26.12.08

LINK: Being a fan of dissenting voices, as I am, I found "Baldy"'s comment on your typical Crunchy Cons post to hit some good notes (it should be the second comments):

He (not Rod, the person Rod is quoting)'s indoctrinating his child in the political myths of the day, not even giving his child a chance to learn how to think and analyze and understand, but instead, has chosen to indoctrinate in the foregone conclusions of a certain popular bit of political angst.

[...stuff I think goes too far omitted...]

I don't want to build fallacious linkages to x and y phenomenon that may not truly exist. While knowledge and history and what we think today is important, it even more important for our children to start WITHOUT presumptions that could turn out to be false. To give our children a background woven with things we don't REALLY know, pretending it is psychic truth or something, we're destroying the things they can count on, when those things are proven false in the future.


Part of the appeal of conservatism, as I understand it, is that it guards against precisely this line of thinking. The way things are now is not always the way things must be: it's left to revolutionaries and radicals to argue that we have entered a new historical moment that requires significant change in our understanding of how to live. Conservatism gives some resources to resist credulity, and the idea that the proper solution happily lines up with one's favored policies. The dangerous consequence of this line of thinking is to hear only those pieces of evidence that confirm one's way of thinking, and never those that would suggest some other understanding. Rod was mocked, a few posts below this, for having claimed several times that he was going to "lay in" extra supplies of rice and beans, etc, for the coming crisis, and rightly so: conservatives should know better than to buy in so quickly to a convenient disaster scenario.

(though I do think, here as elsewhere, what gets blamed for our current decline is revealing, but more about this later, perhaps)

No comments: