Response to: We Need a Second Party
This article by Thomas Friedman makes a relatively new, but familiar-feeling argument. The Republican party needs to change. It's outmoded. It's conflicted. It's woefully inequiped to deal with today's realities. His criticisms couldn't be more correct. In our song A Graveyard of Elephants we offer some of the exact same arguments. He's correct as far as it goes.
Where his analysis begins to fall down is where he begins to argue that today's incarnations of Conservatisms can be salvaged. By and large, this is completely wrong. In today's America, which version of Conservatism is worth saving? Which one resonates? Which one are Americans moving toward? As Alan Wolfe so eloquently states "In this entrepreneurial, mobile, innovative, and individualistic country, conservatism was constantly on the defensive, aiming to preserve things--deference, reverence, and diffidence, to name three--that most Americans were anxious to shed." This is more true than ever.
Religious or "traditional family structure" conservatism? Religion is on the wane (recent controversies notwithstanding - study after study backs this one up.) America is becoming more secular and more accepting of LGBT rights. Birth control is used regularly. Abortion, though a perennial topic, still has broad support, and will eventually be made obsolete by better methods of birth control (permanent and side-effect free.) More people are living alone or co-habiting than ever before. Single parenthood is hardly the shocking subject it once was. Staying single for life, open marriage, non-hetero marriage, polyamory, being childfree, and various other non-traditional family/non-family structures have entered the mainstream lexicon and, while not necessarily popular, are gaining acceptance.
Market Fundamentalism, a kind of "Conservatism" *(with built in contradictions), but in its current incarnation allows massive wealth concentration and poverty? Being rejected across the board - even large percentages of Republicans have rejected our current levels of wealth inequality. From the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street, there's a rejection of this doctrine, even if some of the members of those movements don't always know it.
Other, lesser known Conservatisms will likely never be popular. Take Bioconservatism, for example. Cosmetic surgery is commonplace. We're replacing (and now growing!) limbs and organs and putting them on and inside people. How far are we from enhanced contact lenses (permanent, with AR overlays)? Implants which help us learn faster and remember more are likely to be as eagerly embraced as "smart drugs" are becoming in many circles.
So what's left for Conservatism? Only one thing really looks promising to defend: "Economic nationalism", which will mean putting America's economic growth and innovation first. This will of course mean shedding other kinds of Conservatism. Free Markets has money go wherever it's most likely to make a profit in the short term. If we're going to try to move to the next level, we'll need to take some of that "State Capitalist" medicine that China has been popping for a while. Technology investment, items with longer-term payoffs (or that may not turn a profit), 21st-century infrastructure/transportation development, initiatives for further city densification and all its attendant benefits (idea mixing, serendipity creation, etc.)
Friedman argues these things, but implies that we can do it by reinventing the Republican party - which may be true. Doing so, however, will mean jettisoning all of those Conservatisms in the process. It's Conservatism(s) against the world, and Conservatism which will need to be sacrificed.
We need big moves, big ideas, and an international, rather than domestic-focused competitive spirit. An ideology that puts American innovation at the forefront, and all the policies necessary to make that happen. That's the only kind of Conservatism left worth defending.
A hidden reason for US anti-elitism/anti-intellectualism
There are many obvious reasons for US anti-elitism/anti-intellectualism: religious/religion-influenced cultural beliefs, poor education, mass media failures, insular cultural groups that invent alternate explanations for things, and plain old ignorance. This article deals with Agnotology, or "culturally induced ignorance", which is important to understand (and deal with) in the context of this topic.
There is, however, another reason, which may be less obvious than the above. It applies to people who do, in fact, know better, but maintain laughable/ignorant/ridiculous positions about issues regardless. Let's call them "Future Policy Fearers." This brilliant comment on Less Wrong sums these people up perfectly (this particular example uses climate change/AGW, but it could be about Creationism/Evolution or a hundred other things):
"It becomes a signaling game, in which each choice of belief will be understood as exactly how you would communicate a particular choice of political move, and the costs of making the wrong political move feel very high. So the belief decisions and the political actions become tangled up.
Roughly, people have no way of saying:
'I believe that in terms of pure decision theory, the predicted AGW damage and costs of further investigation and costs of delay are high enough that mitigation attempts should start now. But I don't want to give up my {economic privileges / substantive national sovereignty / chance to get the standard of living of past carbon-emitting nations} without a fight, because I don't want groups in the future like {scientists / profit-hating hippie tree-huggers / freedom-hating U.N. environmental bureaucrats / greedy unfair first-world hypocrites} to think I'll just roll over when they try to impose concessions on me, in the name of premises that will feel psychologically as though they might just as well have been made up. In that future situation, it will be important for me to be able to credibly threaten outrage at being forced into such concessions. But as long as nobody else is going to take me for their fool, the sacrifices needed to prevent AGW are fine with me; we could start today.'
So instead, they say:
'I believe that the case for AGW isn't strong enough. I demand clearer proof.'
If it were possible to negotiate separately about AGW action and about precedents of policy concessions to e.g. scientists' claims, then you might see less decision-theoretic insanity around the AGW action question itself."
This group is just as important when dealing with perceived ignorance as those who are victims of Agnotology. Their actions and positions act as a proxy for a future power struggle, and should be understood as such.
Passing thought on the “Intelligent Design” movement
If people want to learn about these things, have them in "Crazy Speculation" class or "X Files" class or something; that'd be fine. I mean, if we're willing to go down the road of teaching Totally Baseless Theories, why not teach FlyingSpaghettism, or AliensAreKeepingUsInAPetriDishIsm, or ThisIsTheMatrixism?
The set of possible theories which don't currently have scientific evidence to back them is unlimited. We could pick any random plot from a sci-fi novel and start teach ing. it. Are we going to teach them all? Pick some at random? No? Then which subset? If they're all equally unlikely, then how can we really decide on that?
I'm a fan of the "Wild and Unsupported ideas" class to point out popular but absurd theories.
Britain no longer free
A senior teacher at a Sandwell school at the centre of a Koran burning controversy says he fears extremists may use the row as a "bandwagon".
Two weeks ago a girl, 15, was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred.
1) "Race" is a cultural construct. It has zip, zero, and nothing to do with anything scientific. Jettison this horrible term. We're talking about genetics: "biogeographic identity"/"haplogroup", or even the simpler "phenotypes" to describe "inherent" qualities are based in science and have some meaning. Race does not. Race is dead. Get the hell over it.
2) Looking at number 1), it's clear that religion, being an acquired characteristic that you choose, like favorite flavor of iced cream or favorite shirt does not fit any definition of protection against free speech. Really, there should be no restrictions, regardless of how revolting some things may sound (and be), but if you're going to attempt to have restrictions, they should not ever, ever, ever protect acquired-by-choice characteristics. Period.
We're not talking about violence. We're not talking about job discrimination. Useful rules preventing discrimination are possible (How? As long as someone's actions do not violate the harm principle, and they are fit for the job is the short version.) We're talking about speech. Nothing should be protected from criticism, re-use in art, anything. Moronic.
