The conservative blog I have been reading, The View from 1776, wrote an article on hedonism. Many conservative see the world as full of evil and hedonism is one of these evils. This blog associates hedonism with liberalism which it also sees as evil and destroying society.
Admittedly, the word hedonism sounds harsh and derogatory. It sounds like something akin to cannibalism. However, fundamentally it is not evil. The dictionary describes it as the pursuit of pleasure. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with pursuing pleasure because it makes us happy.
Ironically, the American Declaration of Independence, which The View naturally supports, declares the pursuit of happiness - pleasure, as a fundamental human right. The Declaration sees it as unalienable right. So I find it ironic that The View doesn't support hedonism because it naturally follows if one pursues pleasure, if one purses happiness, which the Declaration says is a fundamentally all right, one is being hedonistic.
The View, though, doesn't connect hedonism with the pursuit of happiness. However, as I see it the pursuit of happiness is inexorably linked to hedonism. The “pursuit of happiness” idea in the Declaration was borrowed from Locke's idea about the right of the individual to pursue and own property. It was changed in The Declaration because "property" sounded unpoetic and too materialistic. However, from what I have read the pursuit of happiness means the same thing as the pursuit of property because such a pursuit leads to happiness. So for The Declaration property and happiness are interchangeable.
The View is a great admirer of Adam Smith. Smith told us about the importance of self-interest and its pursuit. Now, to my way of thinking, the pursuit of self-interest leads to and is hedonism because in that pursuit one is pursuing a pleasure and a happiness, a self-fulfillment. The pursuit of self-interest and hedonism, then, are also one in the same. Smith believed that through an ‘invisible hand’, self-interest - hedonism, inevitably converts and manifests itself into acts of good for the whole of society. So I am surprised that The View despises hedonism because perversely it ends up being good for society as a whole.
The View views the individual as paramount in America. It is constantly tells us that individualism is the foundation of America as The Declaration and Constitution intended it to be, as they proclaimed. It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, that hedonism exists in America writ large because the pursuit of individualism inevitably encourages hedonism. I don't see how one can separate the two. Individualism is the belief that one’s own interest come first and if so, hedonism is bound to follow. As I see it The View is arguing against itself.
Above all, hedonism protects the individual from the State. The View, being conservative, is constantly telling us we should be protected from the intrusion of the State. One sure way of protecting oneself from the State is to show the State who is number one. By being hedonistic, pursuing self-pleasure and interests, one is definitely showing the State just that. It comparison, hedonism was not permitted under communism. And without that basic right, the communist State trampled on all individual rights.
There is something I didn’t mention about The View. Besides being a conservative blog it is also quite religious. So it views hedonism unchristian. It believes that pursuit of happiness in The Declaration is about the pursuit of moral virtue. Therefore, it believes that America has developed and progressed into the great nation it is by pursuing moral virtue. Well, nothing could be less true. That looks good on paper but it isn't reality. America’s and humankind’s moral virtue has generally come as an after thought, developing out of first amoral behavior. In other words, humankind and America have developed perversely, from first behaving badly and doing wrong and then discovering the errors of their ways.
Let’s say that hedonism is an amoral behavior as The View believes. My argument is that without being hedonistic, pursuing self-gratification first, we would not have the foundation to develop into something better. Humans develop perversely, first pursuing their own self-interest and then realizing and becoming enlightened that one cannot only think about one’s own welfare but also that of others if one want to maintain one’s own.
Hedonism is a necessary evil, a wellspring from which better things develops. America has developed and progressed through material hedonism and the View is denying this.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Jane Jacobs as a Conservative
The View From 1776, the conservative blog I have been reading, wrote a favorable article on Jane Jacobs, about her conservatism and her desire to preserve cities. I am glad that The View wrote of her as a conservative because I think of her as a liberal.
That The View wrote about her as a conservative points to the fine line and the topsy-turvy world which often exists between conservatism and liberalism. Jane Jacobs emblematized both philosophies, depending on the social issue. When it came to the preservation of cities and neighborhoods she was conservative. What made her a liberal is her support for things like affirmative action and social justice. Most of us are like her, a bit of both, depending on the issue. People aren't as black or white as the labels of conservative or liberal placed on them imply.
The idea of conservative comes from conservation. People who conserve are conservatives or conservationists. In politics it is the same. Conservatives want to preserve the old ways. Conservatism, as one conservative commentator wrote, "is the persuasion and mentality that seeks order". Most of us seek order because it gives us stability and security. So liberals have a streak of conservatism in them because they also appreciate order and security.
Jane Jacobs, in her conservatism, wanted to retain the order of neighborhoods and cities that she felt worked well in sustaining and animating urban populations. But she didn't hold that view at the expense of ignoring social improvements that could make neighborhoods and cities better, like the involvement of minority and fringe groups in decision making. Conservatives, then and now, are generally reluctant about such involvement because it upsets the order of the day. However, conservatives have come to realize that they can't remain totally rigged and inflexible about change. Some have realized that in order to maintain a secure and stable social environment they must accept change and the input from minorities in urban and social planning. If conservatives had prevailed in maintaining the status quo the barriers between the races may still exist today and with that an eventual social instability and disorder. So to retain order conservative have had to change, to be flexible and innovative in their social planning and policies, like liberals.
