|
Traditionalist Conservatism Forum > Traditionalist Conservatism > New Political Movements |
|
| << Prev Topic | Next Topic >> |
| Author | Comment |
|
Old Guard Registered User (4/21/01 1:29 pm) Reply |
New Political Movements Three ideas for new political movements: 1. Are there any possibilities for state-based cultural and political movements? Perhaps the time is ripe for state political parties dedicated to state and local governments -- parties which are free from the ideologies and dependencies of the national parties (e.g., corporate interests). For instance, a California Heritage Party could run candidates for local offices statewide, on a platform dedicated to subsidiarity and local autonomy. 2. Fathers have been essentially disenfranchised in our system which gives a 35-year-old, home-owning, working, married father of five the same vote as a single 18-year-old sorority girl. More precisely, those whom a father represents -- his children -- have been left without proportional representation. Maybe it is time for a nationwide political movement of fathers, fighting for the interests of their families and communities. This would not be a political party but rather a politcal alliance seeking to influence public policy. 3. A revival of the old Catholic Action movement should be a long-term goal, to be pursued when the Church is healthier and the bishops are stronger. In the meantime, perhaps a Catholic political movement of the laity -- kind of like TFP, but less exclusive -- should be considered. I'm afraid that traditionalists have no choice but to organize if there is going to be any success against Leviathan. Your thoughts? Jeff Culbreath |
|
JasonEubanks Registered User (4/22/01 6:39 pm) Reply |
Re: New Political Movements Any organized political movement would surely face long odds. The leftists have managed to entrench themselves in almost every political, educational and media institution in the modern world. If that's not enough, they manipulate the populace, via these institutions, in a most brazen fashion. Surely any limited success that could be garnered by an organized traditional movement would be nullified by left-leaning judges, beauracrats,'educators' and the news media. In the end, it may well be a waste of our limited resources to pit ourselves against the modern anti-culture, which ironically, is financed by us through taxes. It would seem to me that a more successful approach would be to form an organized social movement with rejection of the modern anti-culture as the cornerstone. I envisage a semi-seperatist movement helping people with traditionalist alternatives to schools, news and information and other such things. |
|
tflippojr Registered User (4/27/01 11:25 am) Reply |
Re: New Political Movements I agree with the need of men, fathers or not, to form a national political movement. But 18-yr-old singles should also be encouraged to vote and care about their communities. Men aren't fighting for the interests of their families and communities because of apathy, not because they are hindered by the long lines of 18-yr-old, sorority girls that are try- ing to enter the polling place and join the political pro- cess. |
|
Old Guard Registered User (4/29/01 1:26 am) Reply |
To "tflippojr": Thanks for the reply. In my opinion most 18 year-olds should not be voting at all, period. Voting should be a privilege granted to those who have acculumlated a substantial degree of wisdom and life experience. The minimum voting age should therefore return to age 21. And beyond age 21, there should be further gradations in the franchise. Perhaps men ages 21-34 could be given 1/2 vote, and men ages 35 and older a full vote. This would grant the greatest influence to those who are most likely to be property owners and heads of families, with dependents, and who are most likely to have lived in one place long enough to have a personal and economic interest in their communities. Alternatively, and much more equitably, votes could be weighted according to the number of dependents in the household. A head-of-household with the responsibility for six other human beings would have seven times the vote of a single voter with no dependents. This way the interests of every citizen are equally represented in the political arena. As it stands now, my children have only one-fourth the political representation of an 18-year-old sorority girl, and that is absurd on its face. I do agree that many fathers are not fighting for their families and their communities due to apathy. Let's not be too hard on sorority girls. But the point is that fathers should not have to fight harder than sorority girls to have their political interests fairly represented. Jeff Culbreath |
|
Old Guard Registered User (5/4/01 11:49 pm) Reply |
