Republicans- new PR campaign or actually caring?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/politics/cantor-gop-makeover/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

So what is this makeover, is it all sales or are they going to actually care about people. 

Real conservatives had a sense of duty to the people and tried to protect the common people from the worst depredations of the classical liberals.  

The real, historical right wing conservatives had political positions that the modern fake conservatives now denounce as socialist or worse.

But he original conservatives thought that the elites had a duty to protect the welfare of the general population.  It wasn’t about equalizing.   The nobility saw the protection of the masses as one of the duties of their station.  It was reinforcement or proof that they were the elite.  In some ways feudalistic thinking was better for the population than the business thinking of the industrial revolution- the masses had not been considered disposable commodities by the nobility. 

When we hear about liberals, conservatives and Marxists what we hear today is mostly garbled propaganda.

In the heyday of these ideologies, in the 19th century, the conservatives or right wing was in some ways ideologically closer to the Marxists than the liberals.

The conservatives were more aligned with the crown in Britain, old money and conservative ideals that descended from the feudal system. 

The feudal system like all systems with degrees of slavery had one thing that has always been missing from the liberal anarchist faction, a sense of duty to the lower classes.  

The liberals at that time were the business class that was usurping the power from the traditional upper class.  

“Liberal” at that time did not have the connotation of “socialist”, quite the contrary.  At the time it meant “person who uses labor at or below subsistence levels until it breaks, then disposes of it in the garbage as a waste product”. 

Classical liberalism is about business being allowed to do whatever it wanted, regardless of the consequences.  So that meant that if working 6 year olds for 36 hour shifts until they died was the most profitable way of doing business, that was what you did. 

“Conservative” has a double meaning of course that the modern “right wing”- more accurately “classical liberals”- have wanted to adopt, suggesting that they are adopting cautious, incremental approaches, which they are not, at least not with regard to economics.  

The so called “conservatives” of today are not economically conservative either any traditional sense of the word.  

They could properly be described as “social conservatives” because they are opposed to change in civil liberties for various groups, but opposing e.g. gay rights does not magically transform one into a fiscal conservative. 

The dominant present day use of the term “conservative” is a nefarious advertising tactic where you take the central defect of your product and attempt to neutralize it through branding.  

For example, “it tastes fresh because it’s frozen”.  

One that used to annoy me was “Best Buy”- maybe 5 years ago they seemed to have the worst prices around.  “Best Buy” in reference to standardized items that are identical between competing stores has the implication “best price”.  

Opposition to any regulation of business at all is an extreme, anarchistic version of classical liberalism.  Calling that conservatism is Orwellian doublespeak. 

“Liberal” also has a double meaning, which is trickier than that for “conservative”.

The general connotation of the word is about freeing people from restrictions, which may be in terms of greater economic liberty, or free speech, or anything else that might be restricted.  

It is not the opposite of “conservative” per se and some liberalisms are in conflict with other liberalisms.  For instance, are you more concerned with the liberties of workers or the liberties of corporations. 

The association of liberal ideas with racial rights, gay rights, women’s rights etc. conflicts with social conservatism.  

And classical liberals slurring Democrats as “liberals” is really about creating a kind of conflation.

Traditional Democrats are either conservatives or socialists, not classical liberals.  So why call them liberals?

Because of another nefarious advertising strategy, conflation and association.  

It makes no sense to say that you should not support Democrat economic policies  because they support gay rights and latino immigration.  

That kind of argument doesn’t hold any water if it is processed in the cortex, but if you tie the word “liberal” to base fears about different groups that are processed in another part of the brain and then anchor it to an entire platform including unrelated issues, you can get the same emotive response to the entire platform. 

It’s a brain hack.

Getting back to the article about new republican speeches, do the republicans just want to sound caring, or what are they proposing to change? 

If they adopted the true conservative duty for the elites to ensure the welfare of the masses, which is not the same as socialism, that would be wonderful.   That element in politics is sorely missed.  

Smoke and mirrors has limits.  Bush senior’s talk about caring may have helped him get one term but it was limited in impact because there was no follow-through.

Neil Young perhaps put it best:

     There’s a thousand points of light

     For the homeless man

     We’ve got a kinder and gentler machine gun hand

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: