, as violence and instability began escalating, he started having second thoughts. What he discovered from the growing instability and violence is perhaps something he unconsciously knew all along, that if you don’t have a stable environment to build it in, Democracy hasn’t a chance. For instant, women who were taking up the cause were been threaten with death. Under such circumstances Democracy will have little chance to take hold and flourish. In Iraq, as soon as its nascent roots were been planted, insecurity was ripping them out.
It’s not that the professor who went to Iraq to help establish Democracy was delusional about its chances but more so that he was naive. He was naive enough to believe that the instigators of the war in Iraq knew what they were doing. He believed, as they did, that their model for democratic nation building would work. Those plans were poorly thought out, if they were at all. Anyway, the establishing of Democracy in Iraq was more like an after thought, as a way to legitimize its occupation.
My feeling is that one of the big flaws about establishing Democracy anywhere is that people don’t understand its exceptional nature. For instance, what is about it or us that supposes and allows it to exist?
One of my catch all phrases is, Democracy is contingent on many things. Our professor friend knew of one of its major components, security. But that alone is not enough. Communism offered its citizens security, but it didn’t naturally bring about Democracy. However, you can say that the security communism did produce prepared the ground work for many ex-communist countries to establish Democracy later, as many are doing now.
To help better understand what I mean when I say Democracy is contingent on many things, I’ve used the human body as an analogy. I think the human body and Democracy are quite similar. They are both organisms and their function and health are contingent on many parts interacting. For instance, take the heart or the brain. Though they are major organs which without the body couldn’t function, both are not only contingent on each other for survival but also on a host of other parts such as kidneys, liver, lungs and so on. Democracy functions and remains healthy in very much the same way. It relies on a host of interwoven contingencies such as the rule of law, pluralism, property rights, equality, freedom of choice and mobility and even the right to be indifferent about it.
The general cursory idea of Democracy we have is government of the people, for the people and by the people. This idea includes one person one vote. But again, the right to vote is just one component like security is. Without either we would not have Democracy. But neither on their own guarantee Democracy. To guarantee it, what we vote for has to be backed up and defended by other things, like some of the things I mention above. If it isn’t, a situation like what happened in Germany in 1933 will occur. Then, Hitler was democratically elected but there weren’t sufficient back-up systems to keep Hitler democratic. In Germany at the time the law and courts were weak, the press was ineffectual in holding government accountable, people weren’t treated equally and in general it was a closed, non-pluralistic society. In such a climate it’s easy to understand why Hitler managed to become a totalitarian.
What happen to Democracy in Germany illustrates an overlooked aspect of it, that it is a very sophisticated enterprise. People point to that incident as a way to highlight Democracy’s vulnerabilities. However, that incident points out to me that Democracy them wasn’t yet fully developed or sophisticated enough for the modern world. It hadn’t sufficiently developed its back-up systems to ensure it wouldn’t in time turn into totalitarianism. And many of those back-up systems are unspoken and tacit.
The ‘tacity’ of Democracy is also something that is overlooked went trying to transplant it in places like Iraq. Much of our Democracy, and what makes it successful, is unspoken. It’s a state of mind, a life style. Ironically, it‘s successful because we can generally take it for granted. It’s there like the air we breath. We sleep and eat it. Its in our bones. We don’t have to openly think about it. It’s naturally there. However, for Democracy to be like that it has take centuries of evolution and being passed down. And here it is, people think that Democracy can be parachuted into a place that has never experienced it before and it will naturally be accepted and take root.
I think culture has a lot to do with the acceptance of Democracy. Societies that are democratic are societies that are constantly in flux, and changing. Non-democratic societies tend to be traditionally based which leaves little room for flux or change. They discourage change. Societies that are democratic are competitive. Uncompetetive societies are for the most part undemocratic. Inflexible, static societies abhor Democracy because it insists on change and sweeping away intransigent traditions, such as those that deny universal suffrage, the separation of church and state, freedom of choice, minority rights and the bifurcation of authority.
One economist said this of Democracy, it is a universal value. He said it’s like Mother Nature and added, it’s hard to argue against Mother Nature. It’s also hard to argue against Democracy.