Reply to Jason Eubanks Dear Jason, I agree with your remarks on the long odds. Though I'm intrigued by your idea of a "semi-separatist" organized social movement with traditionalist alternatives to education, etc., it seems to me that this would also face huge obstacles. Some questions: - How "separatist" would it be? Would it be American in the patriotic sense? Nationalist? Secessionist? Segregationist? - Would it be religious? Catholic? Protestant? Broadly Christian? A non-confessional "Judeo-Christian values" movement? There are a number of obstacles that seem to condemn a genuinely traditionalist social movement to obscurity from the get-go. For instance, traditionalist views on contraception, consumerism, television, rock music, and feminism will alienate 99% of so-called "conservatives" in America. So perhaps we have only two viable options (not either/or) for the present: 1) Create broad-based non-religious coalitions focused on larger issues, such as fatherhood, subsidiarity, and education, as you may have been suggesting; 2) Build "particularist" traditional communities at home without regard for the political winds. This may create something of a bulwark against liberal schemes in the long run. Traditionalists are primarily lovers of their homes, families, churches, and communities -- lovers of individual real people rather than "humanity" in the abstract -- and are therefore much better at #2 than #1. We don't know how to market ourselves to outsiders: as a result, traditionalist views never really enter the public conversation. Sometimes I think this needs to change, lest we perish. On the other hand, maybe traditionalist ideas will naturally enter the public conversation when there are more traditionalists in the public. Jeff Culbreath |
|
JasonEubanks Registered User (5/5/01 3:56 am) Reply |
Re: Reply to Jason Eubanks Dear Jeff, Excuse my inarticulate writing, when I describe a "semi-separationist movement"; I envisage a movement that partakes in some aspects of the modern world like the economy, but emphatically rejects public/governmental institutions which are hostile to Christian values. I'm stressing education, but it could apply to anything of importance. My chief concern is that we're probably wasting valuable resources attempting to change the current regime, when we should be trying to save ourselves from its rubble. It wouldn't be ideologically based. It would seek to create a series of parallel institutions based on traditional Christian practice. People would still have access to regular secular work thus eliminating the need for extensive micro business and barter networks common to full scale separatists. It would probably look like the stereotypical immigrant neighborhood sans ghettoes. The movement would almost have to be centered on Christianity, but the current state of religious sectarianism is going to make it hard for Christendom to band together do deal with the ever growing statist ideology. Agrarian society could be a potential strong point. I don't know the proper religious resolution that would address everyone's concerns. I think non-denominational religious organizations that operate on people directly should be rejected. Each church should maintain it's unique identity. But that doesn't all together rule out cooperation. Maybe together, we could create clearing houses that distribute common resources (fathering materials, textbooks, legal services etc.) at cost. This idea is not dissimilar to a farmers co-op. The menace of public education needs to be replaced with something less corrosive. For example, in the small Russian Orthodox parish that I attend, the parishioners have been discussing perhaps homeschooling their children together with curriculum ranging from Church Slavonic, Russian and German to music and classical literature. Time would be donated by college educated wives and mothers. All of it to be done in an atmosphere conducive to traditional Orthodox practice (hours, vespers, fasting and holy days all observed.) It seems that each church could draw on it's own resources to create something similar. Catholic parochial schools are certainly a viable alternative as long as they remain in the hands of traditionalists. In fact, parochial schools played a large role in maintaining Catholic solidarity in America until Vatican II. Perhaps, the idea of a religious cooperative could provide resources and training on how each parish could achieve religious educational goals. As far as attracting new members, we would have advantages of both offering religious centered institutions and the acceptance of the benefits of modern economy and education. Religious conversion will remain the focus of bringing new members into the community. I'm a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy (from Pentecostalism) and you're a traditionalist Catholic, both of which seem to do well in the religious marketplace (pardon, the euphemism), so that may not be a concern as conservative Christians abandon the crumbling mainline Protestant churches. Avoiding public education will be the key to holding the community together from generation to generation. These are just my ideas, undoubtedly they can be improved upon. Thank you for your thoughts. Jason Eubanks |
|
