Not specifically about this study, or poll. But I do regard ANY poll to be at risk of "push polling" by the manner, order, phrasing, context, and origin of the questions.
That’s true. Here I believe they’re right, though. We think of the past as conservative because we are changing away from how things used to be. But the past is what gave us FDR, LBJ, the Progressive Era and the Great Society. The past is when Jim Crow was overthrown and desegregation occurred.
So it shouldn’t surprise us to realize that theoretically people were always mostly willing to support a female president; the right woman just hadn’t been developed and gotten through the machinery yet. Etc.
We think of the past as conservative because we are changing away from how things used to be. But the past is what gave us FDR, LBJ, the Progressive Era and the Great Society. The past is when Jim Crow was overthrown and desegregation occurred.
And the prior past had liberalism holding out for limited government and conservatism holding out for monarchy.
Moral principles don't change. How we try to implement those principles--conservatism/liberalism--changes over time. The labels themselves--Conservative/Liberal--change much more rapidly. And disjointly.
Well, let's say a man in his 20s advocates for radical changes in society and so is a radical. But by his 30s his movement has achieved a lot of his goals and he's merely liberal, wanting to make some more changes but nothing radical. Then in his 40s his movement has pretty much achieved its goals, but now the next generation of radicals wants to make bigger changes which he opposes. So he's conservative. Then by his 50s the younger radicals have shifted society way too far for his ideals and he's a reactionary.
One person, one set of principles, but depending on the social background / decade, he's a radical, liberal, conservative, or reactionary.
I’m not sure what’s meant by the past is not conservative.
The past didn’t conserve equal rights—it gave us Jim Crow. The past didn’t conserve national boundaries—it gave us WW1. The past didn’t conserve Catholicism—it gave us the Reformation, anti-clericism, the murderous French, Russian, and Mexican revolutions…. The past hasn’t conserved whole peoples—it’s impossible to list the hundreds of thousands of peoples whose cultures are extinct. (Would it console them to know most of them—but not all—have genetic descendants?) The past exterminated all alternative varieties of Homo sapiens.
The past changed away from its own past, often for the worse. If you’re a socialist/communist, the past changed to produce the hated, disgusting , oppressive bourgeoise. If you’re not a socialist/communist, the past change to produce socialism/communism. No matter what changes, someone hates the change.
Would the present be better if Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Florensis still walked? I don’t know, but it can’t call it better just because we’re alive.
6 comments:
Not specifically about this study, or poll. But I do regard ANY poll to be at risk of "push polling" by the manner, order, phrasing, context, and origin of the questions.
https://youtu.be/5k6CoJ97IOA
That’s true. Here I believe they’re right, though. We think of the past as conservative because we are changing away from how things used to be. But the past is what gave us FDR, LBJ, the Progressive Era and the Great Society. The past is when Jim Crow was overthrown and desegregation occurred.
So it shouldn’t surprise us to realize that theoretically people were always mostly willing to support a female president; the right woman just hadn’t been developed and gotten through the machinery yet. Etc.
It's really fascinating.
I still maintain that liberal and conservative are properly trajectories and not positions, but as long as they're defining their terms it's fine.
We think of the past as conservative because we are changing away from how things used to be. But the past is what gave us FDR, LBJ, the Progressive Era and the Great Society. The past is when Jim Crow was overthrown and desegregation occurred.
And the prior past had liberalism holding out for limited government and conservatism holding out for monarchy.
Moral principles don't change. How we try to implement those principles--conservatism/liberalism--changes over time. The labels themselves--Conservative/Liberal--change much more rapidly. And disjointly.
Eric Hines
Well, let's say a man in his 20s advocates for radical changes in society and so is a radical. But by his 30s his movement has achieved a lot of his goals and he's merely liberal, wanting to make some more changes but nothing radical. Then in his 40s his movement has pretty much achieved its goals, but now the next generation of radicals wants to make bigger changes which he opposes. So he's conservative. Then by his 50s the younger radicals have shifted society way too far for his ideals and he's a reactionary.
One person, one set of principles, but depending on the social background / decade, he's a radical, liberal, conservative, or reactionary.
I’m not sure what’s meant by the past is not conservative.
The past didn’t conserve equal rights—it gave us Jim Crow.
The past didn’t conserve national boundaries—it gave us WW1.
The past didn’t conserve Catholicism—it gave us the Reformation, anti-clericism, the murderous French, Russian, and Mexican revolutions….
The past hasn’t conserved whole peoples—it’s impossible to list the hundreds of thousands of peoples whose cultures are extinct. (Would it console them to know most of them—but not all—have genetic descendants?)
The past exterminated all alternative varieties of Homo sapiens.
The past changed away from its own past, often for the worse. If you’re a socialist/communist, the past changed to produce the hated, disgusting , oppressive bourgeoise. If you’re not a socialist/communist, the past change to produce socialism/communism. No matter what changes, someone hates the change.
Would the present be better if Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Florensis still walked? I don’t know, but it can’t call it better just because we’re alive.
Post a Comment