Keith Devens .com

Maybe, but regardless of whether he's completely untained by subjectivity, he's right about Fox "News". Talk about a lowest common denominator channel!

I disagree about Fox News, btw. They do a decent job, and they seem to try very hard to make sure they bring on people with as many opposing viewpoints as possible. I fail to perceive what many find so bad about the network. Of course I'm annoyed by all the "gossip" news (Kobe Bryant, Mark Peterson, Michael Jackson), but that's everywhere.

And, who do you like better? CNN (who would rather give Saddam a pass than lose their post in Baghdad... their history has made me lose a lot of respect for them)? Or maybe the BBC?

I disagree about Fox News, btw. They do a decent job, and they seem to try very hard to make sure they bring on people with as many opposing viewpoints as possible.

From an editorial point of view, I haven't seen much evidence of that.

I fail to perceive what many find so bad about the network.

Could it be its use of needlessly emotive and populist language? Its bias towards the current US administration? (Mind you, whatever administration is in power, I think the media should be doing their best to trip them up--it's not just a bias against El Arbusto). There's also the fact that its international news coverage is simply laughable.

And, who do you like better? CNN (who would rather give Saddam a pass than lose their post in Baghdad... their history has made me lose a lot of respect for them)? Or maybe the BBC?

I'd prefer both the BBC and CNN to Fox any day. However, though I've been getting more and more irritated with it recently as it appears to be becoming more and more like its sister channel, I quite like Sky News.

Ah, and I almost forgot! These two articles are good:

• The Problem With Liberalism
• The Problem With Conservatism

While I don't, obviously, agree with the religiosity in them, I do agree with the other points the author is trying to make in both. You might find them interesting.

What's that about its sister channel? Which sister channel, and which network were you referring to whose sister channel it is?

I read the conservatism article first, and it was terrible! None of his criticisms applied to my understanding of conservatism, he had shockingly bad theology, and it seemed to be filled with self-contradiction throughout. Total waste of time.

The article on liberalism, so far, seems much better, though there's not much new in it. However, I appreciated a novel rhetorical device he used. It's somewhat similar to one I've used in the past, but he did it in a better way. I still have to finish reading that article.

I think you're a bit biased though. Are you that sure Conservatism is correct? I think he made some quite good points in both. How 'bout a run-through of what was wrong when you've time?

Sky News is Fox News's sister channel. They're both owned by News Corporation.

However, though I've been getting more and more irritated with it recently as it appears to be becoming more and more like its sister channel, I quite like Sky News.

Sky News is Fox News's sister channel. They're both owned by News Corporation.

Ok, I was confused, because I knew that Sky News was Fox News' sister channel, but you said Fox News was becoming more like its sister channel and that that was irritating you, but you said that you quite like Sky News. The only thing I could think of was that you were referring to a sister channel of CNN or the BBC that I was unaware of. As it stands, I'm still not sure what you meant above, but I get what your feelings are, I think.

Are you that sure Conservatism is correct? I think he made some quite good points in both. How 'bout a run-through of what was wrong when you've time?

Sure, let me first define my understanding of conservatism. Conservatism takes a generally "constrained" view of the nature of man (constrained as defined in Sowell's excellent book, A Conflict of Visions), as opposed to "unconstrained", meaning that man is fundamentally limited in his capabilities and cannot fundamentally change his nature. So, to give an example, the constrained view of man implies that he cannot make a system like communism work, both because he lacks the knowledge and wisdom to run a centralized economy (that is better left to systematic market forces which represent the aggregate knowledge and wisdom of everyone in the society, which is greater than the limited knowledge and wisdom of the few in government), and because it takes a very "unconstrained" view of man's nature to believe that he can, by fiat, alter the course of human history so radically. This constrained view of man implies things like small government, a non-activist (there's a word for it I don't remember) judiciary which places more emphasis on past wisdom than its own desire for "social justice", and this constrained vs. unconstrained view of man has further implications all over the map. I'd highly recommend you check out Sowell's book.

