Originally Posted by
Magn
Page 16:
"If the economic purposes of civil society are established only by international money markets and the social purposes defined by the religious right in both Canada and the United States, there would in fact be little need for substained, broadly embraced, and meaningful political debate. Inoxerable universal laws would render politics obsolete. And those on the extreme left and right would celebrate as their ultimate victory the death of politics. There would be no need for dissent, compromise, common ground, tolerance, or for putting water in one's wine.
One of the problems in the evaporation of civil debate has been the approach of moral annihilation taken by the far right. One's opponents are not simply of a different view, but somehow are not up to the accepted standards - set, of course, by the far right itself."
Page 17:
"Such a politics, or non-politics, substains the self-righteous nature of narrowly held extreme views. Republicans in the United States and Conservatives in Canada are, especially when in opposition, attracted to the clarity and simplicity of one-dimensional, simple answers to complex problems. They mouth the ritual incantations of lower debt, no deficit, less government, higher profits, greater productivity as if mere repetition will bring happiness and deliverance for all people. This is not conservatism.
Conservatism is about the organic nature of society - the linkage between family, freedom, tolerance, civility, economic pursuit, law, order, tradition and opportunity. It is about seeing any society as a living, breathing body with different needs, opportunities and relationships. It embraces values about human nature and the need for structure that restrain the worst and liberate the best in people across the social spectrum. It embraces the core view that duty, responsability, and order are the non-negotiable foundations upon which genuine freedom and opportunity are built."
Page 22:
"They could have focused on the ongoing challenges of the race issue, growing levels of poverty and illiteracy. Instead, and not surprisingly, their muscular rethoric, previously aimed at Soviet adventurism and third world fellow travelers, was trained on the new enemy - American moderation.
All the evils of contemporary American reality - crime, debt, social program waste, or dysfunction - became the fault of moderates among both Democrats and Republicans. The attack on moderation became synonymous with neoconservative rhetoric.
And so, as if for lack of an external enemy, neoconservatives turned their rhetoric on the moderate policies of coalition politics. This was aided and encouraged by middle class and boomer angst, by media fragmentation that produced purely political and evangelical specialty channels, and by the scourge of the Political Action Committees and right-wing foundations that engaged in tax deductible advocacy activities well beyond the meaning of philanthropy."
In more simple terms, Rockie, I think the author is telling you that you're helping to screw up your country by trying to apply overly simplistic, generic solutions to a wide variety of complex issues.
I think he got a fair point and you should be paying more attention to various complex social dilemmas by making your own mind about them, on a case-by-case basis rather than falling back on well reharshed rethorics or on party lines.