tflippojr Registered User (5/5/01 7:05 am) Reply |
Re: To "tflippojr": I am writing you in defense of the principle of "one man, one vote." I concede the idea that 18-yr-olds don't have the life experiences to be able to cast an intelligent vote. I would have a problem denying the right to vote to those serving in the military, regardless of their age. They have defended our freedoms many times. I believe one vote shouldn't be valued over another. Years ago, many were denied the right the vote because they didn't own property. Many were afraid if voting was increased, it would decrease their own political power. Your children are represented by your vote. You are representing your children, and your family interests. You shouldn't equal more than one vote just because you have children. They can vote when they meet your age requirements. My vote, as a single man, in no way nullifies the representation of your family. If you want to affect the process in your family's interest, there are many ways you can do it besides voting. |
JimKalb  ezOP (5/5/01 11:28 am) Reply 
|
Re: Reply to Jason Eubanks Just wanted to mention an example of something like Jason seems to have in mind, The Society of St. John. I've visited them (they asked me to give a talk) and they're a serious group. Jim Kalb |
|
JasonEubanks Registered User (5/6/01 4:43 pm) Reply |
Re: Reply to Jason Eubanks Thanks for the reference! Something like the Society of St. John is probably the logical conclusion of my idea. They certianly have developed it a lot more. There truly is no such thing as an original idea. |
|
Old Guard Registered User (5/8/01 12:06 am) Reply |
Jason: I like your ideas. And I have been fortunate to see some of them implemented. It sounds like you are already off to a good start in your Russian Orthodox church. Are most of your members converts? As Jim pointed out, the Society of Saint John has some promise. I've met one or two of their priests, and we have been on their mailing list for a little while. On a smaller scale, there are some Orthodox here in Northern California, associated with Christ the Savior Brotherhood, who have been living in small lay communities for a number of years. These communities are very humble and even impoverished -- nothing like what is envisioned by the SSJ -- but seemed to me to be rich in tradition, in love, and in Orthodox spirituality. Our own Tridentine Catholic community has a vibrant and growing homeschool organization (we also homeschool our three children), and some of the mothers have formed a "co-op" pretty much as you describe. This works out very well, with the children learning Latin, music, classical literature, as well as religious subjects. There are also Catholic boys and girls clubs in which we participate, and among them is a boys' chess club that I have recently started. The future looks promising, but the problem remains that all of this is very much "underground" and in the midst of a largely hostile cultural climate. Another problem comes to mind: with all of the work required at home and church by mothers and fathers alike, there are not likely to be very many who have the time for participation in outside activities. Jeff Culbreath |
|
JasonEubanks Registered User (5/8/01 4:50 am) Reply |
Re: Jason: I like your ideas. Thanks for the kind words! Over half of the members of our parish are indeed converts including the priest. They mostly come from the fundementalist sects which predominate Oklahoma. We also have quite a few Russian and Ukrainian emigres. This movement would be largely underground until it establishes itself and is able to reach others with traditional publications and clergy. If this movement is to succeed, clergy will have to play a large role. I agree that the time required could be a drawback to this system. I think though once the time is invested in getting a system up and running that it will prove to be self-regulating. Since it would presumably be full of zealous Christians and clergy, spending the time and energy may not be an issue. Another benefit of this arrangement is (if a wider community is established like the SSJ.) a parent could probably relax their vigilance in regards to the children, as the community would actually care about it's own. One of the problems I've come up with is that we must be careful not to disengage completely at least for the sake of the unborn. I don't think we will win the abortion debate anytime soon, but still we must argue publicly and incessantly on their behalf. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches both reject abortion out of hand, but Protestants have a tendency to become liberalized as time progresses so it may be left up to the our Churches to become the sole voice for the unborn. |
|
oldwhig Registered User (5/11/01 2:01 am) Reply |
Re: New Political Movements I quite agree that organized political action is the only alternative to the current dilemma, though the experience I've had with Southern activism has not been very heartening. There has tended to be an unusually high level of infighting within the Southern movement -- a factor that has driven many of the brighter, more articulate people either completely out or to the margins. Frankly I believe this sort of infighting is endemic to any "paleo-oriented" organization comprised of people who have very strong, very carefully thought out opinions on a great many things. One of the most thought-provoking, but sobering, books I've read in a long time is Paul Gottfried's *After Liberalism,* which, among other things, discusses the daunting obstacles facing the development of any broad-based paleo-oriented movement. As Gottfried sees it, a lot of activism will have to be "piggybacked" onto more mainstream political movements, since the left-oriented media is now so strong and reactive, it can suffocate any geninuely hardcore conservative movement in its cradle, merely by citing intolerance, racism, etc. He cites the National Front and (if I'm not mistaken) the Austrian Peoples' Party as two prime examples. We have our own experience of Buchanan. Incidentally, I think Jim Kalb was right to point out in another forum that what so many rank-and-file lack is a basic ability to respond to the left from a paleo-oriented perspective, stemming from the lack of a consistent paleo worldview. Perhaps the first step would be reaching them in order to provide with this worldview -- something Jim K. has strived to do for years through his various websites. 'Course, I've always maintained our greatest enemy is sheer apathy. Down South, people are too preoccupied with improving their golf swing or buying the next bass boat even to trifle with such things as winning back our culture. Jim Langcuster |
|
JimKalb ezOP (5/13/01 6:58 am) Reply
|
Re: New Political Movements One problem is that achievement of a view of things at odds with the one established is a big job. Take the problem of "ignorance" for example. Right-wingers are notoriously "ignorant." The reason is that what is recognized as knowledge today is expert knowledge. Experts are defined as such by their relation to the bureaucracies and media organizations that rely on them so that their activities can be well-informed and relatively thoughtful. Their expertise therefore takes a form that makes it useful to their patrons - it's explicit, publicly demonstrable, and has to do decisions and procedures that can be carried out by functionaries. Implicit and personal knowledge, and knowledge of things that transcend us and can only be expressed indirectly, is therefore excluded. They're not things you'll be taught in school or hear about from recognized authorities or on TV. In particular, tradition is excluded as a source of knowledge. To act based on such things is to act ignorantly because the action is not backed by expertise, which is the authoritative form of knowledge. A consequence is that institutions like the family, which are based on implicit and personal knowledge and on tradition, lose their legitimacy and are viewed as oppressive because they are based simply on ignorance. Ditto for standards that support the family, like traditional sexual morality. Skepticism as to the equal worth of homosexuality is "ignorant" not because it ignores any particular knowledge but because it represents rejection of expertise as the only authoritative knowledge. So we have a bit of a chicken and egg problem. We can't have a movement until people's notion of what knowledge is changes, and that can't happen until there's a social base for a different conception. Which, I suppose, is the significance of projects like that being pursued by the Society of St. John. Jim Kalb |
|
Old Guard Registered User (5/14/01 2:36 am) Reply |
Piggyback Politics This is perhaps the most realistic idea for paleo-conservative political action at the present time. We probably do not have the numbers, the momentum, or the consensus to sustain a movement of our own, but we can "piggy-back" on important issues that have support in the broader culture. Certainly, as Jason suggests, paleo support for the pro-life cause is essential since it is a vitally important culturally issue that is capable of a relatively broad coalition. Are there other issues that should attract the political support of traditionalist conservatives? I would suggest the following: 1. Anti-television. Our partners here include pot-smoking hippies, radical feminists, tree-huggers, health professionals, and ultra-conservative religious sects. But this is really a traditionalist conservative issue. Anyone who "tunes out" the popular culture and "tunes in" family and community will not be a pot-smoking tree-hugging '60s radical for long. So join TV-Free America and help organize National TV-Turn Off Week next year. 2. Anti-corportate-capitalism. Our allies here are Raplh Nader and the Sierra Club, but so what? Once again, this is ultimately a paleo-conservative issue and a necessary step towards distributism and Catholic social doctrine. 