|
Traditionalist Conservatism Forum > Traditionalist Conservatism > Tradition and Concrete Politics |
|
|
Page 1 2 |
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >> |
| Author | Comment |
|
JimKalb ezOP (2/23/01 9:41 am) Reply |
Tradition and Concrete Politics I think of traditionalism as mostly an intellectual movement, more one that ought to happen than one that actually exists. When liberalism absolutely dominates public discussion, so that nothing at odds with it can be seen as rational or well-meant, it's hard to defeat it or even slow it down. So I think that making a principled contrary case could be surprisingly effective. There's also of course the traditionalism of private life. In addition though we all have a day-to-day public role as voters and so on. So are there any specific parties, causes, issues and so on that traditionalists should support and be active in? Jim Kalb |
|
redneck penguin Registered User (2/23/01 11:56 pm) Reply 
|
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics Speaking only from my own experience activity in political parties has never been especially fulfilling so I prefer grassroots activities. I am a Southron nationalist mainly and my activities at the moment are centred around that activity. I give speeches and what-not to school classes offering a non-peecee view of the War of Southron Independence to the kids and to anyone who will listen really. I reckon it all depends on what activity you are pursuing really. We need to work on building strong families andfor strong families one needs a strong basis in faith, and that entails church. I also favour anti-immigration anti-feminism and anti-nature-nazi causes... The Redneck Penguin. Deo Vindice. Resurgam |
|
JimKalb ezOP (2/24/01 6:25 am) Reply |
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics Sounds good. Are you a member of the League of the South? Are there other organizations that are doing much in the area? Jim Kalb |
|
redneck penguin Registered User (2/24/01 10:26 am) Reply
|
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics We have quite a few organisations working on Southron culture and nationalism but none of them are very large. I think the League is about the largest and it only has a thousand or maybe two thousand members. It seems anymore that any halfbaked twit is starting a pro-Southron group only to fail in six months or a year. The Redneck Penguin. Deo Vindice. Resurgam |
|
JimKalb ezOP (2/24/01 1:19 pm) Reply |
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics I think that's right. There aren't any large rightwing organizations, everyone wants to set up his own. Maybe that's the curse of particularism. I notice you've picked up on the British spelling though, which I suppose is a concrete way of flying the flag. How's the response to Southern nationalism or whatever version you favor? Jim Kalb |
|
William Wleklinski Registered User (2/24/01 3:42 pm) Reply |
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics I'm not sure why you think that making a "principled contrary case could be surprisingly effective", given the liberal dominance you describe. That's not to say such a case should not be made; I'm just unclear about the basis for what appears to be your cautious optimism. As to causes for traditionalists, consider the activism of groups of conservative alumni of colleges and universities. In the case I know best, it was first necessary for a few students, several years ago, to start an alternative, conservative campus magazine. Then, a small group of alumni began to rally around it. Not that we've moved heaven and earth, but we have established small institutions and have a voice in an otherwise hostile setting. Of course, this has meant working with libertarians and moderates who nevertheless have traditional ideas about liberal education. WW Edited by: William Wleklinski at: 2/24/01 3:53:37 pm |
|
JimKalb ezOP (2/24/01 5:07 pm) Reply |
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics The thought is that liberal dominance rests on the unavailability of any other outlook. The function of PC, sensitivity training etc. is to keep other outlooks unavailable. Liberalism has to keep up the appearance of open discussion while suppressing the substance, since the arguments for liberalism today aren't what they were. That's not easy. To the extent all that is true then insisting on some other outlook could knock out one of the major props of liberalism. Your activity in starting an alternative publication is an example of the sort of intellectual activism that if duplicated often and everywhere could I think change things. Jim Kalb |
|
redneck penguin Registered User (2/24/01 6:08 pm) Reply
|
Re: Tradition and Concrete Politics The response? As in from the folks I talk too? Oh I dont know... politely disbelieving I guess would be a good way to describe it. Southerners have spent several generations living on the 'stools of everlasting repentance' and things like 'Black History Month,' which portrays our ancestors as the bad guys, have warped the thinking of the South. I have had to take the teachers in some of the classes in which I have spoken to the university library to prove that what I said was not a bill of goods. I try to do my deed for Dixie everyday, hoping that my kids will someday be free or at least be respected for being Southron. Yes, I do use the Oxford orthography as do many Southrons. It is one of the ways to distinguish ourselves from the Yankee non-culture. Oddly enough when I was in school (I am 34 years old) they taught us to spell using a u in neighbour honour colour etc etc. That gray is properly spelled grey and on Friday nights we take our best girl a-courtin over to the theatre. Now my kids, just 20 years or so later, are being taught the Websterian orthography. I dont know for sure but I think the South hung on to the Oxford style largely because of the King James Bible which is still the most popular around here. I am not sure of it's importance. The League of the South seems to think it shews that we are indeed different from our northern friends. The Redneck Penguin. Deo Vindice. Resurgam Edited by: redneck penguin at: 2/24/01 6:11:00 pm |
