I wonder the same thing when I read some of the right-wing blogs:
All of this is par for the course; the WSJ editorial page has been like this for 35 years. Nonetheless, it got me wondering: what do these people really believe?
I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they’re not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth — one that is, in effect, told only to Inner Party members, while the Outer Party makes do with prolefeed.
The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?
I’m gonna roll with tax cuts, invisible jeebus, and “shut up, that’s why!” But even that isn’t accurate, because we know that most of the right-wing elites don’t even believe in the invisible jeebus stuff (remember when all the folks at the NRO and other right-wing joints were asked about whether they believed in evolution, and they all did- I can’t find the link), they just pretend to be godbotherers and flat-earthers to keep the rubes busy. So what do they actually believe in?
p.a.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
for me but not for thee…
Cat Lady
Whatever works to keep them in power or restore them to power. They believe in raiding the Treasury, rent seeking, and gutting regulations that protect us from their rapaciousness. In other words, what p.a. said.
JGabriel
Power. As long as they have more power than everyone else they know, they’re happy. It doesn’t even matter if they’re losing money, as long other people are losing it quicker.
ETA: Anything that makes people less fearful, less subject to their control – like, say, universal health care – is bad.
Look at Social Security. It costs the rich almost nothing, and they get most of it back, but they still hate it, just because it keeps many people from becoming completely impoverished.
.
A Mom Anon
@p.a.:
Bingo. It’s the big Church of Fuck Everyone But Me (I think I stole that from the Rude Pundit,maybe).
These people are why we can’t have nice things. Fuck them sideways with a rusty farm implement.
PeakVT
So what do they actually believe in?
Right-wing elites – power.
Right-wing propagandists – sucking up to power.
Jim C
Money.
Power.
The power that money can buy. The money that power can create.
Shalimar
They believe they’re the good guys, so everything they do is by definition right.
dslak
As for the evolution issue, Irving Kristol wrote an article in Commentary back in the 50s stating that, even if it were true, the consequences of accepting it were simply too detrimental for it to be taught to the masses. Short answer to what they believe in: power.
MattF
“We’ve gotten older, so we can stop making sense.”
David
They believe in being afraid of anything new or different. Everything else flows from that.
Comrade Stuck
It’s to beat the sockalist liberals who are the only thing standing between them and neverending personal wealth. As far as religion goes, at least for non-fundie wingnuts, is somehow to use it in a way to maybe take their fortunes with them when they go. So far no luck, but I suspect the Baby Jeevus wing of the American Enterprise Institute is working religiously toward that end.
CeriConversion
Privilege, in the literal original meaning of “private law”. In their heads, these people are the modern-day version of the barons who forced the Magna Carta on King John – supreme over their dependents and subordinate, and beholden to no one above them when it really counts. That’s what it’s really about for them, the individual and collective power of their position.
PGE
There are really only two options: stupid or evil. Either the entire right-wing punditocracy and blogosphere is too stupid to realize they’re doing just about everything that’s humanly possible to create more Timothy McVeighs or, like Limbaugh, they’re simply too evil to care.
Tom
WE BELIEVE IN NAH-SING, LEBOWSKI! NAH-SING!!
AND TOMORROW WE COME BACK AND CUT OFF YOUR JOHNSON!!
El Cid
They believe that by hammering on what they want all the time, and about lying and creating a propaganda version of reality, and by collaborating with a similar class of propagandists which entirely comprises the leadership of the major corporate news media, that they will (a) get more of what they want and (b) get less of what they don’t want.
And they’re right.
As a group, the establishmentarian ‘news’ media can take whatever unsupported, generation-old mythical horse-shit and keep promoting it for as long as they want, for themselves, their business interests and the class interests of their owners, investors, and corporate interrelated colleagues.
And if that sounds too fringe and too lefty and too conspiracy theory or whatever, would it be okay for maybe once to accept sensible arguments that accord with common sense in the here and now rather than sensibly dismissing them out of hand until such time as it’s safe to declare them undeniably correct?
Or, never mind, let’s all just keep pretending to be 7 years old and discuss these major and powerful institutions based on what we remember from movies about daring and bold and brave newspaper publishers.
JGabriel
John Cole @ Top:
Actually, John, it might be fair to turn the tables here. After all, you spent a few years singing their tune.
When you were them, what did you believe in? Why did you do it?
ETA: BTW, I don’t mean to sound accusatory. It’s just that it might help enlighten those of us who never agreed with them, help us to understand that opposition better, if you can tell us why you agreed with them for so long.
.
Eric U.
stupid, evil, or lying? why not all three?
Bill E Pilgrim
Bread and circuses.
Getting people to vote against their own interests again and again is a massive undertaking and requires a well-funded and very active propaganda arm, and a huge part of that is distraction and misdirection.
I mean, to be fair, it’s not even so much propaganda as just the way things always were. Rich people publish newspapers to write articles and editorials to convince themselves, and whoever else they can, that the arrangement wherin they get most of the money is only fair and right.
It’s propaganda to me, of course, but it’s really just built in, so it’s no more so than usual.
Keeping people occupied with things that really don’t matter is a big part of it, by the way, thus the circus part. Celebrities dying not once but daily for a month, invented outrages of all kinds, and of course organized mass media sports but now people will yell at me for that one. I know it.
Enceladus
Their grounds of belief are probably thoroughly social in origin: they hate liberals, poor people, feminists, most academics, and minorities.
Their apparently incoherent belief system just proceeds from those foundational animosities.
John Cole
@JGabriel: Pretty much the same thing I do now- a functioning government that stays out of your private life as much as possible. I haven’t really changed in that regard, the only thing that has changed is I have realized you can’t have a functioning government with a platform of nothing more than tax cuts.
dslak
I would expect that, should you ask them, a lot of right-wing elites would say that they believed in things like law, order, free-market capitalism, and the importance of tradition. While they may not actualize these things in their own public dealings or personal lives, this is certainly what many of the non-elite support, and their concerns, while often misguided, are not entirely unreasonable.
Rosali
Foreign Policy = Use of Brute Force
Diplomacy is for wusses.
Dennis-SGMM
They want to ensure that we not only eat the chocolate-covered cotton but that we clamor for more. Politics and religion are simply the means to that end.
JGabriel
Enceladus:
That just comes back to power, though, doesn’t it? Those animosities are largely based on a zero-sum belief in privilege – if a minority or feminist gets anything, it’s being taken from me or someone like me, and liberals are all rich, overeducated snobs trying to take things away from me and give them to someone else.
.
freemti
Its a flavor of cognitive dissonance. In one thread of emotive thought they are all about waging war against the unholy liberals and what ever issue du jour is at hand they will construct whatever strawmen it takes to beat it down. In the the more rational part of the mind they are probably well aware that their arguments are totally ungrounded and in many cases just plain stupid. However similar to an addicts denial of his problem, he pushes they rational part away, because part of his identity is defined by the political ground he has staked out, anything that even in a small way undermines that ground, attacks his emotional status quo and must be fought no matter what.
