WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Friday, June 29, 2018

An Innocent Appearing Post That Point To Dreams Of Control

Conservatives, especially religiously conservative Christians, almost always find it inevitable to succumb to authoritarian personality types and authoritarianism. Other ideological sides also succumb but not as inevitably as conservatives have. And if we want to understand why our nation is so divided, we need to understand how those with authoritarian personality types promote authoritarianism.

An example can be found in John Horvat's (click here for a bio) blogpost lamentingly claiming that America no longer has a true elite class (click here for the article). But before going into Horvat's blogpost, we need to show why Conservatives have such a penchant for authority personality types and authoritarianism.

We should note that the two most important words to conservatives regarding society and culture are 'tradition' and 'control.' Tradition provides guidelines for us while control enforces those guidelines. And let's face it, some of conservative's traditional guidelines would be helpful to everyone. But the problem with Conservatives is that they look solely to the parts of the past they revere to understand today and to solve its problems. And that is at the root of Conservatism's love affair with authoritarianism.  For breaking from tradition, according to Conservatives, provides a threat to the present and future.

Now we can dig into Horvat's article for he is lamenting the fact that yesteryear's elites no longer have their place in society and society is struggling because of that.

However, Horvat's attempt to revive the social elite class from the past is is rooted in idealism, not reality. Horvat starts with how the old, true elite class was replaced with a meritocracy. That meritocracy recognizes talent rather than character and doesn't measure one's contribution to society. According to Horvat, these new elites  consolidate their wealth and recognizes fewer restraints from civic responsibilities. The emergence of today's meritocracy was significantly rooted in the protests of the 1960s. Many established practices and traditional views were challenged back then. And yet despite the search for justice back then, Horvat points out that the opposite happened.

This new set of elites is being targeted, according to Horvat, simply because they are elites. Then Horvat challenges such targeting by saying that all healthy societies have elites. In essence, Horvat complains that people should not be targeted simply because they are elites. Horvat then defines true elites of the past as those exceptional people who seek the common good and make sacrifices for the community. Horvat also mentions that true elites could include some who are rich but true elites don't have to be wealthy. True elites can have ordinary jobs because it's the quality of their work that makes them elites.

According to Horvat, the true elites from the past have suffered the same fate as the proverbial baby who is tossed out with the bathwater. That was done all for the sake of promoting egalitarianism and individualism.

But Horvat's problem here is rooted in his idealism. By declaring that the true elites from the past can be ordinary people who do ordinary jobs in an extraordinary way, he challenges the notion of the term 'elite.' For such a term carries with it the idea of being superior. So how could such ordinary people be regarded as superior to the rest?

In addition, we might ask Horvat if all egalitarianism and other challenges from the 1960s were bad. After all, the 2 main forms of egalitarianism promoted back then were race and gender based. Why should we condemn equality between the races and the sexes in society? Here we might ask, how could one, according to Horvat's notion of the true elites from the past, not include those who worked for racial equality and equality for men and women? And if those who promoted such equality could be considered significantly similar to those whom Horvat considers to be elites, then how could the notion of egalitarianism always work against the creation of people whom Horvat regards as elites?

We should also note that one of the major concerns of those protesting in the 1960s was America's participation in the Vietnam War. For those who were protesting that war, they considered the war to be immoral and thus they believed they had a just cause. Again, how does protesting against an immoral war disqualify one from Horvat's definition of true elites?

We should note the state of America when Horvat's true elites roamed free in society. That that state of America went way beyond what Horvat described as having defects. After all, this was during the height of the Jim Crow era in our nation. And if the true elites of the past existed then, why didn't they challenge Jim Crow as effectively as those who promoted egalitarianism during the 1960s?

In addition, America's labor history strongly indicates that the meritocracy that followed the upheaval of the 1960s also strongly existed during the time when we had true elites living among us. How is it that those true elites did not mount an effective campaign against the meritocracy of their own times?

Basically, Horvat wants a return of the good old days. Back then, the Church had a greater influence on society than it does today. But again, where was the Church when Jim Crow loomed large and the meritocracy of those times thrived? Where was much of the Church when our nation was waging an immoral war in Vietnam?

Back then, people recognized the authority of the true elites who lived among them. And this shows how Horvat's conservatism advances authoritarianism. For rather than wanting today's people to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, Horvat wants them to submit to the guidance of his his true elites from the past. But for all of the positive qualities that Horvat saw in them, those true elites did little to undo the social injustices of their time.

It's not that Horvat has no legitimate complaints about today's world and those who are considered to be the elites of our time. Our society is in a downward spiral because of its propensity for self-indulgences. But another contributing factor to society's downward spiral is found in the efforts of society's many diverse ideologically based groups to attempt to seek control over society. And this includes many who hold to conservative ideology. For many from those ideological groups cannot see their way to sharing power with each other. Rather, they believe that, for society's good, they need to conquer all other groups and control society. And here we might ask if that was as true with Horvat's true elites from the past as it is with the today's meritocracy of which he complains.




No comments: