In reading Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, Professor of History at Mt. Holyoke Joseph Ellis defines Conservatism and Liberalism.
On liberalism, Ellis says, "The core revolutionary principle...is individual liberty. It has radical and, in modern terms, libertarian implications, because it regards any accommodation of personal freedom to governmental discipline as dangerous. In its more extreme forms it is a recipe for anarchy, and its attitude toward any energetic expression of centralized political power can assume paranoid proportions," (2000: 14).
On conservativism, he says, "...the American Revolution [was seen by some] as an incipient national movement with deep, if latent, origins in the colonial era...The core revolutionary principle in this view is collectivistic rather than individualistic, for it sees the true spirit of '76 as the virtuous surrender of personal, state, and sectional interests to the larger purposes of American nationhood, first embodied in the Continental Army and later in the newly established federal government. It has conservative but also protosocialistic implications, because it does not regard the individual as the sovereign unit in the political equation and is more comfortable with the governmental discipline as a focusing and channeling device for national development. In its more extreme forms it relegates personal rights and liberties to the higher authority of the state, which is "us" and not "them," and it therefore has both communal and despotic implications," (2000: 14).
As soon as I read this, I thought again of the irony of the Republicans having usurped the mantle of "Conservatism" since according to this classical definition, they are actually quite liberal (!!) and I'm sure that those radical, right-wing jackanapes who think plotting to kill leaders based on their skin color is a good idea would cringe at the thought.
But another implication that I'm certain not many have thought of is that these diametrically opposed interpretations of the purpose of the American Revolution is how they apply to dominant Euro-American understandings of China. Many a Euro-Am will lament at the lack of freedom in China and the lack of understanding of "Democracy" not only the government, but regular Chinese people in China have. They immediately attribute this condition to the oppressive government: if not for the oppressive regime, Chinese people would understand "Democracy, U.S.-style" and indeed, they would validate the Euro-American value system, i.e. they would be more like "us."
No, they wouldn't. China and its value system, without falling into essentialisms or transhistoricisms, consistently subscribes to this principle: sacrifice of the individual for the greater good of the state. For stability to reign, each individual must sacrifice, and that doesn't mean literally they need to sacrifice certain things--horror to your average American. They mean that people must know their roles. And for each situation, there are appropriate roles to play. If everyone maintains those, then society will not experience upheaval. It is when people do not understand these roles that chaos ensues.
And frankly, what's happening in the U.S. culturally and politically, with skinheads plotting to kill the next president and the V.P. pick by McCain demonstrating that, once again, Americans can be unimaginably, shockingly stupid at the highest levels of government, seems to be a testament to what happens when people do not understand their place, their limitations, have no decorum, manners and basic honor. And if that isn't enough proof that America's way isn't so great, can we just once more contemplate how the U.S. singlehandedly ushered in a GLOBAL DEPRESSION by sanctioning an 8-year period of rapacious, hey-if-the-president-can-steal-an-election-why-can't-I-do-a-little-stealing-of-my-own mentality? I don't think we should be pointing fingers at how inferior "they" are or looking for validation for our way of being "free." W have been steadily losing our freedom under Bush for the last Eight Years, and for those who object to the Democrats controlling Congress and the
White House, it was the 6 Years of Republican Congress that helped Bush along.
No comments:
Post a Comment