3. Anti-rap-and-rock-music. Here we have allies among homosexual activists and radical feminists, who object to the aggressive anti-gay and anti-female lyrics that is often associated with such "music". This is perhaps a good opportunity to demonstrate that an authentic traditionalist worldview is, as Mr. Kalb would agree, a humane safeguard for everyone. 4. Fatherhood. I think this particular cause is ripe for a broad-based national movement. And I do NOT mean a "father's rights" movement that is focused on the fathers themselves, but a wonderfully presumptuous "father's interest" movement that is focused on issues that are the traditional responsibilities of fathers: employment, marriage, children, education, and community. For instance, we could offer a little twist on "affirmative action": restoration of the rights of employers to exercise "affirmative action" for heads of household who are the primary breadwinners and responsible for children. Jeff Culbreath |
|
Paul A Unregistered User (6/3/01 2:08 pm) Reply |
@Old Guard Many 18yo are politically wiser and have a better judgement than some adults. There cannot be any perfect solution at all because - and this is a deeply conservative thought - we are all deferent. Or would you like to take the right to vote away from the senior citizens? Many of them are not in a mental shape anymore that they can make an independent judgement! Your idea of giving parents more votes according to the number of their children is interesting - though not new. The problem is that the more educated families usually have far less children (if at all) than the less educated ones. Here in Germany we have a great demographic problem. But in the same time we have lots of families with 4,5 and more kids drinking and living of welfare. In the U.S. the situation is surely not as bad as here, but the problem remains: imagine these ill-educated, populism-endangered etc. folks having more voting power! |
Old Guard  Registered User (6/8/01 1:30 am) Reply
|
Re: @Old Guard Dear Paul, Thank you for the reply. The average 75 year old is much better qualified to vote than the average 18 year old. There are exceptions on both ends, but we don't make laws based upon exceptions. In general, anyone who thinks himself qualified to vote -- an attitude of adolescent rash presumption -- is almost certainly not qualified. That the educated elite in your country chooses not to have many children (they are aborting and contracepting) is a sign of their decadence and a good reason to limit their franchise. Those on public assistance should not be voting anyway, so that eliminates the problem of certain irresponsible large families having too much political influence. But the working poor with many children should have political influence in proportion to their responsibilities. Kind regards, Jeff Culbreath "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." - G.K. Chesterton |
|
radovich Registered User (6/26/01 7:14 pm) Reply |
Re: Piggyback Politics Jeff, I agree wholeheartedly regarding your post on unorthodox allies to the cause of traditional conservatism. Much of what is advocated by the "environmental left" is in such close alignment with paleo values that to summarily dismiss these potential allies (as the neo-con establishment has done) is reckless in my opinion. Among our common goals are the rejection of materialism in favor of a more value-oriented social order (based on Christianity in my world-view), blatant localism with support for small family-oriented food producers, rejection of crass entertainment (your TV example), and the re-establishment of a sense of rootedness in contrast to the mercenary globalism of the mainstream "right." Naturally there are some areas of profound disagreement, most importantly the preference for a secular humanism on the part of mainstream environmentalism. Nonetheless I believe that those of us seeking a stable traditional society should explore our common interests with those who in a strict ideological sense would be considered our enemies. NDR |
|
daydreambeliever Unregistered User (7/19/01 10:52 pm) Reply |
18 yr olds voting Sir, I am 18 and I fully intend to vote in the next election. I see where your coming from but I think alot of people in general don't make an educated vote. Though you'd like to think we don't have issues we are concerned with you are wrong. I was told by my own grandmother to "shutup" because I was voicing an opinion she didn't agree with. (I'm against abortion, she isn't) I'm probably not going to change your mind, I've learned that is not an easy thing to accomplish but I hope I've at least made a point for you or someone else to consider. ----me |
|
JimKalb ezOP (7/23/01 9:47 am) Reply
|