Chuck Butcher
I suppose it’s hard to believe that people with an impressive IQ can be stupid, but in thinking that you ignore the old computer truism – GIGO. They accept initial assumptions based on an emotional basis without putting them to rigorous examination and move on from there, it becomes a matter of faith and it’s pretty obvious what happens when faith is questioned.
It’s a “trickle down” economics model failure of reasoning. There is no empirical evidence of such a thing, but it is somehow emotionally reassuring to accept it, it seems to be common sense.
Ah, they’re idiots…
J.W. Hamner
I’m going to go with tax cuts and endless wars… or phrased differently, a government that does nothing but enforce American Hegemony.
Comrade Dread
Actually, John, quite a few Christians believe in theistic evolution, where God started the process and then either sat back (almost like the Deist watch maker) or (more in the evangelical school) carefully guided the process to bring us into existence.
So the two beliefs are not necessarily incompatible.
This is the difference between the rather reasonable belief in smart, efficient government that accomplishes specific functions with the minimal amount of interference on the rights of individuals with checks and balances to ensure limits on its power, functions, and growth and the current Republican belief that smaller government is always better when it comes to business regulation and taxes, but big government is great when it comes to military spending, law enforcement, corporate subsidies, and making sure DFHs can’t get high.
maya
It’s not just power, it’s their method to achieve and keep power. If they can keep the nation divided as if every issue is a game and the populace must chose a side, because that’s what we’re inclined to do, then they still have relevance and the power and, hopefully, the money that goes with it.
That’s why they need and seek purty cheerleaders like Palin and Bachmann and Coulter with sophist rah rahs and all the uglies gravitate to the wingnut blogger band where they can wear a uniform and play next to the girl flautists and play the same songs, more or less on key, even they can have relevance too.
The Rushes and the Seans and the Michaels are but the well paid eccentric home team sportscasters who’s style they can all aspire to.
It’s all sports related. Remember, we allegedly got into Iraq because Tenet told Bush, it’s a “slam dunk”. Now who else but sports crazed morans and Bob Woodward would believe that’s the way serious national policy should be decided.
Bill E Pilgrim
@dslak:
My mind reels with sarcastic replies.
Yes, that and small government (massive military buildups to the tune of trillions) minimal welfare because people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps (unless you’re a corporation, then it’s the invisible handout of the free market all the way).
Oh and law and order as long as you’re not Dick Cheney or George Bush, then it’s “just walk away.”
Deconstructing that “traditional conservative” cant is like taking candy from a baby. Except the baby won’t notice because he’s always getting more.
SenyorDave
I agree with the psoter who said privelege. It makes me laugh when the right jabbers on about the elites. I remember when Pat Buchanan ran for president and talked about the “Washington elites”. I saw an interview with a liberal who was friendly with Buchanan, and he said there was nobody he personally knew that was more elitist than Buchanan. Apparently, when Buchanan travels he stays at the finest hotels, eats at the top restaurants, etc. And he knows that his many of his most fervent followers are ignorant rubes.
wonkie
There are bascially two kinds of Republicans–the selfish ones and the believers. Both are concrete operations thinkers, meaning that they have a very limited ability to appreciate abstractions and are very dependent upon their own emotions and experiences to form their views of reality.
The selfish ones value their own rights and their property and very little else. They believe in their own inate superiority in the social Darwinist sense: this is the justification for their selfishness. They got theirs so you ought to get yours and if you can’t ,do to their manipulations of the power structure, then so sad, to bad.
The rank and file are ignorant, emotional and, to a large extent. unable to distinguish symbols and style from substance. When Sarah Palin said that facts and figures don’t matter she was right in terms of the sort of people who support her: their support is an emotional reaction based on visuals. Patriotism is flag fetishism, family values is all talk but that’s OK since how a politician talks is more important than how a politician acts, pro-life means being anti-abortion and they don’t even have to be all that anti-(most “pro_lifers” are in favor of choice), they just like the ego gratificatioon of claming to be morally superior to others. And so on. The pattern is one of seeking a sense of superiority, of personal emotional gratification by claiming to be more patirotic, more moral, the real Americans, and so on. The flip side of this is the fearfulness of anyone and anything outside their experience: immigrants, foreigners, people from some other church or other place. The Base is always willing to blame everything on someone else.
The one thing the Base is not willng to do is think. They don’t connect the dots in a rational way because they are unwilling to acquaint themselves with facts in the first placve. Their mental processes, when it comes to politics, are emotional, personal, and ego centered.
Inn other words, they are more primitive. They have not evolved mentally from the days when humans were territorial pack hunters.
Comrade Stuck
@maya:
Yes, and if they’d been Brown’s fans, Saddam would still be eating Cheeseburgers in Ramadi.
Though this year will be different. Just wait.
Bill (not BOB)
Aristocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, government of the wealthy elite, by the elite, for the elite. Remember how Republicans reacted when Obama told Joe the Fat-head Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around? The opposite of spreading the wealth around is concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. That’s exactly what rightwing policies and propaganda have been aimed at for the last 30 years- concentrating wealth, and power, in the hands of the elite few
georgia pig
The Great Zero Sum. The problem is that, in a real world, some things really are zero sum or at least look that way, e.g., if there are only two apples in the bag, if you get both, I starve. Therefore, human experience often bolsters this world view. Not thinking this way requires faith in your fellow man that is not very comforting, because you know yourself and don’t find much to trust there, e.g., you suspect you’d be tempted to fuck the Argentine if the opportunity presented itself and you thought you could get away with it.
vishnu schizt
They believe the world is divided into haves and have nots. The haves are the elites, of which they are members, and they have their rules. The have nots are the proles, meaning the rest of us and we exist to support the haves. The proles have their rules, imposed by the haves. The haves perform a certain kabuki designed to keep the have nots in a perpetual state of semi-conciousness. The old bread and circuses line mentioned before. They are the ultimate darwinists, the survival of the fittest. Except when it comes to them. The most succinct statement of the true philosophy of these folks is “communism for the rich, capitalism for the poor”
MazeDancer
If “they” is the WSJ types, it’s not just individual personal power and its financial rewards, there is an underlying belief about the “the right people”. And how this is part of “freedom”.
Rightness is available two ways: DNA, by being born into privilege, or earning the qualifying amount of money. By any means necessary.
Now money trumping class was not always the case, especially in the South. But it is now. And the lip service belief is government should stay out of the way of everyone’s chance to get massively rich. They’re keeping this “chance” free and open. And, preventing “Redistribution” of this wealth to the lazy, shiftless mobs who didn’t seize their freedom of opportunity.
At WSJ you have people born to privilege, and people who managed to accumulate some. They don’t see anything that needs changing. While most Americans support a meritocracy based idea of success, the privileged are often not aware of their privilege.
Many not very talented average Americans do not understand if they hadn’t been born in upper middle class privilege they wouldn’t have survived, much less had their nice middle manger jobs. Nor do they understand how hopelessness creates drug addiction and wipes out generations of talent. Or that very little about life, or politics, is completely one thing or another. People like dogma. Even when it doesn’t actually work, people will swear by it. WSJ has lots of dogma.