Democracy is not unlike what a judge once said of pornography: I’m not sure what it is, but I know when I see it. Most of us know democracy in much the same way. I also think of Democracy as something akin to driving a car. We can drive a car without necessarily understanding the mechanics involved, or how to maintain it. The same goes for Democracy. We can do it and be it without necessarily knowing or understand how or why it works. I think knowing the full nature of Democracy is on par as difficult as knowing the nature of consciousness.
The other night I was watching a televised discussion on the prospects of democracy in Iraq. I heard something very interesting. One interviewee said, as a way of explaining the difficulties that were being encounter there in establishing it, I don’t think we really understand Democracy, or how it works. On hearing that I immediately understood what he was talking about. We really don’t understand it. Also, I think we generally are pretty naive and delusional about it, especially when it come to implementing it in places that have never practiced it before, like in Haiti or Iraq.
I remember reading about a professor of Democracy who was quite exited about going to Iraq to help establish it. I can imagine how he felt, exhilarated at the prospects of having a chance to create something from scratch and being on the cutting edge. At first be found the endeavour very promising. However, as violence and instability began escalating, he started having second thoughts. What he discovered from the growing instability and violence is perhaps something he unconsciously knew all along, that if you don’t have a stable environment to build it in, Democracy hasn’t a chance. For instant, women who were taking up the cause were been threaten with death. Under such circumstances Democracy will have little chance to take hold and flourish. In Iraq, as soon as its nascent roots were been planted, insecurity was ripping them out.
It’s not that the professor who went to Iraq to help establish Democracy was delusional about its chances but more so that he was naive. He was naive enough to believe that the instigators of the war in Iraq knew what they were doing. He believed, as they did, that their model for democratic nation building would work. Those plans were poorly thought out, if they were at all. Anyway, the establishing of Democracy in Iraq was more like an after thought, as a way to legitimize its occupation.
My feeling is that one of the big flaws about establishing Democracy anywhere is that people don’t understand its exceptional nature. For instance, what is about it or us that supposes and allows it to exist?
One of my catch all phrases is, Democracy is contingent on many things. Our professor friend knew of one of its major components, security. But that alone is not enough. Communism offered its citizens security, but it didn’t naturally bring about Democracy. However, you can say that the security communism did produce prepared the ground work for many ex-communist countries to establish Democracy later, as many are doing now.
To help better understand what I mean when I say Democracy is contingent on many things, I’ve used the human body as an analogy. I think the human body and Democracy are quite similar. They are both organisms and their function and health are contingent on many parts interacting. For instance, take the heart or the brain. Though they are major organs which without the body couldn’t function, both are not only contingent on each other for survival but also on a host of other parts such as kidneys, liver, lungs and so on. Democracy functions and remains healthy in very much the same way. It relies on a host of interwoven contingencies such as the rule of law, pluralism, property rights, equality, freedom of choice and mobility and even the right to be indifferent about it.
The general cursory idea of Democracy we have is government of the people, for the people and by the people. This idea includes one person one vote. But again, the right to vote is just one component like security is. Without either we would not have Democracy. But neither on their own guarantee Democracy. To guarantee it, what we vote for has to be backed up and defended by other things, like some of the things I mention above. If it isn’t, a situation like what happened in Germany in 1933 will occur. Then, Hitler was democratically elected but there weren’t sufficient back-up systems to keep Hitler democratic. In Germany at the time the law and courts were weak, the press was ineffectual in holding government accountable, people weren’t treated equally and in general it was a closed, non-pluralistic society. In such a climate it’s easy to understand why Hitler managed to become a totalitarian.
What happen to Democracy in Germany illustrates an overlooked aspect of it, that it is a very sophisticated enterprise. People point to that incident as a way to highlight Democracy’s vulnerabilities. However, that incident points out to me that Democracy them wasn’t yet fully developed or sophisticated enough for the modern world. It hadn’t sufficiently developed its back-up systems to ensure it wouldn’t in time turn into totalitarianism. And many of those back-up systems are unspoken and tacit.
The ‘tacity’ of Democracy is also something that is overlooked went trying to transplant it in places like Iraq. Much of our Democracy, and what makes it successful, is unspoken. It’s a state of mind, a life style. Ironically, it‘s successful because we can generally take it for granted. It’s there like the air we breath. We sleep and eat it. Its in our bones. We don’t have to openly think about it. It’s naturally there. However, for Democracy to be like that it has take centuries of evolution and being passed down. And here it is, people think that Democracy can be parachuted into a place that has never experienced it before and it will naturally be accepted and take root.