|
LivingType Unregistered User (2/27/01 2:29 am) Reply |
AntiFeminism I too, am an anti feminist, thats one of the reasons I converted to Islam. And yes, traditionalism is mostly an intellectual rather than political party, even though it should be more |
|
Manawyddan Registered User (2/27/01 6:08 am) Reply |
on coexistance The unprecedented rise in communications has pushed all traditions together. At the same time, a strong anti-traditional ethic has emerged. The survival of traditions under these conditions requires both space, to preserve the distinct aspects of traditions, and a common ground, if only to make an economic life possible. Finding a way for multiple traditions to share a space, while preventing anti-traditionalists from annihilating them all, represents the greatest political challenge to traditionalist conservatives. |
JimKalb  ezOP (2/27/01 6:10 am) Reply 
|
Re: AntiFeminism I take it you are in Europe? There seem to be many educated converts to Islam there. Most of the ones I know of seem to be attracted to Sufism, perhaps because it is esoteric and mystical and so presents an alternative to the absolutely public, demonstrable and this-worldly modern world. Also I suppose because all it is supported by a definite public law and system of life. I speak as an outsider though. Could we continue the discussion of anti-feminism in the forum on Sex and Gender at pub54.ezboard.com/ftradit...forumfrm4? Jim Kalb at: 2/27/01 6:11:58 am |
|
JimKalb ezOP (2/27/01 7:29 am) Reply
|
Re: on coexistence The obvious precedent is the traditional middle east, where various traditions lived cheek-by-jowl and survived by withdrawing into separate walled inward-turning communities ruled collectively by some dynastic despotism. Not ideal, but better than perpetual MTV, and maybe we'll end up with something similar. Jim Kalb |
|
Manawyddan Registered User (3/1/01 6:16 pm) Reply |
more about coexistence As a matter of practical politics, what size of community do you regard as necessary need to establish and maintain your traditions? What degree of autonomy do you require? What powers to ensure the well-being of all members of a society would you concede to a central government? On what grounds do you expect a dynastic despotism to dominate the "empty" public square? Do you consider despotism desirable, and if not, what system would you prefer? |
|
JimKalb ezOP (3/2/01 7:47 am) Reply
|
Re: more about coexistence This really isn't anything that can be planned. The thought is that if the public culture is all-intrusive but can't sustain life because it can't support non-hedonistic standards then separatists - people who put up barriers around the way they live high enough to keep out TV, public education etc. - will be at an advantage. They will be the only ones with functional families raising socialized children in sufficient numbers to carry forward a coherent way of life. What works prevails, so eventually groups of such people would become dominant. Such people of course would not participate in public life. That's what would define and save them. So in the public sphere you would basically have pursuers of private satisfactions, lumpenproletarians, self-seeking careerist yuppies, and maybe a few idealists, whose idealism could be no more than a personal quirk. I don't think that's enough to sustain a free government. It's not a matter of preference. I prefer the Western type of society with a free government and active public life. I just doubt such a thing can continue to exist. Dissolute multicultural empires are not free societies. The question then becomes how a somewhat tolerable life can be carried on under such conditions. Jim Kalb |
|
Manawyddan Registered User (3/2/01 4:49 pm) Reply |
coexistence and practical politics This brings us back to the question of practical politics. The practical problem with specific society-wide standards remains the same: we have no consistent basis for them. Speaking of "tradition" obscures the basic conflicts between different traditions, in both theory and practise. Christian and Islamic tradition, for example, could not adopt a common public standard of sexual morality, since Western Christianity disallows polygamy, while Islam accepts it. If only evolution will solve this issue, I see no basis for political action, and therefore no reason for political discussion. Which brings us to two questions: do you have a political program? If so, what? If you do not have a political program, and merely wish to recommend a set of public moral standards fostered by informal means, how do you propose to reconcile the different traditions? Do you believe an essential "core" of morality exists? |
|
JimKalb ezOP (3/2/01 6:35 pm) Reply
|
Re: coexistence and practical politics The discussion has wandered a bit. We have just been talking about likely long-term consequences if current trends continue. Those trends are long-standing and powerful, so they have to be taken seriously. The point of concrete political action though is to provide an alternative. Obviously traditions differ. Particular standards are necessary for any actual society, though, and some particular tradition must be at the base of any particular set of standards. One could have a Christian society, an Islamic society, or a contemporary liberal society (if you ignore for the sake of discussion the intrinsic incoherence of such an arrangement), but not one that is all three or even one that satisfies the demands of two of the three. Every society therefore must have some dominant tradition. The arrangement of which I was just speaking, the traditional Levantine arrangement of inward-turning ethno-religious communities ruled by a dynastic despotism, is less a society than a collection of nonterritorial societies. Liberalism is a tradition like any other, one that like all traditions claims authority for its own particular standards. It also claims to provide universally tolerant metastandards but that's obviously an illusion. It just buys its standards a sort of invisibility at the price of vacancy. To the extent one prefers public life and a free society, which I do, he will therefore work toward a society in which a particular substantive tradition is dominant, or at least in which a family of traditions is dominant with their conflicts mitigated by a federal scheme. In America I think that means a Christian society. The alternative is a purely liberal society, which I don't think can remain free because the moral vacancy of the public sphere won't support political life. Naturally you can't simply force a Christian society into existence. However, the standard extreme-right agenda would help: 1. Repeal of equal opportunity laws would permit cultural standards to have authority in particular places and within particular institutions even when views on such things differ among various groups within the society. 