Lavocat
Pie.
Mmmmmmm: floor pie!
Bill E Pilgrim
@Lavocat:
What do they believe in?
Mmmmmm……. something.
Edit: Actually that’s it. They believe in “unexplained bacon”.
Dave
Reason article from 1997. Irving Kristol, in his own words: “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people,” he says in an interview. “There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”
MikeN
Shhhh…this is the problem, and we dont want to help them. THEY dont know what they believe in, and if they did they couldnt articulate it in a way that translates into votes at the moment.
If someone could answer Krugman in a compelling and positive sense, they’d be running for President with a big ol’ (R) next to their name in 2012.
Fwiffo
That’s a trick question. They’re nihilists.
DZ
Someone please define elitist for me. It certainly isn’t someone who stays at the best hotels and eats at the best restaurants he/she can afford when traveling. Doesn’t it need to include some element of disdain for people of lesser circumstances?
More fundamentally, what is the elite or an elite? Does my Ivy League education relate or is it just where I went to college 40 years ago? Am I supposed to reduce my lifestyle because it might appear elitist? Except for clothing, I live quite modestly in relation to income, but I do wear $5,000 suits. Does that make me an elitist or just that I have my own quirks?
These words are thrown around every day, but what do they actually mean?
Svensker
A very bright pastor friend describes the American — but particularly right wing American — flag fetishism and patriotic fervor as idolatry. (He also considers most evangelicals to be pagans and points to the rise of Sarah Palin as proof that we are entering a new Dark Age of ignorance. Guess he’s sort of a pastoral version of Paul “Dr. Doom” Krugman.)
JGabriel
@Dave: That’s what’s known as Straussianism.
.
Notorious P.A.T.
Just because someone believes in evolution doesn’t mean they don’t believe in an invisible sky magician either. Believing in both is mutually contradictory, but these are people who believe half a dozen mutually contradictory things before breakfast. And in fact there is a raging controversy going on right now about whether one should believe in both, only because so many people of all political stripes do.
Stacy
I think it’s money for a lot of the big players. I think the Right-wing elite (well, actually, any political elite) are motivated by money, they send out the talking points, the commoners fight over gay abortions and as such are distracted as the elites destroy the county in order to one-up their neighbor by putting in that 13th bathroom. They have always existed to protect the interest of the wealthy class.
I think your higher level some pundits and “entertainers”, like Rush Limbaugh, for example, are motivated by money as well, but not in the sense where Limbaugh gives a fuck about those in his own tax bracket. He’s in it for himself, so if the rest fof the country goes to shit, taking his peers down with him, oh well, he’s getting paid. So for Limbaugh, he benefits from having the country go downhill. The shittier the county is, more bitter and pissed off people are, and they will be more likely to gravitate to someone that gives them an easy scapegoat for that anger. People like Rush and Glenn Beck provide that service. The more angry people, the more fans they get, more money.
As for Morrissey and the other lower level wingnuts, I think they probably just never grew out of pumping up their own self-importance by hating on the fat kid. Michelle Malkin’s entire existence revolves around hating on liberals, it’s what makes her matter. What else could she do at this point that would give he as much attention? If not that, she might just be common, and that’s not acceptable. Everyone likes to feel important and useful, and for some of these guys, I think rallying around a common enemy, like liberals, is an easy way to achieve this for them, much like picking on the fat kid achieved popularity in grade school. Look at someone like Jonah Goldberg – if not for his mother, he would not matter. I think he knows this. There is really nothing special about the guy, he seems to be kind of an idiot. So if not for his connections, he’d be down here in the dirt like all us common folks. But he can’t do that, because for he has to matter, he has to be important. And, because he can’t put out anything that will be ground-breaking because he is intellectually lazy, he has to pick something easier, like writing a joke of a book that attacks liberals and pretending it’s something extraordinary. It’s about ego for these people, I think.
And along those same lines, I also think for some it’s just pride. They are too far down the rabbit hole, they can’t turn back now without suffering some major damage to their own ego.
JGabriel
Svensker:
Umm, actually … “Dr. Doom” is Nouriel Roubini. Krugman is “The Shrill One”.
.
Libertina
@JGabriel: I almost made a comment just like this in a thread a few days ago. I mean no offense to John Cole either; he is kind of my new hero, and more “Daily” than the great orange satan. But I still would like to get into the mind that was on the other side, because I want to understand it. These days thats not really possible with all the wingnut crazy, but for some people, there was at some point a sane motivation behind the conservative beliefs.
Hunter Gathers
I believe that one Robert Underdunk Terwilliger said it best:
Political Pragmatist
Can it be so obviously not obvious? They believe in whatever enriches the wealthy. Maintaining (and returning to) power allows them to continue the greatest heist in world history. Can it be anything but?
And the belief that their true-believers will swallow anything which reinforces their own beliefs?
It’s all about the cynicism of the conservative movement.
pika
This question–what do they really believe–has been foremost in my mind for a long time. I really truly would give just about anything to be in their heads for a day, just as long as I could get back into my own head by evening. Part of me believes it’s nothing more than childish petulance. How else to explain why so many of them seem driven at a truly Freudian level to do nothing less than pull down the entire house because a) they don’t rule it right now and b) their post-Reconstruction, post-New Deal revanchism hasn’t panned out in the way that they hoped?
dbrown
@Dave: Uh … he is really correct when you think about it. Sex: do we teach children all the real details and even show them these things?
Calculus – do we teach that subject at the general level and require it for all HS students? Or digital electronics … tell me if one person out there doesn’t use electronics extensively but how many have ever learned the basics much less all the terribles details?
You could, of course and all these things could be taught to most people. Yet we don’t. Rather, only those interested or required learn these things, then apply names to the groups like he did and bingo, he is right (or rather far right.)
geg6
Themselves. That is the only thing they have any real convictions about. Whatever gratifies them, whatever makes them feel superior, whatever gives them more money and power. They see themselves as innately better than everyone else and cynically use religion and patriotism to make their stupid minions think they have actual altruistic motives so that they can continue to keep aggregating all money and power to themselves. They are emotionally no more evolved than your typical two year old who believes the world and everything in it exists to benefit him. They have no sense of compassion or connection to the rest of humanity, only contempt. Because if they ever put themselves in the s h o e s of another, they might be forced to see that the rest of us might be better or stronger people than they are. Thus they must maintain that contempt and always act in ways demonstrating their contemptuousness in order to keep their elevated sense of self. I hate them with a white hot hate and I only wish I believed in god and judgment in an afterlife so I could believe that they would pay for their evil throughout eternity. However, the fact that they continue to live and thrive is conclusive evidence that god does not, in fact, exist.
ChristianPinko
What conservatives believe is that there are deserving and undeserving people, and the function of government is to serve the former and punish the latter. This is true of both the Christian right and the big-money right.