Re: 18 yr olds voting You are right that there are lots of 18-year-olds who are concerned with political issues and lots of people of all ages who don't vote in an educated way. I don't see why individual situations matter that much though. There may be 16 year olds with an intelligent interest in public affairs and citizens of Canada who care deeply for the welfare of the United States. There are also U.S. senators who lack both qualifications. Is it unjust to deny the former the vote when the latter have so much political prominance? One man's vote isn't going to affect anything, for the voter or for anyone else. But if that's so, why look at voting as a matter of individual rights? To my mind, the question is what electorate is best for the country as a whole. Will things be run better if we only get the vote at age 25, or if we pass a test, or if we satisfy some other qualification, or on the contrary would limiting the franchise turn the voters into a special interest group rather than one representing the whole public interest? These are of course questions that can be discussed, but looking at it this way does make individual claims recede into the background, and in this case I think that makes sense. Jim Kalb |
|
BK Glyndwr Registered User (8/10/01 9:13 pm) Reply |
Re: 18 yr olds voting Yes, an interesting question...... who should vote, and for what? Perhaps it would be an idea to scrap elections for representatives altogether and substitute government by frequent referenda on specific issues, with the franchise limited to those qualified to vote by virtue of having passed some kind of fairly simple test in economics, science, history, or whatever, depending on the area or areas of knowledge with which it would be necessary to be conversant in order to be able to form a useful opinion on the matter in hand. Of course, this begs the question of who gets to decide the subjects to be voted on, the precise knowledge needed to perticipate in the vote and no doubt a few other things that have not yet occurred to me...... which I guess brings us back to the question of local democracy, subsidiarity and all that jazz. I suppose if we are to build up the kind of open oligarchy which seems to be the best guarantor of civilised values then some body would be needed to do this made up perhaps of local representatives whose loyalty is to the place and people that elected them rather than to any political party. Which is of course easier said than done :-). As to the organisation of some kind of political movement apart from mainstream 'conservatism' or white trash neonazidom, you're absolutely right.. it's got to be done. And when you take in all the groups who might pitch in against the PC status quo (and you're right about thinking creatively in this regard), I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be possible to build up some kind of 'anti-rainbow' coalition which could become at least as much of a force to be reckoned with as its illustrious predecessor and role model! (Rubbing their faces in some of their own tactics could be kind of fun too). The time, as you say, is not QUITE ripe yet, but I don't think it's all that far off either.... 2001 is an utterly different world even to 1980, and another 20 years of grinding failure and possible catastrophe makes 2020 completely up for grabs. Who knows what the dictates of political fashion will be then? You don't have to subscribe to militia-style disaster theory to recognise that the persent incumbents will have thoroughly fouled their own nest by then, and if someone's well-positioned with the right solutions to the mess they've made when even soap-opera-woman realises that things have become insupportible, then the future may not be quite so bleak as it seems right now. glyn |
|
oliverkronwell Registered User (4/6/02 9:44 pm) Reply |
A Timocratic Solution There are several ways that voting rights can be "earned" but it may be too statist for many of you. My idea is requiring service to society for a certain period of time before one can vote. "Service" can be in the realm of the following: *Military service in the defense of the nation; esp. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, National Guard, Army Reserves, or other armed service branches. *Limited civilian emergency support could also be an option--firefighting or as an orderly in a hospital, for example. *General community service in a variety of areas; city employees of all kinds, aiding the poor in homeless shelters or what have you. A system like this would have to emphasize the following: 1) A variety of options for service that can provide palatable options for even the most squemish. 2) Even the severely disabled or ill should be able to find a "service option". 3) If one does not serve the only penalty is the lack of a right to vote (and perhaps a ban from filing certain types of lawsuits?). 4) "Service hours" should be cumulative and possible at all and any time in one's life. |
|
<< Prev Topic |
Next Topic >>
|
 Topic Commands Click to receive email notification of replies  Click to stop receiving email notification of replies |
|
- Traditionalist Conservatism Forum - Traditionalist Conservatism - On to Restoration! -
| Upgrade your account to ezSupporter... |  | ...and never see another ad or pop-up again |
Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.3u
Copyright ©1999-2003 ezboard, Inc.