2. Ditto for state's rights, greater local control of schools, greater subsidiarity generally. 3. Cutting back on welfare and state education would increase the practical necessity of family ties, and family is the fundamental vehicle for transmission of substantive tradition. 4. Restrictions on immigration would limit diversity and allow the various groups already here to accommodate themselves to each other. 5. Tariffs and other restrictions on participation in the world market would also encourage those already here to establish connections to each other and otherwise work together. 6. Abandonment of world empire would reduce the need for centralization and permit government to be more responsive to the people. 7. Getting rid of enforced secularism goes without saying. All these amount - in various ways - to fighting the universal rational hedonistic egalitarian empire. Concrete enough for you? Jim Kalb |
Manawyddan  Registered User (3/5/01 1:24 am) Reply |
Re: coexistence and practical politics I find your proposals quite concrete enough. I also note that they seem very close to the platform that got Patrick Buchanan almost 1% of the votes in the last US election. May I suggest that your proposals ignore a major opportunity for advocating a change that might actually move the country in the direction you want? At any rate, I suggest you have an opportunity to give people the opportunity to choose a more "traditional" economic structure. I speak, of course, of the current discussions about the so-called "death tax". Inheritance taxes (in their present form) discriminate against small family businesses by breaking them up every generation. In doing so, they encourage business conglomerates which have an economic function but do not transmit values or provide personal support to anyone. For the first time since the industrial revolution, the development of the internet has actually provided an opportunity to move the focus of production back toward the family (where "traditional society placed it), and away from the integrated corporation. If you don't restore economic function of the extended family, I don't see how any of your other proposals can possibly work Edited by: Manawyddan at: 3/5/01 7:32:53 am |
|
JimKalb ezOP (3/5/01 7:59 am) Reply
|
Re: coexistence and practical politics Oh, I'm perfectly happy with repeal of the inheritance tax. Don't see anything wrong with a platform that won 1% of the vote in the last election though. It's important to keep carrying the flag. In national politics the most important single thing just now is to broaden the range of considerations, arguments and issues that can be raised. Minor parties can do that. Would I be better off with no voice at all speaking for me? Jim Kalb |
|
Manawyddan Registered User (3/5/01 10:56 am) Reply 
|
Re: coexistence and practical politics The repeal of the inheritance tax can take any number of forms, most of them indifferent or slightly hostile to the traditionalist position. If neoconservatives pass the inheritance tax cut on neoconservative grounds (i.e. traditional economic "liberalism"), they'll do more to preserve large fortunes and trust funds than to help family businesses. Eliminating inheritance tax by itself won't necessarily promote your values, but the discussion about eliminating the tax might well give you an opening to introduce your idea of a smaller, more traditional base for the economy. It seems to me that you can't rally very many people behind the "big ticket" program you outlined. If, on the other hand, you want to see a more humane and small scale society, you'll find some unexpected allies |
|
JimKalb ezOP (3/5/01 3:22 pm) Reply
|
Re: coexistence and practical politics Glad to see you're getting into the swing of it with snappy logos, etc.  My offhand prejudice would be to have a very high inheritance tax exemption, $10,000,000 or so, or say some floating amount determined by reference to the size of the 1000 largest fortunes. Maybe that kind of provision would have the effect of legitimizing expropriation of large fortunes, though, which could be the wrong principle to establish. Nothing I've ever thought much about. I certainly agree than in isolation inheritance tax repeal or reform wouldn't do much. It does seem to me important though to maintain the principled big ticket platform as a possibility. More possibilities makes politics more spacious, and paves the way for smaller and more realistic things. Jim Kalb |
|
Manawyddan Registered User (3/7/01 12:29 pm) Reply
|
Re: coexistence and practical politics Whether or not you find the "big ticket" program more "principled" than the process of building coalitions around smaller measures depends on your principles. It also depends on your view of the goal. If you want, first and foremost, to build a society which will allow you to live according to your traditions, you probably want to focus on the establishment and preservation of small (family) scale institutions. Such an approach seems to me more in line with conservative skepticism about big government and big government initiatives. Such an approach also permits you to preserve institutions friendly to your traditions without harming other people's. |
| Page 1 2 |
<< 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.