I would also caution against exaggerating the differences between Christians and big-money players. James Dobson, Charles Colson, and Pat Robertson are all pretty well off. And even considering rank-and-file (white) fundamentalists, a lot of them are inhabitants of affluent communities like Wheaton, Ill., or Colorado Springs. White fundamentalism isn’t the religion of rural America so much as the religion of exurban America.
canuckistani
Fear. They are ruled by fear that society is changing, and they will never live in the all-white neighbourhood with the picket fences that they saw on television. Every hippie, every liberal, every environmentalist is an enemy trying to destroy their most cherished dream, ready to cast them into an uncertain world where America is not supreme, their kids will gay marry, and Jesus will not reward them and punish the wicked after death.
PaulW
They believe in power. That such power is theirs and not to be shared by lesser mortals.
The Raven
They are corrupt. Truly corrupt people literally have no beliefs and loyalties; they do what they are told, unless they believe that they themselves are or might be masters.
Krawk!
Rosali
On the international front, it’s about sowing conflict or the appearance of conflict to get the US citizens to cower in fear and look to the GOP Daddy for protection because they are the supposed “national security experts”.
I can usually tell what Fox News is hyping because my repug coworker will come into work in the mornings and say things like, “So, have you heard about what’s going on in Georgia (last fall) or North Korea?” He looks almost gleeful at the prospect of the US dropping bombs somewhere. It’s pathological.
Matthew B.
John — I’d guess you were thinking of Ben Adler’s evolution survey for TNR? Actually, a narrow majority of 8 out of the 15 surveyed conservatives came out as believers in evolution.
monkeyboy
See Jonathan Haidt and the moral psychology theorists. For example his WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?. They identify 5 dimensions of morality:
1) harm/care
2) fairness/reciprocity
3) ingroup/loyalty
4) authority/respect
5) purity/sanctity
They say liberals are mainly concerned with 1 and 2 which can be rationally analyzed while conservatives cover all 5 of the dimensions which can be found in societies all throughout history.
My opinion is that liberals can be aware of all 5 dimensions but can discount them by rational analysis often in terms of the first 2. The area in ‘purity’ that liberals are more concerned than conservatives has to do with ‘lying’ – someone who habitually lies can’t be trusted on the other dimensions, while conservatives seem to think that lies are ok if they serve the higher purpose of promoting their ingroup or authority.
Tribal solidarity (3) has played an enormous role in the development of cultures. But in an enormous population like the US liberals tend to say that such solidarity based on ethnic or religious background needs to be rationally suppressed somewhat while recent conservatives tend to promote it.
southpaw
Empire.
FearItself
They believe in winning the class war against the proles.
Of course, some of their supporters are proles. For those supporters, it’s all about tribalism, as it has always been.
Fwiffo: Nihilists? That’s even worse than Nazis! I mean, say what you want about the tenets of national socialism; at least it’s an ethos. (Ask Tim @ 14.)
Interrobang
most “pro_lifers” are in favor of choice
Yeah, as long as you define “choice” as “men get to pick which women will be forced to have their babies.” See? Lots of choice. They can pick that one, or that one, or that one over there…
I mean, I will tell you one of the things they believe — they believe they’re the only real people, and all the rest of us subhumans can go pound sand, which is why they oppose civil rights for just about everyone other than wealthy white men, and like wars and executions.
In the final analysis, however, they basically only believe in power, and/or power dynamics, and will do damn near anything (including kill potential threats without compunction) to make sure the power imbalance stays firmly tilted in their direction.
ksmiami
The WSJ elites believe in three things: The “Rational” Market, Corporate fascism – oh and a mythical 50s Americana that never actually existed, but was the way Hollywood responded to Hoover’s witch hunts.
Dennis-SGMM
@Interrobang:
Sad how their supposed reverence for life doesn’t extend to ensuring that life gets proper medical care not matter what or a decent education. Moreover, if that life happens to steal a car, or get caught with Evil Drugs then that life must be punished and stunted by spending the longest possible time in prison.
Andrew J. Lazarus
The purpose of power is power.—Eric Blair
gnomedad
@John Cole:
This doesn’t quite click. It’s not as if the Bush admin ever made any pretense of staying out of people’s private lives except for tax cuts. I suspect you yourself have not fully figured out your political evolution. But I do appreciate what you have shared so far.
Woodrowfan
imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
Their boot, everybody else’s face…
different church-lady
a) Tribalism
b) Their own egos
SGEW
Literally? Aristocracy, full stop. Totally “all-American.” Many of the founding fathers were pseudo-Aristocrats, after all (c.f., B.O.B.).
Also, in the most positive light, being as charitable as possible:
– They believe in long-term socio-cultural stability. [Ironically, their chief fear is revolution (contra Beck, Bachmann, et. al., who might best be considered to be reactionary).]
– They believe in evolution, but they have the science terribly, terribly wrong.
– They bow to the magic jeebus space monster, and probably do believe in “God,” but so did the Conquistadors, allegedly; so what.
– Arrested development. They think their lives are pretty fucking sweet (even if the lifestyle drives them quite literally insane) – it’s hard to expect them to want to give it up. I’d want a yacht too, you know: it’d be teh awesome. If I was a five year old boy.
wonkie
“most “pro_lifers” are in favor of choice
Yeah, as long as you define “choice” as “men get to pick which women will be forced to have their babies.” See? Lots of choice. They can pick that one, or that one, or that one over there”
Actually there’s good polling data on this. There is also the experience in SDak where wingers tried and failed to outlaw all abortion. Most self-proclaimed “prolifers” think that woman girls should be able to choice under some circumstances, the most commonly sited icrcumstances being sexaul abuse, rape, or serious threat to the health of the mother. Many are pro-choice if the mother is too old or too young. My charasmatic speaking in tongues Bible literalist neighbor is pro-choice under almost all circumstances but calls herself pro life. Turns out from discussions with her that all she really means by prolife is that she thinks abortion is a very serious moral choice that shouldn’t be made lightly. She thinks pro choice means a failure to see the issue as a serious moral dilemna. That’s all.
Upthread someone wrote about how rightwingers make a bigger deal out of purity and sanctity. I think that concern for morality transcends political affliation but that in general conservatives are shallower and more egocentric in their thinking. The abortion debate is a good example of this. The basic female rightwing stance on abortion is to call oneself prolife (thus claiming to be all moral) while really being prochoice under a variety of circumstances which the woman can understand like rape. Liberals on the other hand, while moral, don’t feel a need to self aggrandize about being moral and feel no need to claim the moral high ground. Instead we care about people other than ourselves and want them to be able to manage their own lives in the way best for them: so, pro choice which includes the choice of not having an abortion or having one. In our minds this does not preclude the seriousness of the decision. We just assume that women and girls will make the decision seriously without us micromanaging them.
noken brose
The rationales have changed so drastically and so often in my lifetime that I no longer believe it’s about any particular issue, and I think that saying “power” or “greed” doesn’t go deep enough: why power? Why greed? I think it goes back into childhood & young adulthood, and considering the way this question is framed (“what do the inner circles really believe?”) keeps that explanation from stereotyping half (ok, 27%) of Americans.
