Conservative Father Morality

[Rawthentic]

I have recently been reading a book called, Dont think of an Elefant! by George Lakoff. It describes what he calls the strict father morality of the conservatives and how it entices everything they do. It all starts with the family, where they say the father is the authority. The father knows right from wrong and knows everything. If a child disobeys, then they are strictly punished and hit. This way they think think that the child will be disciplined in life and will have the prosperity that corresponds to them. It is connected with capitalism, which they say that if they are correctly disciplined, they will pursue their own profit which will eventually rain down on all people. They are completely against "do-gooders," who they say help other people out instead of pursuing their own interest which screws up their system. In terms of imperialism, we always hear of underdeveloped countries. Well the US is like the father of these "children". The countries need to be developed correctly(to US special interests) so that they will be prosperous. If they disobey, they are given severe economic sanctions. When the the Bush Administration refused for permission to go to war in Iraq from the UN, Bush said, "we do not need a permission slip to defend America." No what does this bring you back to? Maybe to those elementary school days where you had to have a permision slip to go to the restroom or the principals office. Bush felt like he was being put in a position of being a child. But God forbid! We are the daddy! That is why they didnt want permission to go to war. Now in terms of poverty, they beleive that poor people are poor because they werent disciplined correctly and therfore are immoral and deserve to be poor. The think the opposite for the rich. They believe that the rich are rich because they aree good, moral people and they deserve to be rich because they pursued thier own self-interest. In this view they support the separation of rich poor because the poor are bad and the rich are good so they deserve to be on top of the social ladder. Same goes for the poor and our suffer social programs. The conservative rich do not contribute money to the poor or social programs because it is against their values. They beleive that if they give away money to th poor or social programs, they do not deserve so they would be committing something bad. If they did give away money, the poor would become dependent and therefore immoral. They also believe that the world needs a strong, strict father because the world is evil and their is so much competition and their will always be winners and losers. Babies are naturally born bad in the sense that they do what they want and feel, not what is right. In Bush's State of the Union Address in 2004, he said he would cut the deficit in half by doing away with "wasteful spending", which of course means our "immoral" social programs. They are against nurturance and care. They are aginst the social programs that take care of ur people. The scary shit is that they wholeheartedtly beleive that. They have supporters around the country that apply thier strict father morality in family and in politics. :( :o :ph34r:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria
The scary shit is that they wholeheartedly believe that.

Maybe.

You see, we can't see "inside people's heads" and determine accurately "what they really believe".

Patriarchal rhetoric has become more fashionable than it used to be...but is that because our ruling classes "really believes it" or simply think it is a useful tool to gain public support for their agenda at the present time?

Trying to trace the "psychological roots" of ideologies is a task fraught with difficulties. It does seem to be established that authoritarian child-raising practices strongly tend to produce a new authoritarian generation.

But it doesn't "always work" like that.

My own impression is that the capitalist class, when young and energetic, was passionately devoted to reason...whereas now, it seems to be "drifting" towards unreason. The endless pursuit of ever-increasing profits was once, in their eyes, a rational goal to be achieved by rational means.

Now, the idealist fantasies of a Leo Strauss appear to have more appeal; the American imperial adventure in Iraq may have been profitable for a few companies with close ties to the Bush regime...but for American imperialism as a system, it has been a catastrophic financial loser.

And that doesn't look like it's going to change; Iraq is beginning to look like it's on the verge of total "melt-down" as an organized society.

Oil cannot be pumped in such an environment at all.

Thus it's not beyond possibility that the "Father Morality" expressed by the Bush regime is a further reflection of their retreat from reason.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

I know this is a bit off topic, but....


Originally posted by redstar2000
Now, the idealist fantasies of a Leo Strauss appear to have more appeal; the American imperial adventure in Iraq may have been profitable for a few companies with close ties to the Bush regime...but for American imperialism as a system, it has been a catastrophic financial loser.

Do you really think Strauss was an "idealist." From what I've read Strausses theories seem to be the most coherent and rational ruling class theories for a long time.

If anything, I think it's the "Straussians" who have "mucked up" and not Strausses theories. After all, they have managed to create a mass movement of sorts, that follows them even though they have no intention of "obeying" the movements wishes.

On a side note, I did read that Strauss had "borrowed" the concept of the elite vanguard of Capitalism from Lenin. When proto-fascism, brutal capitalism and Leninism combine, the results aren't pretty. :o :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
Do you really think Strauss was an "idealist"?

My knowledge of this obscure academic comes from here...

"Ignoble Liars -- Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception" by Earl Shorris in Harper's Magazine, June 2004. Unfortunately, Harper's has apparently not put the article itself online yet.