I think culture has a lot to do with the acceptance of Democracy. Societies that are democratic are societies that are constantly in flux, and changing. Non-democratic societies tend to be traditionally based which leaves little room for flux or change. They discourage change. Societies that are democratic are competitive. Uncompetetive societies are for the most part undemocratic. Inflexible, static societies abhor Democracy because it insists on change and sweeping away intransigent traditions, such as those that deny universal suffrage, the separation of church and state, freedom of choice, minority rights and the bifurcation of authority.
One economist said this of Democracy, it is a universal value. He said it’s like Mother Nature and added, it’s hard to argue against Mother Nature. It’s also hard to argue against Democracy.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Comment on Liberalism vs Conservatism
The other day I received a comment, off blog, on my essay Liberalism vs Conservatism. In my essay I said that one group was apt to accept change more easily than the other. The person who commented wrote that perhaps why some people don't want to change things is because of fears of the unknown. This is what I wrote:
I have been thinking about your comment and you are right, there is a fear for change, in challenging the status quo and accepting new things. But sometimes change is necessary for the overall well-being of society, like in the accepting of civil and equal rights for all. Liberals are more likely to address such issues than are conservatives.
Resistance to social change can have a detrimental effect on a community, such as in the resistance of granting equal rights to blacks in America. Conservative in America feared that giving blacks equality would destabilize and erode their way of life. They had a point but consistent resistance to that kind of social change was making things worse because blacks were become more vocal and violent in their demands for social change and equality. Liberals understood better the need for such change, not only for humanitarian reasons but for logical ones and the safety of the community as a whole.
I am now working on another posting and it is about change and its inevitability. Societies that adapt to change and work with it are the most successful. Change offers a vital service. As societies mature they tend to became lazy and complacent, traits that can have a negative effect on their continuance and survival. Change helps knock out the cobwebs that develop from such tendencies. However, resistance to change can also be good. It forces a rethink, a reexamination and a reinforcing of what is important to us like the values and tradition that keep our families and society functioning and stable. In that respect change is a balancing act.
Change is inevitable but we can learn to use it to our advantage. As the saying goes, you have to change to remain the same. And it occurs for two reasons, to move things forward so they don't become stale and to replace the things we use up .
I have been thinking about your comment and you are right, there is a fear for change, in challenging the status quo and accepting new things. But sometimes change is necessary for the overall well-being of society, like in the accepting of civil and equal rights for all. Liberals are more likely to address such issues than are conservatives.
Resistance to social change can have a detrimental effect on a community, such as in the resistance of granting equal rights to blacks in America. Conservative in America feared that giving blacks equality would destabilize and erode their way of life. They had a point but consistent resistance to that kind of social change was making things worse because blacks were become more vocal and violent in their demands for social change and equality. Liberals understood better the need for such change, not only for humanitarian reasons but for logical ones and the safety of the community as a whole.
I am now working on another posting and it is about change and its inevitability. Societies that adapt to change and work with it are the most successful. Change offers a vital service. As societies mature they tend to became lazy and complacent, traits that can have a negative effect on their continuance and survival. Change helps knock out the cobwebs that develop from such tendencies. However, resistance to change can also be good. It forces a rethink, a reexamination and a reinforcing of what is important to us like the values and tradition that keep our families and society functioning and stable. In that respect change is a balancing act.
Change is inevitable but we can learn to use it to our advantage. As the saying goes, you have to change to remain the same. And it occurs for two reasons, to move things forward so they don't become stale and to replace the things we use up .
Monday, November 22, 2004
First Discipline
The First Discipline.
Humankind has devised many disciplines to facilitate and make life easier for itself. Without these disciplines we could not cope with or manage the complexities of our world, natural or man made. These disciplines vary. They include the disciplines of science, sociology, philosophy, psychology and history. The singular most important discipline is economics.
Economics is the most important because not much in life is possible without it. Imagine erecting a building with out first taking economic factors into consideration, like the expense of cement or how much it will cost to maintain it. Some might argue that science is the most important discipline because its research and development affords us the technologies which sustains us, or builds that building. True, but in the final analysis science has to rely on economics because it provides the funds that pay for it all. Economics collects and distributes the moneys and resources science needs to produce the technologies that make life possible. As for the other disciplines, they also wouldn’t be affordable if we first didn’t have our economic house in order. In today's world all disciplines are in a sense luxuries made possible by economics and the management skills and money it makes available to pay for them.