To me, it seems like the inner circle is fine with three decades of lies because they’ve concluded that life has never been fair to them. That life is not fair, and the only way to get yours is to be as unfair as you can get away with. Somewhere, at a critical developmental stage, the sheer unfairness of life hit them hard, and their response was not to accept this and attempt to mitigate it, but to decide that it was a either a malicious force that had to be fought with every action or a loophole in the universe that justified any action, so long as there was a greater fairness to which one could appeal.
tc125231
@p.a.: Correct. They believe in preserving and expanding the capital of those who already have it. Period.
Why? To quote Kurt Vonnegut:
tc125231
@JGabriel:
Va Highlander
@SGEW:
The US had an aristocracy and the founders of the nation were largely of that class. It didn’t really catch on though, outside of the South, and as a class they were largely destroyed in the Civil War.
Our governing elite today are very, very “common”, in every sense of the word. They’re largely ruled by fears and insecurities, just like their poorer cousins in the middle class. A true aristocracy is secure, socially and economically, and tends to act accordingly. Our elite are always terrified of something or other.
binzinerator
Power. And their entitlement to it.
Rommie
Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I’m rich.
Edwin
Money, power, yeah. But a lot of it has to do with maturity. Many people reach a certain emotional/intellectual age and never go past it. For example, Peggy Noonan was a bright, precocious 14-year-old, and never advanced any further. Sanford is about 17. And so on.
binzinerator
The Medici motto concisely sums up what these people believe in:
“Money to get power, power to protect money”
Note that we cannot be talking about people who believe in democracy here. Aristocracy, Oligarchy, despotism, yes. But democracy? No. Those kinds of core beliefs are ultimately antithetical to a democracy.
tc125231
@John Cole: Well…OK.
You know, Bertholt Brecht thought he was a communist. People who saw his plays didn’t get that message.
Your posts don’t really match the elements of which you say your philosophy consists. Like Sullivan, I think you are a very smart person having trouble letting go of your childhood beliefs, although you have certainly proceeded far further than he has.
“When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things.” I Cor. xiii. 11.
tc125231
@Edwin: Excellent point. One of my brothers fits that mold.
SGEW
@Va Highlander: Would the phrase “Neo-Aristocrat” serve better, without being too meta-obtuse? Mostly divorced from the actual, original genetic class, but rather a memetic class founded on the original Southern aristocracy, the Robber Barons, and the post War generation of nouveau riche who bled/bred into the new gilded age. [Or something.]
binzinerator
@FearItself:
They only call it class war when the proles fight back.
Va Highlander
@SGEW:
I think that comes closer, yes.
The governing elite, the movers and shakers of power in the US, have an aristocratic sense of entitlement and an aristocratic notion of their place in this world, yet I feel they bear no resemblance to the aristocracies of Europe or Colonial aristocrats like Jefferson or Washington. The latter in particular seemed largely unconcerned about granting at least some measure of power to the unwashed masses. The very idea of such a political redistribution seems anathema to these modern-day pretenders.
The nouveau riche and the Robber Barons seem like good examples of a neo-aristocracy and that seems as good a term as any.
Terry C - Castrating B*tch
The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?
M-O-N-E-Y
Edwin
@tc125231: The really scary ones are those, like Cheney, who are fully mature adults but choose to act as they do. It’s no wonder he was so ascendant over Bush, who was, and is, a child.
1watt, hermit
They believe that they are morally superior, and they will lie, cheat, steal, maim. and murder to prove it.
Thursday
This is a bit of an aside from the discussion at hand, but since several people have asked John, specifically, to explain why he once thought differently than he does now, I thought I might add my own story on the subject.
As someone who once sided with the other side, who cheered on W’s first election and the invasion of Iraq as the freeing of a people, let me explain why I was on that side. It’s actually very simple. I believed so because I had been taught to my whole life and knew no better.
My father is Conservative with the capital C. As I grew up I heard him speaking on issues, from capital punishment to taxes to affirmative action. As his words and arguments were the only ones I heard I accepted them as truth. If someone asked me on these subjects my own views where simply a parroting of my father’s words. It was not until my late teens that anything changed. The catalyst for this change was newspapers. I began to read the editorials. Day in and day out, I read the opinions of thinkers far and wide. And, as I was exposed to new ideas, my own opinions, beliefs, and ideas expanded, changed, and eventually lead to my current state.
Over the years of discussing politics with my father I’ve gotten a pretty good of idea of his thinking, and why he thinks it. In brief, his opinions are what he believes, and that’s enough for him. He learned, perhaps not from his father, but from others, the beliefs he now carries. Over time they set until they simply were what he believed. If I argue with him, make wonderful arguments he can’t counter, his eventual reasoning will be “Well, I believe X. You may have all the facts and arguments, but I still believe in X”.
So, in summary, my experiences in Conservatism seem to point to the following beliefs: 1. Belief in whatever concepts were taught to you, and 2. Absolute belief in whatever you believe. Any contradictory evidence can be safely ignored, because it is by definition wrong or irrelevant, or else it would support your belief.
Steve Williams
I had never heard the phrase “ripping off someone’s face” until I started reading about Wall Street.
We might think money and power are motivating, but I think people who use the phrase and organizations that hire them can’t be described with such common words.
Maybe something better can be found in DSM IV.
lovable liberal
Oh, the wealthies! For them, the business of America is … enriching them. They talk like free marketeers, but they really want to restore feudalism, this time with regular bathing (for us – cold water’s fine) and central heating (for them). They can’t see why any further governing charters were needed after the Magna Carta. The goddamned common people have so perverted that noble agreement between the king and the lords that they think they’re equal to the peerage.
Toby Petzold
What is a “godbotherer”?
mdh
They believe in keeping the rubes busy.
And they do well to hang together.
Elie
I think that what they believe in (besides their own privilege and entitlement) is very plastic and not necessarily consistent within their own belief system. They can change their beliefs to match whatever advantage that they think it gives them at any point in time.
I believe mankind’s core anthropological and social construct is tribal. We seem to strongly cleave to “our team, right or wrong” and only in very recent history has morality, doing the right thing, having values, doing unto others type philosophy begun to arise. Before that, this tribal identity and the value of membership with the pack took all precedent. Someone upthread said more or less the same thing — that these folks are functioning in a primitive system that owes its core emotions and loyalty to the team even though on a personal basis they may have other values.
Now, the question I would like to answer is: what can replace tribalism? How do we pull apart that psychology/sociology and appeal to those parts that started to appear during the various periods of human enlightenment such as equality of man and the importance of reason?
I think that fear and insecurity around diversity and economic competition in part causes return to these more base impulses. Over time, if we can dialogue and share as much as possible and demphasize the inflammatory fear that exacerbates the impulse to keep with your own tribe for self protection, we can start to work on moving again towards reason and enlightenment…(yeah, THAT’s easy, right?)
Well those are my hopes and thoughts right now anyway…
SGEW
@Thursday: If I may say so, what you are describing is not so much mere “conservatism,” or Republicanism, or whatever the “right” is in America: you are describing fundamentalism. See, also, Religion. A part of the Venn diagram, mayhaps, but not necessarily the slice we’re trying to pin down here.
gerry
I’m not sure that they are very smart. Clever, convincing, manipulative, not not necessarily very smart.