In many respects Jane Jacobs behaved like a liberal rather than a conservative when she protested to preserve the inner cities. She was fighting City Hall, that bastion of perceived order. To be noticed she sometimes broke the law and was jailed. Conservatives normally don't behave that way or indulge in civil disobedience.
The View, in its anti-liberal stance, explains that Jacobs had challenged a liberal notion about how modern cities should be designed. That is what made her a conservative in their eyes, that she challenged the liberal notion that modern people should live in tall buildings, spaced far apart like in a "garden city". In between the widely separated buildings would be a network of highways. On paper this liberal planning looked very orderly and efficient, but sterile and uninhabitable. However, that this liberal notion looked so orderly, with buildings and people in their proper places, the whole concept appeared to be a conservative plan rather than a liberal one. My feeling is that if "The View of 1776" had existed in the 60's when Jacobs was battling City Hall and its planners they would have perceived her as liberal and an anarchist, intent on creating chaos, as they think liberals do today.
That The View wrote about her as a conservative points to the fine line and the topsy-turvy world which often exists between conservatism and liberalism. Jane Jacobs emblematized both philosophies, depending on the social issue. When it came to the preservation of cities and neighborhoods she was conservative. What made her a liberal is her support for things like affirmative action and social justice. Most of us are like her, a bit of both, depending on the issue. People aren't as black or white as the labels of conservative or liberal placed on them imply.
The idea of conservative comes from conservation. People who conserve are conservatives or conservationists. In politics it is the same. Conservatives want to preserve the old ways. Conservatism, as one conservative commentator wrote, "is the persuasion and mentality that seeks order". Most of us seek order because it gives us stability and security. So liberals have a streak of conservatism in them because they also appreciate order and security.
Jane Jacobs, in her conservatism, wanted to retain the order of neighborhoods and cities that she felt worked well in sustaining and animating urban populations. But she didn't hold that view at the expense of ignoring social improvements that could make neighborhoods and cities better, like the involvement of minority and fringe groups in decision making. Conservatives, then and now, are generally reluctant about such involvement because it upsets the order of the day. However, conservatives have come to realize that they can't remain totally rigged and inflexible about change. Some have realized that in order to maintain a secure and stable social environment they must accept change and the input from minorities in urban and social planning. If conservatives had prevailed in maintaining the status quo the barriers between the races may still exist today and with that an eventual social instability and disorder. So to retain order conservative have had to change, to be flexible and innovative in their social planning and policies, like liberals.
In many respects Jane Jacobs behaved like a liberal rather than a conservative when she protested to preserve the inner cities. She was fighting City Hall, that bastion of perceived order. To be noticed she sometimes broke the law and was jailed. Conservatives normally don't behave that way or indulge in civil disobedience.
The View, in its anti-liberal stance, explains that Jacobs had challenged a liberal notion about how modern cities should be designed. That is what made her a conservative in their eyes, that she challenged the liberal notion that modern people should live in tall buildings, spaced far apart like in a "garden city". In between the widely separated buildings would be a network of highways. On paper this liberal planning looked very orderly and efficient, but sterile and uninhabitable. However, that this liberal notion looked so orderly, with buildings and people in their proper places, the whole concept appeared to be a conservative plan rather than a liberal one. My feeling is that if "The View of 1776" had existed in the 60's when Jacobs was battling City Hall and its planners they would have perceived her as liberal and an anarchist, intent on creating chaos, as they think liberals do today.
Friday, May 05, 2006
A view
I have been reading a conservative blog. It is called “The View From 1776”. From that title you can imagine that it is living in the past. And it does. For instance, it believes that the American Constitution should be interpreted the way it was written, just like the Bible should be interpreted, as it was written. According to this blog the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It shouldn’t be studied or interpreted in different ways. The View believes that America was based on one idea, individualism, and not the collective. However, it sees that the collective has taken over. This is mainly what The View rails against, that the United States is descending into socialism.
One thing The View is really against is the New Deal which was introduced during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. The New Deal is ”the social and economic program implemented from 1933 to the 2nd world war to combat the effects of the great depression of 1929. It used federal funds to strength the economy and relieve unemployment, chiefly through public projects, relief to farmers and small businessmen, economic controls and labor reforms”. The View argues that this policy has trodden on the very individualism American was founded on. The New Deal was a form of economic liberalism and redistribution, which conservative sight and detest as socialism. However, the New Deal saved capitalism from itself.
Recently The View posted an article entitled “ Gasoline Price Gouging?”. The impression I got from this blog is that complaining about high gasoline prices is un-American and doesn’t adhere to the rugged individualism America was founded on. It believes that complaining about high gasoline prices shows a lack of stoicism and a disregard for the free enterprise principles America was founded on, failings which highlight the socialistic tendencies America has adopted.