Any housekeeper understand the fundamental importance of economics in maintaining the family. It is the discipline that puts a roof over our heads, cloths on our backs and food on the table. Economics is not just about money and budgeting, it’s also about the wise use of time and resources. Because its practice is so fundamental to our survival and continuance I’ve dubbed it the husbandry of Civilization. Very little else of meaning is possible without first having our economic house in order.
The practices of economics, in some form or other, has been around since the beginning of Civilization. It was the first discipline, born of an immediate necessity. It started simply from a number of fundamental tasks of life, such as the growing and gathering of food, the organizing of households and the first exchange of goods and services. From this a pattern and a routine began to emerge in life, one meant to help ensure security, survive and continuance. This routine required a methodical and some imaginative thinking, a mindset that would become the beginnings of economics. The first economic system was traditional, so called because it was simple and followed tradition lines. For example, a son would follow in his fathers footsteps into the same profession. A farmer’s son would be a farmer . A carpenter’s son would be a carpenter. Women led traditional lives in that they stayed home, reared children and did the household chores. The higher aspects of economics were managed the same way, by a perennial ruling class.
Many things have changed the nature of economics throughout history. One big change was caused by a great plague - The Black Death, (14th-18th cc.) which killed a lot of the working population in Europe. The high death toll in cities increase demand for labor there and caused one of the greatest shifts of labor ever , from feudal farms to the cities. This shift in labor marked the beginning of the end of agrarian based economies. However, no event had more of an impact or affect on economic thinking and planning than the Industrial Revolution which began in l8th century. It was from that point that economics really began to emerge as the premier discipline.
Modern economics began to develop in the early part of the 19th century. It coincided with the emergence of a middle class which itself was an emergence of the Industrial Revolution. What the Industrial Revolution wrought to humankind needed a sophisticated management system, hence the birth of modern economics. Humankind needed a discipline that could help manage and temper the impact and upheavals of industrialization and its transformation from an agrarian society. Economics as we know it today developed not only as a means of alleviating those problems and dislocations but also for the allocation, replacement and conservation of vital recourses. Economics introduced the theories on how things could be done better, cheaper and more efficiently. It introduced the theories and practices for doing things on a mass scale.
Modern economics also has its roots in pessimism. In many respects it is a result of pessimism. One early economist, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), argued that the world’s population increase could not be sustained indefinitely. He believed that the earth’s resources were finite and that the growing demand for them would soon deplete them, leaving the human race in dire straits. He didn’t think that the food supply could keep up with human demand. I believe his dire predictions about the future of humankind is what gave this disciple its commanding stature and the jolt to find ways of managing human and natural resources better. Malthus’ economic predictions were so pessimistic that since then economics has been known as the ‘dismal science’, dismal because its responses chiefly have been due to dismal predictions.
I am sure the negativity Malthus projected provoked some major rethinking about how to economically organize things better and being more efficient. But then, this is the essence of this discipline, to react to circumstances and predictions, good or bad, and adjusts accordingly. The raison d'être of good economic theory and management is to find new and innovative ways of sustaining and maintaining humankind.
Fundamentally economics is driven by negative factors, like the worry of running out of things or not having enough. Another negative factor that determines economic policy is a natural one, thermodynamics. I would say that this is the ultimate determining factor of economics, how its orientated and put into practice. It’s the second law of thermodynamics that’s at the heart of it. Its euphemistically known as the law of entropy. It basically states that things and systems will inevitably decline and fall apart. So this means the technologies - from a hammer to a subway system - we’ve developed to maintain and sustain ourselves will in time decline and deteriorate. It also means we will run out of resources and food like Malthus predicted. However, there is one way of combating this decline and that’s through the act of renewal (the first law states this can happen under the right circumstances). And that’s where economics comes in. It’s the means of renewal. The only way to combat entropy and achieve renewal is through sound economic planning, through the good management of resources, upkeep, replacement and having the financial resources to do it.
To be continued...............
“Civilization, like leisure, is only possible after needs have been met”. The only way those needs ultimately can be met are through economic means. Civilization, then, is only really possible after certain vital economic needs have been met.
