This is a subject I long ago should have posted about. It started to come up again as I posted comment to Wayne’s topic “Don’t Be Conservative”.
The point I want to open for discussion here is just what is a conservative. Each person’s answer is rather subjective and based upon their experiences and observational perceptions. To open this up I should make the point that I”ve long realized and NEVER seen observed by anyone else in my over 8 years of posting to ‘net political forums the points I’ll make.
One may fairly observe that in this country we have a great need to generalize political belief. It’s necessary so as to define positions and understand with whom we agree and whom we disagree. And thus the debate is engaged, ideally for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. I think it’s also fair to observe that one usually sees conservatives referred to by themselves and those generally perceived as “the left” as “conservative”, or “fiscal conservatives” or “social conservatives”. Of course there are some latter day references like “neo-conservatives” also, but those three fit the common generalization of contemporary pidgeon-holing categories. Just to tickle your brain engrams a bit ponder upon this.
Why is it you’ve NEVER heard the opposition, liberals, broken up into similar categories of “fiscal” and “social” distinction? If the shoe fits for the right why isn’t the left wearing it too?
Breaking conservatives into two camps of descriptive is a way to divide and conquer with great subtlety so noone comprehends what is actually going on! If one is a conservative, he/she is not a partial or sometimes conservative. One can be conservative and have differing social and fiscal viewpoints and still be tolerated within the conservative community. The liberal community has a pervasive agenda of usurping this very system and therefore has no tolerance for those who opine with “off-the-reservation” opinion.
I submit that the answer closely resembles a Roor-back. That, admittedly arcane usage, is used to describe a damaging report or influence circulated for political effect. The progressive liberal insurgents in this once great nation have been at their pro-active divide and conquer agenda for many years.
In the early-mid 60s, when my kids were in elementary school, that influence was manifested in the subtle seduction of parents to accept a “progressive” attitude that would allow the schools to accept a curriculum designed about each student’s ability to learn, rather than meeting a set curriculum standard that had sufficed and served us well for almost 200 years. They knew that parents with children quick to learn would appreciate giving those kids their ‘head’ so-to-speak and allowing a curriculum that allowed them to advance at their own rate. Those parents were always fed glowing reports of fine performance, which of course made their hearts glad. And parents of those kids with learning difficulties would appreciate the “special treatment” such afforded and they were told how those kids were bonding to other kids to gain a sense of “inclusion” and who, in the spirit of “empowerent” were being influence by “diversity” as contrary cultures and economic groups merged. Those descriptive codewords defined the agenda. It was a seduction, because it appealed to all for differing reasons and would allow the future perversion of the curriculum for political motivation to move on forward. And, believe me…IT HAS!
So much so that today a progressive liberal theology permeates every level of the educational system well up into the college level. To think that this is a manifestation of some sort of political paranoia is to be near criminally shortsighted. Our American education system didn’t simply morph into a political tool of perversion by coincidence. I have a habit of saying that when opinion can place the footprints of Machiavellian influences in the snow, then conjecture is elevated to a very distinct and “reasonable” possibility. Now we have the academia elite, most teachers, public school worker unions, most elements of the lamestream media…all aligned against the best interests of this nation by using education to foment a political agenda to which the Fourth Estate has signed on to with glee.
I invite your comments.