Thursday
@SGEW: I apologize, I think you may be right. It may be that, as the conservative I know best, my father just tends to be the one I think of first in considering conservative thought, and the one who’s motivations I’m most likely to ascribe to others. My apologies.
SGEW
@Thursday: Oh! No apologies necessary. We’re all just throwin’ ideas around here.
rec
I don’t really buy this “they’re smart people, they can’t really believe this stuff” formulation. I’ve seen plenty of otherwise smart people have the most inexplicable opinions and shoddy reasoning and yet I never doubted their sincerity for a minute.
It takes a lot to maintain a distinction between what you really believe and what you profess to believe and to keep up that facade. It may work for Stephen Colbert, but as a general rule I think people write what they believe. Now, what they believe may be mostly driven by their lizard brain and then they find ways to rationalize it, but I don’t think most people say to themselves “I know this is a load of crap, but it furthers my agenda”. Politicians do that under certain circumstances (e.g., evolution) but it’s amazing how stupid smart people can be all on their own.
Nylund
I’m going to go with a variation on the underpants gnome theory.
1. Peddle lies
2. ????
3. Profit!
And, honestly, I don’t think they even know what number 2 is, but so far, it works for them, so why stop?
NotTimothyGeithner
They believe it. Never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity. I mean these people believe this stuff when they were in college, so unless, they are the kids of these people and engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy I think they believe it. Its probably best to read “Conservatives without Conscience” by John Dean to understand these guys.
David
One man, Rupert Murdock is pulling all the strings.
Everyone else in his right-wing propaganda empire… just sockpuppets.
Elie
Even though this is a bit off topic, it is a great illustration of what happens when the “dots” are not connected. The following list (courtesy of Digby, is the California IOU policy — that is, who gets the IOU versus who gets cash). I am angry, sad but not surprised. This is what “cutting government programs” means to Republicans and why we on the left/progressive better start helping to empower folks and stop just talking and talkin about it:
People who get California IOUs:
Grants to aged, blind or disabled persons
People needing temporary assistance for basic family needs
People in drug prevention, treatment, and recovery services
Persons with developmental disabilities
People in mental health treatment
Small Business Vendors
People California pays in cash:
University of California
Public Employees’ Retirement System
Legislators, legislative employees, and appointees
Judges
Department of Corrections
Health Care Services payments to Institutional Providers
Had enough yet? This is what a failed political system gives you…
Steven
They are Straussian conservatives, which means they believe in unlimited war, global hegemony, torture, indefinite detention without charges, secret police, etc. Basically fascism in a nutshell. But that won’t play with the masses, so to the masses they present images of “democracy” and “freedom” to cover up what they are actually doing.
hoi polloi
Aristocracy where aristos means thems-thats-already-got.
grumpy realist
I don’t even think that these people think that they are “aristocrats” (except in a dumb, neo-Darwinian “I rose to the top by my immense talent” justification whenever anyone asks: “and what makes *you* so special?!”.) Historically, aristocracy did contain its own cultural imperatives and checks and balances, including “noblesse oblige”. Which means that yes, you were at the top of the heap but your position also meant extra duties and responsibilities. In the long term it helped hold the system together.
Ditto for the Romans and the guy whispering into the ear of the conqueror in the Triumph: “remember that you, too, are mortal.”
With present-day right-wingers of the type John is asking about, it’s pure id: what I want is right. Reading through the word salad generated by these nitwits (or most libertarians), one can see that they haven’t even thought about the basics of their ethics/belief systems/consistency of. What I Want Is Right and they’ll figure out the justification later, because they’ve never actually had to act as adult humans. It’s the mental hash of a child who has never grown up. Half of it is pure greed and the other half is looking for stuff to piss “liberals” off with.
And none of them seem to understand anything of history or human nature. During revolutions “aristocrats” tend to end up getting hanged from lampposts by “peasants” because there are so many more of the latter than the former. From a prudent, life-protecting stance, it would behoove one to not act in a way to destabilize societies so that revolutions happen. It would also be prudent to observe the world around one as it actually is, rather than you think it might be. (Diary of Louis XIV the day the Bastille fell: “nothing happened.”)
One mention about Strauss: have always felt we’re seeing warmed-over Machiavelli with about half the brain-power and none of M’s intelligence. Machiavelli wrote The Prince in an attempt to get back into good odor with the powers-that-be after ending on the wrong side of a political catfight. From what I’ve read of all the other parties involved, Machiavelli’s main problem was that he was hopelessly naive. Strauss? Strauss dropped into Renaissance Italy would have lasted about 5 seconds.
David Atkins
I was just on KVTA 1520 in Ventura talking about California and the tax system. I suggested that the wealthy needed to pay their fair share. A caller called in, saying that it was impossible to even live in Ventura on under $150K combined income.
When I informed the caller that the vast majority of people here manage to do just that, she said:
That sums it up about as close as anything ever could.
Wile E. Quixote
@John Cole
They believe in nothing, they’re a bunch of stupid, immature, nihilistic fratboys, and the best way to deal with them is to beat on them and hurt them, not because it will make them better people but because the only thing that any fratboy understands is a good and proper ass-kicking.
bellatrys
Oh, the American aristocracy isn’t just a southern thing – come on up to Boston, good old Boston and you’ll learn it isn’t just a Gilded Age thing that “the Lowells speak only to Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God”– Lowells and Cabots are still as inbred as any English royalty, although they’ve been joined by a goodly few of nouveaux riches some of whose ancestors were among those whom folks like Henry Cabot Lodge tried to exclude from America as being not really white, or not white enough, almost within living memory. (& in the same language as is still used by Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan et al – after living in New England for 30 years, I confess I brace myself every time I hear someone open a mouth and a Southie accent come out, expecting something hideously racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise reactionary to come out shortly. It’s always a nice surprise to be disappointed…)
Also, Kennebunkport anyone? Not to mention Nantucket, both of which are I believe considered to be northern locations. There is still and strong a total privilege mentality, including separate sets of rules for those of “good family” which oddly coincidentally usually goes along with good money (a sliding-scale thing based on local conditions, what’s wealth in say, Revere, is insignificant in Wellesley. )
The only difference between the era of the Brahmins and now is that it isn’t always old money that is good money, now money gained by trade as well as inheritance wins access – wait, didn’t Henry James spend a lot of ink on that very subject? So, not really any different at all from when JP Morgan and other iron industrialsts were buying suits of armor and bits of medieval cathedrals to give themselves an “authentic traditional Crusader heritage” like the Modern Major-General in Pirates…
As to the extent that these pundits buy into their own bullshit – hard to say, even in retrospect as an ex-theocon myself, how much of it is knowing deception of others and how much a matter of lalala fingers in the ears…knowing that if you allow yourself to admit the doubt, you’ll have to do something and there will be penalties for it, hard to make a man realize something if his paycheck depends on NOT getting it &c – but there’s also something terribly seductive/addictive about buying into a world of bullshit when it comes with a community of bullshitters who also constantly affirm your value as being part of this bullshit gestalt. This makes it hard to walk away from – this spiritual tribalism – even when you’re not getting anything in terms of material benefit or even minimal real worldly power. It’s the political identity glue in white bourgeois identity politics…
This is something that the admirable Dr. Frankfurt only lightly touches on, but I think it is a key part of why it is so prevalent, and how it differs from outright lies, and how come serial bullshitters (when they are not being outright con artists) simply don’t care when some bit of bs they’re spreading is debunked… (Because it OUGHT to be true, dammit! so maybe it really, secretly, somehow, somewhere IS…on some plane beyond the mundane understanding of the H8ters, you know?)