Humankind has devised many disciplines to facilitate and make life easier for itself. Without these disciplines we could not cope with or manage the complexities of our world, natural or man made. These disciplines vary. They include the disciplines of science, sociology, philosophy, psychology and history. The singular most important discipline is economics.
Economics is the most important because not much in life is possible without it. Imagine erecting a building with out first taking economic factors into consideration, like the expense of cement or how much it will cost to maintain it. Some might argue that science is the most important discipline because its research and development affords us the technologies which sustains us, or builds that building. True, but in the final analysis science has to rely on economics because it provides the funds that pay for it all. Economics collects and distributes the moneys and resources science needs to produce the technologies that make life possible. As for the other disciplines, they also wouldn’t be affordable if we first didn’t have our economic house in order. In today's world all disciplines are in a sense luxuries made possible by economics and the management skills and money it makes available to pay for them.
Any housekeeper understand the fundamental importance of economics in maintaining the family. It is the discipline that puts a roof over our heads, cloths on our backs and food on the table. Economics is not just about money and budgeting, it’s also about the wise use of time and resources. Because its practice is so fundamental to our survival and continuance I’ve dubbed it the husbandry of Civilization. Very little else of meaning is possible without first having our economic house in order.
The practices of economics, in some form or other, has been around since the beginning of Civilization. It was the first discipline, born of an immediate necessity. It started simply from a number of fundamental tasks of life, such as the growing and gathering of food, the organizing of households and the first exchange of goods and services. From this a pattern and a routine began to emerge in life, one meant to help ensure security, survive and continuance. This routine required a methodical and some imaginative thinking, a mindset that would become the beginnings of economics. The first economic system was traditional, so called because it was simple and followed tradition lines. For example, a son would follow in his fathers footsteps into the same profession. A farmer’s son would be a farmer . A carpenter’s son would be a carpenter. Women led traditional lives in that they stayed home, reared children and did the household chores. The higher aspects of economics were managed the same way, by a perennial ruling class.
Many things have changed the nature of economics throughout history. One big change was caused by a great plague - The Black Death, (14th-18th cc.) which killed a lot of the working population in Europe. The high death toll in cities increase demand for labor there and caused one of the greatest shifts of labor ever , from feudal farms to the cities. This shift in labor marked the beginning of the end of agrarian based economies. However, no event had more of an impact or affect on economic thinking and planning than the Industrial Revolution which began in l8th century. It was from that point that economics really began to emerge as the premier discipline.
Modern economics began to develop in the early part of the 19th century. It coincided with the emergence of a middle class which itself was an emergence of the Industrial Revolution. What the Industrial Revolution wrought to humankind needed a sophisticated management system, hence the birth of modern economics. Humankind needed a discipline that could help manage and temper the impact and upheavals of industrialization and its transformation from an agrarian society. Economics as we know it today developed not only as a means of alleviating those problems and dislocations but also for the allocation, replacement and conservation of vital recourses. Economics introduced the theories on how things could be done better, cheaper and more efficiently. It introduced the theories and practices for doing things on a mass scale.
Modern economics also has its roots in pessimism. In many respects it is a result of pessimism. One early economist, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), argued that the world’s population increase could not be sustained indefinitely. He believed that the earth’s resources were finite and that the growing demand for them would soon deplete them, leaving the human race in dire straits. He didn’t think that the food supply could keep up with human demand. I believe his dire predictions about the future of humankind is what gave this disciple its commanding stature and the jolt to find ways of managing human and natural resources better. Malthus’ economic predictions were so pessimistic that since then economics has been known as the ‘dismal science’, dismal because its responses chiefly have been due to dismal predictions.
I am sure the negativity Malthus projected provoked some major rethinking about how to economically organize things better and being more efficient. But then, this is the essence of this discipline, to react to circumstances and predictions, good or bad, and adjusts accordingly. The raison d'être of good economic theory and management is to find new and innovative ways of sustaining and maintaining humankind.
Fundamentally economics is driven by negative factors, like the worry of running out of things or not having enough. Another negative factor that determines economic policy is a natural one, thermodynamics. I would say that this is the ultimate determining factor of economics, how its orientated and put into practice. It’s the second law of thermodynamics that’s at the heart of it. Its euphemistically known as the law of entropy. It basically states that things and systems will inevitably decline and fall apart. So this means the technologies - from a hammer to a subway system - we’ve developed to maintain and sustain ourselves will in time decline and deteriorate. It also means we will run out of resources and food like Malthus predicted. However, there is one way of combating this decline and that’s through the act of renewal (the first law states this can happen under the right circumstances). And that’s where economics comes in. It’s the means of renewal. The only way to combat entropy and achieve renewal is through sound economic planning, through the good management of resources, upkeep, replacement and having the financial resources to do it.
