Conservatives and Liberals | Lee Yee
In the 1960s and 1970s, the American Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the European movement were in the rage. At that time I was still young, and saw that in Western ideologies there were the liberals and the radicals. The middle-aged and older people were mostly liberals, and young people were mostly radicals. Nobody called themselves conservative at that time. It was as if there was a consensus that society should reform, that being conservative means not progressive. It was not until 1979 and 1981 when Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and U.S. President Reagan came to power and implemented conservative policies, succeeded, before the British and American politics went back to being traditional. However, the yearning for equality brought about by these civil movements has since become the mainstream driving ideology and consciousness in Western academics and media.
In the United States' two parties, the Republicans are generally considered conservatives, and the Democrats are liberals. Of course, there is mutual influence and infiltration into each and among each other. There are no generally accepted standard definitions for liberalism and conservatism, for they reflect socio-ideological trends and political practices of politicians.
Liberalism basically has four pillars: one, it recognizes that there are unavoidable conflicts of interest and beliefs in society; two, distrust of power; three, that people are progressive, and subjectively promotes the progress of human civilization; four, regardless of people’s ideology, identity, race, gender, or sexual orientation, they should be respected and accepted for their diversity, minorities are tolerated, and equality is pursued.
Conservatism is by no means an antonym to the pursuit of freedom. Both Mrs. Thatcher and Reagan are the most resolute guardians of freedom; conservatism does not deny power, but emphasizes that power must be monitored, checked and balanced.
In terms of welfare policies, liberalism pursues equality, protects minority rights, protects disadvantaged groups, and promotes and enhances social welfare. Since the increase in welfare would come from government spending, therefore there have to be tax increases. It is not like conservatism disregard the disadvantaged groups, but rather, it believes that there can be no true equality except before God and a fair court. It must first recognize the various differences and groups in people, and the pursuit of equality regardless of differences will only create new inequalities. If society eventually moves towards the equal distribution in socialism, people will move towards the path of slavery. Conservatism does not oppose welfare, but rather, it believes that charitable organizations, churches, civic organizations, or foundations should help the weak and helpless in society. The government ought to provide only policy assistance from the side, because if the government is to lead welfare, it will lead to excessive governance and intervention, and the price to pay will be an increase in taxation, leading to inflation. One of the founding spirits of the United States is that everyone is self-reliant. For those with the ability to make their own living to rely on government welfare for a prolonged period will actually make people live a life without self-esteem.
Liberalism seeks equal distribution from anti-discrimination, anti-difference, and equal opportunity, which is a road towards socialism. Conservatism does not seek rapid progress,; it believes that customs, conventions, and continuity should be followed. Ancient customs allow people to live together in harmony; those who destroy customs can destroy beyond what they want to destroy. The Cultural Revolution revolutionized the fate of culture. Conservatives also do not oppose social progress, but progress will not fall from the sky. If certain parts of society are progressing, other parts usually are declining. A healthy society must be both “enduring” and “developing”. For society to sustain endurance for a long time, there must be lasting faith. If that cannot last, the root source of righteousness will collapse.
In order not to interfere with people’s freedom, conservatism advocates small government, deregulation, tax reduction, in an attempt to create an environment conducive to the operation of private enterprises. Before Reagan was elected, both society and the economy were in difficult situations. The Americans hoped that Reagan could save the economy when he came to power, but in his inauguration speech, he said, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Loosening up, reducing taxes, and adopting inaction, Reagan rejuvenated the U.S. economy.
Despite advocating for small governments, successive Republican governments, from Reagan to Bush to Trump, have increased military spending and maintained a strong military power; the Democratic Party’s Obama, on the other hand, wanted to be tolerant of totalitarian countries and cut military spending. Reagan developed a space war plan, and Trump developed the space army, because they believe that neither democracy or totalitarianism is people’s choice between different systems, but between people’s choice or the system imposed upon them by those in power; it is the difference between righteousness and evil, no middle ground, no moral relativism. Goodness must become the strong one, or else evil fascism will encroach, control, and ultimately defeat you.
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「cultural liberalism」的推薦目錄:
- 關於cultural liberalism 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於cultural liberalism 在 陳儀君 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於cultural liberalism 在 Hew Kuan Yau 丘光耀 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於cultural liberalism 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於cultural liberalism 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於cultural liberalism 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於cultural liberalism 在 What is CULTURAL LIBERALISM? What does ... - YouTube 的評價
cultural liberalism 在 陳儀君 Facebook 的精選貼文
我問美國友人Mark,他要我做做功課,就會知道為什麼是這個結論了「Trump, Clinton and the Culture of Deference」
By。Shelby Steele。Nov. 7, 2016 7:23 p.m. ET
The current election—regardless of its outcome—reveals something tragic in the way modern conservatism sits in American life. As an ideology—and certainly as a political identity—conservatism is less popular than the very principles and values it stands for. There is a presumption in the culture that heartlessness and bigotry are somehow endemic to conservatism, that the rigors of freedom and capitalism literally require exploitation and inequality—this despite the fact that so many liberal policies since the 1960s have only worsened the inequalities they sought to overcome.