Michael Robinson
Add my vote to the “privilege” theme. These people believe that they constitute an inherently superior group of individuals who deserve to treated with the utmost respect and deference due to their inherent superiority. The rest of the population should therefore constitute a servile laboring class who work to provide them with the things they want.
am
Have any of you people actually read the WSJ EPA editorial to which Krugman linked?
It’s perfectly reasonable – their main point is that Carlin’s treatment contradicts Obama’s stated positions on agency transparency.
That Krugman so horridly lies about it serves perfectly to demonstrate what a socially damaging shitstain he and people like him are.
Dunder Hoof
They believe that they are above the rest of us, and especially above the law. Every act, every reaction, every event is subjected to the same analysis: how does this prove that I am better, higher, more elect than the rest? They believe in omens and signs of their superiority and righteous reign over others.
Money? Power? Ha! It doesn’t take an act of faith to believe in those. You can simply know them. For the rich, those are just further proof of their own special, intrinsic value.
As a matter of fact, lots and lots of rich people believe in the supernatural, even if they do not believe in invisible jeebus. The supernatural is the source of their own precious specialness.
As a further matter of fact, lots of rich people feel guilty about their wealth. That is why they need to believe in their own specialness. It is their specialness that entitles them to the wealth, and relieves their guilt.
So, what is the central article of faith among the rich and powerful? It is an irrational belief in properness, specifically in the proper fit between them and their station — a belief that they are chosen, made for, and most appropriately the ones who DESERVE.
Their most characteristic myth is a moral one. It is a myth of their own deservingness.
Edwin
@Wile E. Quixote: Damn straight.
Gray Area
When are extremists on the left and the right going join the vast majority of us somewhere in the middle and cut the crap promoted by the writer here? The fact is, many, many millions upon millions of people believe in Jesus AND accept evolution.
triplepoint
Someone who uses ‘God-lube’. ‘It’s like Boy-Butter, only better!’
Bony Baloney
I’m firmly convinced that They are motivated and inspired by elemental evil, along with a heaping helping of several paragraphs of self-evicerating auto-psychoanalysis.
Pretty much exactly what I’d do in Their place, in other words. I mean, it’s obvious, innit, when you really think about it. Any idiot who happened to be me would do exactly what They do, given the opportunity.
Or, maybe, the worst possible ends I can think of (using all the power of my brain) is Their primary motivation. You know, it rubs the lotion on its skin, kind of thing. If I dig deep and project hard, I can just about wrap my head around Their world view.
Strauss. Also.
Travis
@Stacy: Very well said. Thanks.
bellatrys
Cases in point: the 912 Project folks, who include (at least) one of my brothers – who flouts various bylaws of his town with glee b/c he’s Above Them as a veteran and a Smart (and male!) Person, and doesn’t see the irony of having the 9 principles of Glenn Beck posted on his fridge at the same time – as well as some struggling local businesspeople whose chaotic and disorganized methods are not AT ALL the reason for their problems, it’s The Gubment (and of course both Obama and Hilary were affirmative action picks, quoth my ex-boss who treated the cashbox like his personal piggy bank, made staffers drop everything to take care of his kids’ school projects for them, didn’t understand after 3 years the basics of the line of work of the business he’d bought, and didn’t even do the bare minimum of management, being dumber than a stump for all his college degree and MBA – leading of course to fiscal ruin for the company WHICH was the fault of Cosmic Forces wrecking The Economy and never his candidate GWB…)
Now, these folks are both True Believers and not True Believers – sometimes if you hammer at them hard enough, you can get them to admit that they’re spouting BS, that the world outside is in conflict with their assertions – but they just don’t care because if they admitted they were wrong they’d have to change their ways. (See also Morton’s Demon.)
And – and THIS, imo, is THE crucial part speaking as ex-wingnut – involves a loss of face which is as bad or worse than giving up any wingnut welfare. The turning point comes when the loss of face from the shame of staying in the BS pool is worse than that of admitting to yourself that you’ve been swimming in it and calling it pure water… BUT it’s complicated by if you have more wingnut fiscal or social capital to lose – but even that’s not so simple, e.g. David Brock.
Seriously, I could have potentially ended up an aide to Bay Buchanan like young Marcus Epstein, or an earlier version of Megan McArdle, if I’d stayed in the movement – I know people who worked with Pat, and wrote for movement publications back in the Eighties, and at one time that was my aspiration – I thought it would be “doing good for the prolife cause”, but – as a woman, I was always a second-class citizen among conservatives (if that, even) and I couldn’t keep lying to myself about it in the face of the old guard telling me to my face things like, frex, that I deserved to be paid less for equal work…
OTOH, what has my brother to lose by leaving the 912 movement? The admiration of all his macho peers – on top of his justifications for his “I’ve got mine, screw everyone else except my family and (maybe) friends” exploitative attitude, and the humbling of admitting he’s bought into a toxic ideology.
bernard
evil, plain and simple. seduced by power. evil incarnate
cdx
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity saith the Preacher.
Without alleging perfection of Democrats, I’ve always been struck by how suffused Republicanism is with the developmentally arrested and the somewhat mentally ill/disabled.
If you know some moderately functional people with bipolar disorder well, you know where the alternate ridiculous sexual puritanism and irresistable tendency to selfdegradation/promiscuity and vilest selfhatred/blaming others cycles in contemporary ‘social conservatism’ derive from. And the alcoholism. And the weird willpower doctrine: of wanting their world arranged in a way (to a supposed Divine Order of Nature- actually a pre-Christian pagan doctrine) they themselves cannot actually live.
During the MAD phase of the Cold War there was no more advantage to sanity- sane people saw no rational way out. We needed a paranoid Party that would, out of fear, not risk our existence but would continue to fight on despite the absurdity of the situation. A Party that was deeply fearful but arrogant, escapist, and inhuman/primitive enough to want to kill, and mildly suicidal and full enough of people who realize (secretly) that their only positive contribution to society was ability to kill its ostensible enemies and die themselves. Thus the ‘national security conservatives’/radical Right plebeians. Who hoist the banner of Death over any party that will have them.