To be continued...............
“Civilization, like leisure, is only possible after needs have been met”. The only way those needs ultimately can be met are through economic means. Civilization, then, is only really possible after certain vital economic needs have been met.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Liberalism vs Conservatism
When we hear the terms liberalism and conservatism we generally have a cursory idea of what is meant by them. In our rudimentary thinking we know liberalism as the domain of liberals, people who lean to the left in their politics, and conservatism as the domain of conservatives, people who lean to the right. We find these terms a convenient way of understanding and categorizing our politics. But beyond them being political labels, we really don’t know very much about these doctrines, their origins or functions.
I am fascinated by how loosely we use these terms. We like them because they are demonstrative and expedient terms. What they embody immediately defines for us people’s political persuasions and the lay of the political landscape. However, as complex ideas I find they have been over simplified and misused. Most often the terms liberal and conservative are used for shock value. Rarely are they seen as the symbiotic and interwoven mechanisms of an extremely sophisticated political system, the one we dwell in, Democracy.
In the beginning, I am thinking, all politics were conservative. That’s because humankind's fundamental instincts are conservative. Conservatism implies an adherence to tradition and a desire not to change. Change is inconvenient and painful. We would sooner not do it if we don’t have to. Hanging on to tradition and not changing things preserves the status quo and instills a sense of security. This conservative attitude was reflected in the first political systems humankind devised. One of the earliest conservative political systems was the Church and the culture of governance it spawned to preserve itself.
However, humankind could not live or thrive by conservatism alone. Humankind had individual needs and aspirations which required some flexibility in human governance. Flexibility, though, requires change, something that didn't come naturally to conservatives. In fact they were unsympathetic to it. Humans have an inherent need for freedom and recognition. Conservatives, though, were reluctant to fulfill this need for fear of loosing power and authority. They knew that free people would complain and demand accountability. So they were not inclined to fulfilling that need. Nonetheless, people began demanding it.
Sometime during Europe’s Reformation and Enlightenment period, from the 15th to the 18th century, things began to change. A swell began to build among the lay people demanding more flexibility from the conservative ruling class. There was a chorus of voices, particularly those of philosophers, urging the governing elite to loosen its grip, allowing its constituents to participate in their own governance. One philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), urged that people should also be free to peruse their own self-interests, something that had been thwarted. What he was talking about was the idea of liberty, individual liberation from the confines of the Church and state.
The demand for liberty was the beginning of liberalism. Liberty meant a measure of freedom from the state, like one having the right to own property and one’s labour or making one’s own decisions about worship or having the right to move about freely. In order to bestow liberty on individuals the governing elite had to change their ways, reform and become more flexible and yes, liberal. Liberty, then, is a product of liberalism and a liberal disposition.
Somewhere along the way the idea of liberty became synonymous with todays conservatism and not liberalism, the doctrine which originally made it possible. Conservatives were now the libertarians. In this new context conservatives view themselves as the upholders of liberty and liberals are those who are anti-libertarian, as conservative once were.
This role reversal highlights a symbiotic relationship that exists between these two doctrines: Conservatives, after a period of reflection and digestion, claim for themselves the best ideas that liberals have formulated and worked hard to entrench. Take for instance, the emancipation of women and their right to vote. Conservatives originally were against women’s emancipation. However, after a period of time, enlightened conservatives accepted this right as gospel and mainstream. Affirmative action was another liberal issue conservatives had problems with. Conservatives opposed affirmative action at the outset, but as the years passed and the subject matured they came around to the understanding that it was important for a healthy society. Science, the bestower of the technologies which support society, is also a liberal endeavour which conservatives were once against.
One point I am trying to make here is that liberals are the ones who instigate new thinking and new solutions to social questions while conservatives are generally the ones who enshrine them. Most of us are a bit of both. One thing I think you can take away from this is that it takes two to tango, two to create a workable system. Without liberals we would not have the new ideas and solutions that are needed to deal with a changing world and without conservatives we would not have the consolidators and protecters of the worthy changes liberals come up with.
