Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
Mark Browne wrote:
snip Authoritarianism. This boils down to the basics of human nature. Liberals believe that people are all basically good, and if given the right opportunities, they will do the right thing. Conservatives believe that there are truly "evil" people in the world who, if given the opportunity, will rob you blind, or worse. Hence the need for an "authority" to keep those who would cause harm to others, in a place where this cannot happen. The opposite to authority is anarchy, which seems to be where liberals want to be, although I honestly don't think that they have thouroughly analyzed the scope of that mindset, or the implications. snip One of my biggest problems with authority is that it attracts the few truly "evil" to the position. You are 100% on the money with that observation Mark. Any position of power attracts these people like a flies to dog droppings. Once these "evil" people get into the these positions it is virtually impossible to dislodge them. The founding fathers on our constitiution recognized this tendancy, and that's why they created our system of checks and balances. That's also why we have things like "term limits". I noticed that Bill Clinton, of all people, has been making noise about removing or modifying that limit, as of late. I don't see much good to come from that. As long as they keep their dealings concealed from the light of day, most people are blissfully unaware that anything bad is going on. I would take that a step further and say that most people are too busy living thier lives to even look and see how things are going. This gives the scummy folks a fairly free reign to do whatever they want. Well, I would comment, that if people are too busy living their lives to see what's happening, then what is happening cannot be all that bad. In the cases of brutal dictatorships, like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein et. al., the population suffered greately under an oppressive regime. I'd say conditions like this would make people take notice. Now whether they are in a position to do something about it, is the big question. In most cases, the answer is no. Most brutal dictators are as paranoid as they are ruthless, and make sure that any form of resistance, and the means to carry it out, would be especially hard to come by. Punishment, and public examples, help to deter the thought of opposing. Some people like to think of our current administration in the same light. I think the comparison is ridiculous. If GWB is as bad as the detractors say, then he'll be history in a little over a year. That's what makes this country so great. There is a difference between being decisive, and assertive, with respect to foreign policy, and being brutal. I used to expect that most elected people are good; experience has changed that opinion. I have come to expect this subversion of authority as a part of the human condition, and look for this sort of thing from virtually any position of authority. Constant watchfulness of the elected leaders is a necessary part of democracy. I would also say that it is necessary part of being a stockholder. Succumbing to the alure of power, is a common human failing. I would have to ask, why it seems so much more prevalant today, than in times past? Or is the answer that we were too blissfully naive to notice back then? Or is the answer that much of this merely perception, fueled by those who are driven by paranoia and an intrinsic distrust of any sort of authority? Dave |