,
27 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
OK, I want to return to this dangerous nonsense.
Van proposes that we are a bird with two wings—a common misperception.
Here's why he's wrong.
Van proposes that we are a bird with two wings—a common misperception.
Here's why he's wrong.
I’ll set aside for now the lack of judgment it shows to appear at CPAC in the first place.
The real problem is, it reinforces a dominant misapprehension about the nature of conservatism and progressivism, and the nature of the current cultural struggle we're in.
The real problem is, it reinforces a dominant misapprehension about the nature of conservatism and progressivism, and the nature of the current cultural struggle we're in.
Conservatism and progressivism are treated like naturally occurring identities—as if some people are just conservative, and others are just progressive.
But they aren't. These are ideologies.
SITUATIONAL ideologies.
But they aren't. These are ideologies.
SITUATIONAL ideologies.
Conservatism and progressivism exist on a spectrum, but to reduce them to a binary for simplicity’s sake, let's say they are two ways of interacting with an existing order.
Specifically, with whatever one currently exists.
Specifically, with whatever one currently exists.
Conservatism is, in its essence, an ideology that desires to keep things as they are, and to make slow and calculated adjustment, or no adjustments, to that underlying order.
Conservatism sits at the center of the spectrum.
It is only as good as the order upon which it sits.
Conservatism sits at the center of the spectrum.
It is only as good as the order upon which it sits.
Progressivism is, at its essence, an ideology that desires to change the existing order, sometimes dramatically.
Progressivism points in a direction out, away from the existing order.
It is only as good as that direction.
Progressivism points in a direction out, away from the existing order.
It is only as good as that direction.
For us to know whether we ‘need’ conservatism at the present moment requires a judgment about the existing order—which requires some underlying value against which to judge it.
For us to know whether we ‘need’ progressivism ALSO requires that judgment, AND a judgment about the direction of any needed progress—which, again, requires some underlying value against which to compare.
This is why it is useless for us to say we ‘need’ both conservatives and progressives.
Conservatives conserving … what?
Progressives progressing toward … what?
Conservatives conserving … what?
Progressives progressing toward … what?
Our argument is not taking place on an axis of conservatism and progressivism at all.
It’s taking place on axis of moral value.
We’re contending over which value-set will undergird our moral order.
I’ll name the struggle.
It’s taking place on axis of moral value.
We’re contending over which value-set will undergird our moral order.
I’ll name the struggle.
I’d say it’s a struggle between an axis of universal justice versus an axis of specific dominance.
The distinction matters quite a lot, because getting it wrong means we don’t see the struggle for what it is.
The people calling themselves ‘conservative’ aren’t conservative at all.
They’re progressives, of a kind
They have a direction
Not forward, but backward
Regressives
The people calling themselves ‘conservative’ aren’t conservative at all.
They’re progressives, of a kind
They have a direction
Not forward, but backward
Regressives
They want to take dramatic action to return us to a time they think was great, these regressives.
Don't forget to buy merch at the gift shop.
Don't forget to buy merch at the gift shop.
They yearn for a time when their way of being—in matters of religion, skin tone, gender, identity, sexuality, wealth—dominated all others.
A time when there was a normal, and that was them.
And there was an abnormal, and those kept quiet if they knew what was good for them.
A time when there was a normal, and that was them.
And there was an abnormal, and those kept quiet if they knew what was good for them.
They call themselves ‘conservative,’ these regressives, because there was a time when their way of seeing things WAS the moral order. It was the axis.
And in that old time, believing as you did, you would be conservative.
But we’ve moved since.
And in that old time, believing as you did, you would be conservative.
But we’ve moved since.
We sit now in a strange amidships place, our moral value sitting in a strange multidimensional territory between an axis of universal justice and one of unjust dominance.
Today’s conservatives—the true conservatives—are those who would keep us there, balanced between.
I don’t count myself among them.
We balance too precariously.
Too many people are in danger.
All of us, really.
I don’t count myself among them.
We balance too precariously.
Too many people are in danger.
All of us, really.
In actuality, I would benefit greatly from the regressive moral framework. I’m everything they consider ‘normal.’ If they came to dominate, they’d lift me up, even if I struggled against it.
But they’d crush everybody else under their feet.
So I will never be one of them.
But they’d crush everybody else under their feet.
So I will never be one of them.
In some future day, when we have made justice our axis, and we have moved our position as close to its center as we can, I would hope to be a conservative.
We’re not there now.
Until we are, I will not be conservative.
We’re not there now.
Until we are, I will not be conservative.
We aren’t two wings, a right and a left. It’s much more complicated than that.
We’re a compass, deciding which direction to point.
We're a navigator, deciding whether or not to journey.
A compass can’t point in two directions.
We can’t decide both to move AND to not move.
We’re a compass, deciding which direction to point.
We're a navigator, deciding whether or not to journey.
A compass can’t point in two directions.
We can’t decide both to move AND to not move.
When we call regressive ‘conservative,’ we cede the center to them.
We give them dominance as equal in value to justice.
We allow them their moral framework.
We validate their desired destination.
We shouldn’t.
Don't get in the van, Van.
We give them dominance as equal in value to justice.
We allow them their moral framework.
We validate their desired destination.
We shouldn’t.
Don't get in the van, Van.
Fixing the thread (dang it).
Regressive “conservatism’s” activism around abortion is centered entirely around domination of women, which is why in every other place where a child’s welfare intersects with their own interests, they choose their interests.
This is what you can expect to see, from an ideology whose moral framework centers around cultural domination. bit.ly/2ED2Neg
Why feed a Muslim pork?
It's not about border security.
It's not about safety.
It's not about decency, nothing to do with rule of law.
It's cruelty.
Cruelty is an effective delivery mechanism for domination.
It's not about border security.
It's not about safety.
It's not about decency, nothing to do with rule of law.
It's cruelty.
Cruelty is an effective delivery mechanism for domination.
This is what you can expect to see, from an ideology whose central framework is domination.
The true believers also don’t care about children. They care about domination.