I will now reveal my bias, though not an alarming one. It is one that the reader may have to puzzle over. It’s this, that the modern political world exists in the context of liberalism. In other words, conservatism exist in the context of liberalism, not the other way around. Liberalism is the wedge behind which all politics follow. If it were the other way around we wouldn't have a modern world. Nor, I am sure, would we be the multifaceted and tolerant society we are today. Nor would we be a Democracy.
I am fascinated by how loosely we use these terms. We like them because they are demonstrative and expedient terms. What they embody immediately defines for us people’s political persuasions and the lay of the political landscape. However, as complex ideas I find they have been over simplified and misused. Most often the terms liberal and conservative are used for shock value. Rarely are they seen as the symbiotic and interwoven mechanisms of an extremely sophisticated political system, the one we dwell in, Democracy.
In the beginning, I am thinking, all politics were conservative. That’s because humankind's fundamental instincts are conservative. Conservatism implies an adherence to tradition and a desire not to change. Change is inconvenient and painful. We would sooner not do it if we don’t have to. Hanging on to tradition and not changing things preserves the status quo and instills a sense of security. This conservative attitude was reflected in the first political systems humankind devised. One of the earliest conservative political systems was the Church and the culture of governance it spawned to preserve itself.
However, humankind could not live or thrive by conservatism alone. Humankind had individual needs and aspirations which required some flexibility in human governance. Flexibility, though, requires change, something that didn't come naturally to conservatives. In fact they were unsympathetic to it. Humans have an inherent need for freedom and recognition. Conservatives, though, were reluctant to fulfill this need for fear of loosing power and authority. They knew that free people would complain and demand accountability. So they were not inclined to fulfilling that need. Nonetheless, people began demanding it.
Sometime during Europe’s Reformation and Enlightenment period, from the 15th to the 18th century, things began to change. A swell began to build among the lay people demanding more flexibility from the conservative ruling class. There was a chorus of voices, particularly those of philosophers, urging the governing elite to loosen its grip, allowing its constituents to participate in their own governance. One philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), urged that people should also be free to peruse their own self-interests, something that had been thwarted. What he was talking about was the idea of liberty, individual liberation from the confines of the Church and state.
The demand for liberty was the beginning of liberalism. Liberty meant a measure of freedom from the state, like one having the right to own property and one’s labour or making one’s own decisions about worship or having the right to move about freely. In order to bestow liberty on individuals the governing elite had to change their ways, reform and become more flexible and yes, liberal. Liberty, then, is a product of liberalism and a liberal disposition.
Somewhere along the way the idea of liberty became synonymous with todays conservatism and not liberalism, the doctrine which originally made it possible. Conservatives were now the libertarians. In this new context conservatives view themselves as the upholders of liberty and liberals are those who are anti-libertarian, as conservative once were.
This role reversal highlights a symbiotic relationship that exists between these two doctrines: Conservatives, after a period of reflection and digestion, claim for themselves the best ideas that liberals have formulated and worked hard to entrench. Take for instance, the emancipation of women and their right to vote. Conservatives originally were against women’s emancipation. However, after a period of time, enlightened conservatives accepted this right as gospel and mainstream. Affirmative action was another liberal issue conservatives had problems with. Conservatives opposed affirmative action at the outset, but as the years passed and the subject matured they came around to the understanding that it was important for a healthy society. Science, the bestower of the technologies which support society, is also a liberal endeavour which conservatives were once against.
One point I am trying to make here is that liberals are the ones who instigate new thinking and new solutions to social questions while conservatives are generally the ones who enshrine them. Most of us are a bit of both. One thing I think you can take away from this is that it takes two to tango, two to create a workable system. Without liberals we would not have the new ideas and solutions that are needed to deal with a changing world and without conservatives we would not have the consolidators and protecters of the worthy changes liberals come up with.
I will now reveal my bias, though not an alarming one. It is one that the reader may have to puzzle over. It’s this, that the modern political world exists in the context of liberalism. In other words, conservatism exist in the context of liberalism, not the other way around. Liberalism is the wedge behind which all politics follow. If it were the other way around we wouldn't have a modern world. Nor, I am sure, would we be the multifaceted and tolerant society we are today. Nor would we be a Democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)