In the broader American culture—the mainstream media, the world of the arts and entertainment, the high-tech world, and the entire enterprise of public and private education—conservatism suffers a decided ill repute. Why?
The answer begins in a certain fact of American life. As the late writer William Styron once put it, slavery was “the great transforming circumstance of American history.” Slavery, and also the diminishment of women and all minorities, was especially tragic because America was otherwise the most enlightened nation in the world. Here, in this instance of profound hypocrisy, began the idea of America as a victimizing nation. And then came the inevitable corollary: the nation’s moral indebtedness to its former victims: blacks especially but all other put-upon peoples as well.
This indebtedness became a cultural imperative, what Styron might call a “transforming circumstance.” Today America must honor this indebtedness or lose much of its moral authority and legitimacy as a democracy. America must show itself redeemed of its oppressive past.
How to do this? In a word: deference. Since the 1960s, when America finally became fully accountable for its past, deference toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization became mandatory. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were some of the first truly deferential policies. Since then deference has become an almost universal marker of simple human decency that asserts one’s innocence of the American past. Deference is, above all else, an apology.
One thing this means is that deference toward victimization has evolved into a means to power. As deference acknowledges America’s indebtedness, it seems to redeem the nation and to validate its exceptional status in the world. This brings real power—the kind of power that puts people into office and that gives a special shine to commercial ventures it attaches to.
Since the ’60s the Democratic Party, and liberalism generally, have thrived on the power of deference. When Hillary Clinton speaks of a “basket of deplorables,“ she follows with a basket of isms and phobias—racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamaphobia. Each ism and phobia is an opportunity for her to show deference toward a victimized group and to cast herself as America’s redeemer. And, by implication, conservatism is bereft of deference. Donald Trump supporters are cast as small grudging people, as haters who blindly love America and long for its exclusionary past. Against this she is the very archetype of American redemption. The term “progressive” is code for redemption from a hate-driven America.
So deference is a power to muscle with. And it works by stigmatization, by threatening to label people as regressive bigots. Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and liberals generally practice combat by stigma. And they have been fairly successful in this so that many conservatives are at least a little embarrassed to “come out” as it were. Conservatism is an insurgent point of view, while liberalism is mainstream. And this is oppressive for conservatives because it puts them in the position of being a bit embarrassed by who they really are and what they really believe.
Deference has been codified in American life as political correctness. And political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. We resent it, yet for the most part we at least tolerate its demands. But it means that we live in a society that is ever willing to cast judgment on us, to shame us in the name of a politics we don’t really believe in. It means our decency requires a degree of self-betrayal.
And into all this steps Mr. Trump, a fundamentally limited man but a man with overwhelming charisma, a man impossible to ignore. The moment he entered the presidential contest America’s long simmering culture war rose to full boil. Mr. Trump was a non-deferential candidate. He seemed at odds with every code of decency. He invoked every possible stigma, and screechingly argued against them all. He did much of the dirty work that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do.
Thus Mr. Trump’s extraordinary charisma has been far more about what he represents than what he might actually do as the president. He stands to alter the culture of deference itself. After all, the problem with deference is that it is never more than superficial. We are polite. We don’t offend. But we don’t ever transform people either. Out of deference we refuse to ask those we seek to help to be primarily responsible for their own advancement. Yet only this level of responsibility transforms people, no matter past or even present injustice. Some 3,000 shootings in Chicago this year alone is the result of deference camouflaging a lapse of personal responsibility with empty claims of systemic racism.
As a society we are so captive to our historical shame that we thoughtlessly rush to deference simply to relieve the pressure. And yet every deferential gesture—the war on poverty, affirmative action, ObamaCare, every kind of “diversity” scheme—only weakens those who still suffer the legacy of our shameful history. Deference is now the great enemy of those toward whom it gushes compassion.
Societies, like individuals, have intuitions. Donald Trump is an intuition. At least on the level of symbol, maybe he would push back against the hegemony of deference—if not as a liberator then possibly as a reformer. Possibly he could lift the word responsibility out of its somnambulant stigmatization as a judgmental and bigoted request to make of people. This, added to a fundamental respect for the capacity of people to lift themselves up, could go a long way toward a fairer and better America.
Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).
cultural liberalism 在 Hew Kuan Yau 丘光耀 Facebook 的最佳解答
今天我要说,巫统的“文化霸权”对马来人越有效,甚至连行动党的马来领袖都不敢挑战它,那么行动党越难取得中央执政大权。
根据“文化霸权”首倡者——意大利共产党总书记安东尼奥.葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)的分析,文化霸权的要义是:
1. 一个社会统治集团的至高无上性是通过两种方式来展现的,即“暴力统治”和“思想与道德的领导”;
2. “暴力统治”依赖的是国家所拥有的镇压工具,如军队、警察、法院、监牢等;而“思想与道德的领导”是建立在一种伦理、道德与世界观层次上的柔性权力,即是cultural hegemony(中文学界除了翻译成“文化霸权”外,亦有翻作“文化领导权”);
3. 统治集团通过“文化霸权”,成功塑造一种“世界观”,并且将其建构在人们自由同意的基础上,从而要求广大的群众诚心诚意地接受统治集团所执行的政治、经济和文化政策;
4. “文化霸权”在操控意识形态方面所起的作用是隐形的且十分微妙的,它渗透到公民社会里头的教育制度、传媒机构、文化艺术、宗教信仰、娱乐消闲以及家庭日常生活的方方面面以发挥潜与默化的作用;
5. 这个柔性权力对普罗大众的影响,是迂回且柔顺的,总是让人无法感觉其征服感,但却能间接影响了人们的价值观念、信仰体系、政治认同和生活习惯。“文化霸权”是一套符合统治集团利益的“世界观”,它施与整个被统治阶级,发展成一套社会顺从主义,消解所有的抵抗力量。
只要你明白"文化霸权"的要义,近日召开的巫统大会,从巫青团、妇女组到巫统母体,他们均在大量复制奴役马来人意识的“文化霸权”。
因为只要马来人继续相信,巫统是马来民族的唯一批护者,马来西亚是“马来人的土地”(tanah melayu)、马来西亚是“伊斯兰的土地”(bumi islam),则巫统再腐败,再贪污,也是马来人的政权,好过让外来的华人政权(新加坡人民行动党李光耀的嫡系民主行动党林氏父子)奴役马来人!所以,为了不让马来人在马来西亚沦为美国印第安人,巫统和伊斯兰党大可合作来共同抗拒行动党的崛起!
巫统只要让马来人相信,自由主义(liberalism)是西方腐败的意识形态,是要让神圣的穆斯林生活“世俗化”,让马来人道德堕落,如自由主义就是染上同性恋、性滥交、摇头丸、重金属音乐等(即将自由主义污名化),就能一并让愚蠢的马来人因拒绝自由主义而拒绝普世的民主、自由和人权标准。所以,巫统要和伊斯兰党竞争谁更加大力反世俗,而马来人拒绝“自由”是振振有词的!
巫统只要让马来人相信,平等(equality)是其他民族用作挑战“马来人特权”的旗帜,“平等”将导致马来人在“马来人的土地”和其他民族平起平坐,那么享受惯特权拐杖的马来人,就会认为凡打着“平等”旗号出来挑战巫统的人,都是挑战“马来人特权”的敌人,是不尊重“社会契约”(这是马哈迪发明的political rhetoric)的极端份子。巫统只要将社会上一切的不平等(从现象到根源),狭隘地诠释为民族问题,那么在马来人的眼里,就看不见阶级不平等、性别不平等、城乡不平等(从现象到根源)。所以,马来人拒绝“平等”是理直气壮的!
当行动党揭发贪污弊案(巫统权贵非法敛财),巫统会告诉马来人说,这是华人种族政党妒忌马来人致富。当行动党要求非马来人的权益获得保障,巫统会告诉马来人说,这是华人沙文主义者要求各个民族平起平坐,挑战“马来人特权”。当行动党要求废除恶法,引来社会更大的开放自由,巫统会告诉马来人说,这是西方美帝犹太人“世俗化”的邪恶议程,要腐蚀马来人的世界观。
在西方政坛,传统上是右派讲自由,左派讲平等。自冷战过后,共产党垮台了,自由民主(liberal democracy)和社会民主(social democracy)分别代表两股意识形态再交锋。左派上台,平等多一些,右派上台,自由多一点。然而在马来西亚,马来人被巫统的“文化霸权”统摄后,自由和平等均被狭隘化、污名化,行动党要鼓吹多一点自由主义或多一点平等主义,都会让马来人更加觉得非马来人要夺权、要奴役马来人、要推翻“马来人特权”,最终要在马来人的土地上殖民马来人,让马来人变成美国印第安人那样。所以,巫统再腐败,也要含泪投巫统,拒绝行动党。
为了吸引马来人的支持,若行动党领袖受促不要再讲“自由”和“平等”,以免吓到马来人,那么,我认为这是我们对巫统“文化霸权”的彻底臣服!
如果我们不敢再弘扬“自由”和“平等”,我们的斗争还剩下什么?
“自由”和“平等”本来就是我们的核心理念,要我们tone down,巫统已经赢得了绝对的胜利!
cultural liberalism 在 What is CULTURAL LIBERALISM? What does ... - YouTube 的推薦與評價
Cultural liberals believe that society should not impose any specific code of behavior, and they see themselves as defending the moral rights of ... ... <看更多>