Which leaves the misanthropes, the coldhearted elitists and aristocrats of many stripes, the people who hate and disbelieve in Man, Progress, and The Future but wishfully imagine their own spawn and heirs and clans/tribes/race/sect and gender and dogmas of infinite worth. Who believe in inhumanity and stupidity as the truth of human character, for which and for whose causes they take no responsibility- indeed, they take advantage of it everywhere they can. They know they live a lie and a contradiction (after all, the logical action to take on these beliefs is suicide and not bothering with children or heirs). But they hate the obligation imposed of helping Society improve- that’s too hard, that takes money and effort away from those few they want to privilege. No nobility, small mean hearts: that’s their eternal flaw. When they rule, they rule for inhumanity and ignobility and unfairness; when they fall, they beg for humane treatment.
The Nixon-to-Bush Jr. Republicans managed to stuff all this into a single package. Into a Manichaean theological scheme, a gnosticism. Their White Demiurge was variously Nixon, Reagan, or Bush Jr., with many white ‘Christian’ male subdeities. Championing Christianity, Free Market Capitalism, Conservatism, Constitutional Democracy or whatever as absolute truths. The Black Demiurge shifted a bit, obviously. It is/was an easy certainty with all the Answers with no awareness of History as social evolution. It’s all self-centered teleology- a determinism that requires your compliance to achieve the exceedingly vain end result.
The problem is, of course, that it’s all about imaginary worlds, false certainties, dishonest relationships, indulging ego needs and ravings of the dying, and occultism as method. Not much there about reality or the true needs of the living, relationships of humility and integrity or genuine duty, or the tasks of maturity: giving real care to those in need and living responsibly with uncertainty.
none
John, if you haven’t read Philip Agre’s long but amazing essay on conservatism from 2004, you may find in it answers your questions.
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
Gus
They believe in grabbing as much money with both hands for as long as they can.
monkeyboy
The question ‘what do these people believe in’ is somewhat misguided because it assumes that they posess the same framework of thoughts that makes this a meaningful question that can be answered in a liberal or enlightenment framework.
Above, I briefly discussed where Conservatives are positioned among 5 moral/psychological dimensions.
I agree with many of the comments here that conservatism is highly related to aristocracy. Many of the arguments given here can be found in Phil Agre’s paper What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?. The paper starts out with
[end quote]
The paper goes on in a long analysis and discussion, and has been <a href=”http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=msq&num=100&q=agre+%22What+Is+Conservatism%22″much discussed on the web.
[ sorry but I can’t seem to get the blockquoting working above ]
monkeyboy
Argh. My final link above got eated.
Argre’s paper, What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? has been much discussed on the web.
Justin
Power, money and hate.
Steve J.
They believe in Power, as Hayek pointed out almost 50 years ago.
daphnechyprious
Not to repeat what’s already been mentioned and elucidated so well, I’ll add this priority: order above opportunity. Things might get messy. See: Noonan, Peggy in many of her columns.
Steve J.
Re: Stacy @47
I agree with your analysis and I’d like to add that some of the wingnuts are simply caught up in paranoid delusions.
Toby Petzold
That isn’t a very good definition of “godbotherer,” triplepoint.
Neologisms and nicknames should make some sort of immediate sense. Otherwise, it’s all just more of the usual babytalk that liberals use to communicate with each other.
TiaRachel
“Godbotherer’ comes from the Terry Pratchett books, where it’s used to describe priests — those who talk to/at/about the gods all the time, thus bothering them. Seems plain enough. (In Pratchett’s world, of course, the gods just might talk back — or toss a lightning bolt or half-empty wineskin, should they be so inclined. But just because they exist is no reason to go *believing* in them…)
jayskew
It’s amusing to see people refering to the founders as aristrocrats. So far as I know, none of the U.S. founders were hereditary aristocracy; the closest were some foreign aristrocrats such as Lafayette who chose to help. Washington’s family was moderately well off, but he actually worked for a living. Franklin famously worked himself up from nothing. Adams was a lawyer and a small farmer. Jefferson’s family was not wealthy, and he himself died so deep in debt everything had to be sold.
Jefferson answered Juan Cole’s question long ago:
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, 10 August 1824
Power. That’s what they believe in. That’s all.
Northern Observer
I have a bar room theory about republicans and american conservatism that goes like this. Basically, the anti communist struggle warped their values and eventually their ability to reason and perceive reality, good and evil. Because in the anti communist struggle conservative thinkers decided that they need a political ideology that was as rigid, doctrinaire and as absolutist as the communist ideology. It’s a simple mistake to make when you fight an enemy, sometimes you feel you have to match him, oh they say communism is the bestest well no capitalism is the bestest. Thinking went out the window, sloganeering and faith came in. Eventually it liquidated what thinking elites were left in the conservative movement and thats how Bush and Palin came to be identified as leaders of the movement. It’s an attitude towards reality that is totally inappropriate except in short emergency situations. In a sense American conservatism has become an eternal emergency and Americans are sick of it, but the believers can’t give up their world view. They are too invested. But some breakaway and it is the big reason why youth is not joining the conservative movement, the cult like nuttiness is too evident to the ideologically neutral.
anonevent
@am: Did you read the realclimate article that he also linked to? Ignoring the fact that Alan Carlin is not a trained climatologist, since lots of people pick up expertise in areas they are not trained for, Carlin threw together an unasked for paper outside his job at the EPA. The report consisted of using such sources as old debunked data and data that contradicted other data in his report, and cited “experts” that included an astrologer.
This is not suppressing a contradictory report, but a bad one.
monkeyboy
@Northern Observer:
I think this is how the aristocratic conservatives captured the religious fundamentalist poor. Constant harping about ‘godless communism’ to the point that the Pledge of Allegiance was amended to contain “under God” allied that traditional Democratic segment with their betters who promised to protect their religion from the Communist threat.
Glen Tomkins
They follow the state religion
Right about now this is a pretty polytheistic country. If you have any doubts about that, just look at what the folks who claim to be our fiercest guardians of monotheism have gotten up to lately. These people were agin’ dancing a generation ago, fer Chrissake, lest lewd lasciviousness distract from contemplation of the One God, and now they seem on the verge of conferring Biblical authority on Sanford’s fertility cult. Oh, I guess that should read “virility cult”, but same idea.
But we do have a predominant cult in this welter of strange gods. The state religion, a sub-cult of the worship of the Great God Mammon, is based on a belief that only people who make billions could possibly have the competence to direct the public affairs of this country. This belief is dominant in this country, but its efects run so counter to how the written Constitution says the country should be governed, that there is an ongoing need for people like the WSJ editorial staff to urge the straight and narrow.
Of course this belief system is based on revelation, not empiricism, so, yes, exactly who and what policies it espouses or attacks at any given moment will seem to the uninitiated inconsistent. But I think you will find utter consistency if you look at their shifting pronouncments with a view to this belief, that whatever those who make billions want, whatever is best for them amid the changing vicissitudes, must be best for this country, must be allowed to set this country’s public policy.
goatchowder
They are gleeful nihilists. They don’t believe in ANYTHNIG, they just pretend they buy all that right-wing horeshit, because it pays, and because it pisses off liberals.
Think of Bill O’Lielly f’rinstance. He has no principles or beliefs except being a bully and offending people.
It’s the marriage of nihilism and narcissism. It’s all about them, and fuck everyone else. 1999 party over oops out of time. Grab yours and who gives a shit about anyone else.