The View article about gasoline price gouging starts off, "One legacy of New Deal socialism is the now unquestioning assumption that the Federal government can and ought to fix whatever problems come our way, rather than allowing the ingenuity of millions of individuals to find accommodations and solution.”
Isn’t that an exaggeration, about our expectations of government? But, then, we exaggerate to emphasis a point. The View exaggerates here is to impress upon us that the American oil companies are behaving in the true American fashion, in a way that most Americans champion and in a way that the economy depends on to function efficiently. It also exaggerates to scold us for being cry babies. After all, we should also take responsibility for high oil prices because we, as owners of gas guzzlers and being the biggest consumers of energy in the world, have helped push up prices. It is saying something to the effect that we can’t have it both ways. It is saying that without the oil companies profiting we wouldn’t have any oil or gasoline, period.
However, complaining is part of the system and Americans shouldn’t be denied their bitching. Such bitching ‘pushes the envelop’ to find alternatives and, in the sentiment of The View, to ignite the “ingenuity of millions of individuals to find accommodations and solutions”. Complaining and bitching also is part of the American way. Its purpose is to keep the government and the system accountable and transparent. Without it thinks would be worse.
It is not wrong to expect government to help fix and correct things. That is what government is for. That is why it was invented, to maintain and facilitate a healthy infrastructure. For instance, the government should have done a better job after Katrina but instead it made things worse. The people's expectation of good government management after Katrina had nothing to do with the New Deal raising people's expectations as The View would argue. Had the American people a more competent government, whose incompetence, by the way, can’t be blamed on the New Deal, the pain of Katrina would have been far less and oil prices wouldn't be so high.
Maybe there is something there. Perhaps the New Deal can be blamed for the Bush government’s incompetence, like it is blamed by The View for everything else that besets America. If the Bush administration hadn’t been so consumed with trying to undo the legacy of the New Deal, like it was determined to do, it may have been more focused and competent with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and high oil prices.
On that note, can the New Deal and its legacy be blamed for the bungling of the Iraq war by the Bush administration?
One thing The View is really against is the New Deal which was introduced during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. The New Deal is ”the social and economic program implemented from 1933 to the 2nd world war to combat the effects of the great depression of 1929. It used federal funds to strength the economy and relieve unemployment, chiefly through public projects, relief to farmers and small businessmen, economic controls and labor reforms”. The View argues that this policy has trodden on the very individualism American was founded on. The New Deal was a form of economic liberalism and redistribution, which conservative sight and detest as socialism. However, the New Deal saved capitalism from itself.
Recently The View posted an article entitled “ Gasoline Price Gouging?”. The impression I got from this blog is that complaining about high gasoline prices is un-American and doesn’t adhere to the rugged individualism America was founded on. It believes that complaining about high gasoline prices shows a lack of stoicism and a disregard for the free enterprise principles America was founded on, failings which highlight the socialistic tendencies America has adopted.
The View article about gasoline price gouging starts off, "One legacy of New Deal socialism is the now unquestioning assumption that the Federal government can and ought to fix whatever problems come our way, rather than allowing the ingenuity of millions of individuals to find accommodations and solution.”
Isn’t that an exaggeration, about our expectations of government? But, then, we exaggerate to emphasis a point. The View exaggerates here is to impress upon us that the American oil companies are behaving in the true American fashion, in a way that most Americans champion and in a way that the economy depends on to function efficiently. It also exaggerates to scold us for being cry babies. After all, we should also take responsibility for high oil prices because we, as owners of gas guzzlers and being the biggest consumers of energy in the world, have helped push up prices. It is saying something to the effect that we can’t have it both ways. It is saying that without the oil companies profiting we wouldn’t have any oil or gasoline, period.
However, complaining is part of the system and Americans shouldn’t be denied their bitching. Such bitching ‘pushes the envelop’ to find alternatives and, in the sentiment of The View, to ignite the “ingenuity of millions of individuals to find accommodations and solutions”. Complaining and bitching also is part of the American way. Its purpose is to keep the government and the system accountable and transparent. Without it thinks would be worse.
It is not wrong to expect government to help fix and correct things. That is what government is for. That is why it was invented, to maintain and facilitate a healthy infrastructure. For instance, the government should have done a better job after Katrina but instead it made things worse. The people's expectation of good government management after Katrina had nothing to do with the New Deal raising people's expectations as The View would argue. Had the American people a more competent government, whose incompetence, by the way, can’t be blamed on the New Deal, the pain of Katrina would have been far less and oil prices wouldn't be so high.
Maybe there is something there. Perhaps the New Deal can be blamed for the Bush government’s incompetence, like it is blamed by The View for everything else that besets America. If the Bush administration hadn’t been so consumed with trying to undo the legacy of the New Deal, like it was determined to do, it may have been more focused and competent with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and high oil prices.
On that note, can the New Deal and its legacy be blamed for the bungling of the Iraq war by the Bush administration?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)