According to Mr. Shorris, Strauss was most heavily influenced by Plato...and indeed deserves to be considered a legitimate "neo-Platonist". He pretty much rejected the entire corpus of philosophy developed during and after the "Enlightenment"...and, in fact, considered the Enlightenment to be a "human catastrophe".

So that's the limit, more or less, of what I "know" on the subject. :P

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

"Ignoble Liars -- Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception" by Earl Shorris in Harper's Magazine, June 2004. Unfortunately, Harper's has apparently not put the article itself online yet.

I'll have to keep an eye out for that.

Though from what I gather, neither George Bush snr. and jnr. could be said to be "Straussians" or "neo-conservatives."


According to Mr. Shorris, Strauss was most heavily influenced by Plato...and indeed deserves to be considered a legitimate "neo-Platonist". He pretty much rejected the entire corpus of philosophy developed during and after the "Enlightenment"...and, in fact, considered the Enlightenment to be a "human catastrophe".

That is interesting. From what I've read (and seen on TV) Strauss and the "young Straussians" based most of their theories on the so called "collapse of Liberalism" during the 60's.

Indeed if I'm not mistaken Strauss himself was a "liberal" at some point, I know most of the current "Straussians" were former "liberals." Reminiscent of the way many Socialists in the 20's and early 30's "took to" fascism. (Mussolini, Mosley etc.)


So that's the limit, more or less, of what I "know" on the subject.

If it's online somewhere, you might want to watch "the Power of Nightmares." It's a fascinating three part documentary on "America's war on terror" and the first part talks a lot about the "rise of Strauss."

It certainly made me want to read a bit more on the subject.

[UltraLeftGerry]

Redstar2000
According to Mr. Shorris, Strauss was most heavily influenced by Plato...and indeed deserves to be considered a legitimate "neo-Platonist". He pretty much rejected the entire corpus of philosophy developed during and after the "Enlightenment"...and, in fact, considered the Enlightenment to be a "human catastrophe".

This is quite troubling. We could, in the past at least rely on the bourgeoisie for being relatively rational and following some kind of path from the enlightenment. Capitalism, if we are correct that it will ultimately collapse, must be quite close given how far its gone and how it is in all relations and ideas of society. As capitalism reaches its peak, the irrationality of the ruling class will increase.



Patriarchal rhetoric has become more fashionable than it used to be...but is that because our ruling classes "really believes it" or simply think it is a useful tool to gain public support for their agenda at the present time?

I think Marx thought that the ruling classes believed what they said. I think he had mentioned he had sympathy for these people who were caught up in the entire system. That being said, there is evidence especially among the writings of bourgeois intellectuals that they recognize things like religion is important not because Jesus is real but because it is important to a stable bourgeois society. I think there is a mixture of both among the ruling class. They certainly fear communism, but they also probably believe it is not possible. Just as bourgeois and aristrocratic thinkers in the 18th Century said any kind of economic organization for society would be impossible without slavery. I have a hard time beliving that every member of the ruling class who claims to be religious just goes through the motions. Some bourgeois deep down recognize "oh this shit is just to keep the rabble in line" but at the same time the American ideology that so strongly features christianity can inspire Christians to align with those cynical rulers who use religion as a tool.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What the "ruling class" does or doesn't believe, is like redstar said, a mystery. However the "speculation" did remind me of something I read yesterday.


Originally posted by Johann Hari
Lord Salisbury - Disraeli's successor - left behind a very different vision of Conservatism. He was a sour, dour depressive aristocrat, born to one of Britain's richest families, and he stood for the protection of raw class interest. He was in politics to defend the already-powerful and already-rich from any competing claims. In the 1860s, Salisbury read Marx, and - as his biographer Andrew Roberts puts it - "he agreed entirely that a class war was being fought. They only differed on who should win."

(Emphasis added.)

Link (http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=744).

It's not really relevant to this thread, but it is quite rare to actually gain an insight into what the current or former "ruling class" thinks or thought about classes and class war.

The rest of the article isn't that bad either.

[Monty Cantsin]

The Philosophy of Leo Strauss (http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=127&mode=&order=0&thold=0)

[celticfire]

This topic is something I've dug into a lot recently. I think there is much to to say on the correlation on parenting and superstructure. Dr. Spock is a famous radical lefty of his time, though I found a few of his things to be a little too extreme, (try 'reason' on a 16 month old who found your Marx/Engels Reader and is now coloring in it, and calmly ask her to stop...it doesn't work...I tried!) But I agree with his perspective, it reminds me a lot of Maslow's.