However, I don't quite hold to Sowell's exact distinction between constrained and unconstrained. I hold, based on my Christianity, that man's nature is fundamentally corrupt, and that therefore power should not be intrusted to few people^[1]. People who don't believe man's nature is corrupt, but who believe rather that man is a product of evolution whose potential is in principle unlimited, will come to radically different conclusions about pretty much everything. (Plato's "philosopher kings" are also clearly an example of the results of an unconstrained view of man.) This puts me within Sowell's constrained category, but not exactly for the same reasons. In fact, I think one of the biggest failings of Sowell's book is that he doesn't discuss the role that religious belief will have in determining your view of the nature of man. My Christianity determines my view of the nature of man, and it's illustrative that other branches of Christianity with different theology will come to different conclusions about this nature. For instance, this even translates into things like the more liberal brances of Christianity, such as Methodism, which holds that man can be perfected in this life (a very "unconstrained" view), being the ones which strongly opposed the Iraq war.

One strain within conservatism is based largely on social darwinism, but I don't quite hold to that type of view. I think it's fallacious to argue that because "that's how things have always been" that that's how things should be. However, that's different than thinking that because "that's how things have always been", that there may just be some aspect of unchanging human nature captured by that, and that maybe we should strongly take that into consideration before trying to change things that have persisted for a long time. Feminism and gay marriage are illustrative issues here. You'll see this type of thinking in people who argue for "traditional" marriage. In contrast, I would argue against homosexual marriage based on Biblical principles. Once you step off this foundation then anything goes. However, even if I wasn't a Christian, I would be strongly skeptical of changing a foundation such as marriage that has persisted so long as being between a man and a woman, and is even reflected in our physiology. However, if I wasn't Christian, I would only view marriage as a mere social convention, and therefore not of great importance anyway. In fact, if I wasn't a Christian, an "oath" or "promise" would have no import, and that itself would undermine the foundation marriage is built upon.

Sheesh, I've written so much but I haven't even gotten to discussing that article. Though, after all this it should be easier to see why the article doesn't apply to me.

Finally, one thing that distinguishes conservatism from other philosophies which might take a constrained view of man or support a small government, such as libertarianism, is the view of the role of morality in the state. Traditional conservatives seem to hold that the state should be a promoter of morality. That seems to be based on an underlying Christian philosophical current here that now, after Christianity is no longer generally considered the foundation of our republic, continues "underground" or "inexplicitly". I've never heard support given for the state's role in morality upon a secular rationale. The Greeks, for comparison, thought the state (or schools, or the community, or whatever) should teach morality, and that was based on their religion and myths. But apart from a Christian foundation, I can't imagine what the basis is of those "traditional conservatives" who think that the state should have a role in morality. However, taking off my Christian hat for a second, it appears on the face of it insane that children should be able to go to the store and buy crack or cocaine and that the government (who would then probably tax those substances) would make money off the death and addiction of its citizens. Equally, it seems reasonable to me that people in a given society should be able to legislate the morals that the people in the society should be held to (so, even in absence of my Christianity (if such a thing is possible), I would say that if the people in Texas want to make sodomy illegal they should be able to). Though, in the absence of Christianity, whatever morals those might be would be without basis.

Ok, now onto the article!

The easiest way to discuss the article is to cover the "acute moral errors" in conservatism which the author lists. I'll try not to discuss my theological objections to his positions because that would just be too much.

The first moral error of political conservatism is civil religionism. According to this notion America is a chosen nation, and its projects are a proper focus of religious aspiration; according to Christianity America is but one nation among many, no less loved by God, but no more.

I don't hold to this. America will be in favor with God to the extent that its people and government live and govern according to Biblical principles -- the law of God. It's clear from the Bible that that standard is the one by which God judges any nation. I do, however, believe that America has played a very special role in history, and has often been God's instrument in fighting evil and in keeping the world free (among other things). I do believe America is the greatest nation to have ever existed -- the most powerful yet at the same time most benevolent -- and I do believe that has something to do with our foundation of Christianity.

The second moral error of political conservatism is instrumentalism. According to this notion faith should be used for the ends of the state; according to Christianity believers should certainly be good citizens, but faith is not a tool. To be sure, the pedigree of instrumentalism is not purely conservative; it has followers on the left as well as the right. Jean-Jacques Rousseau...

I don't hold to Rousseau's position. I don't believe faith is a "tool" of any kind.

The third moral error of political conservatism is moralism. According to this notion God's grace needs the help of the state; Christianity merely asks the state to get out of the way. We might say that while instrumentalism wants to make faith a tool of politics, moralism wants to make politics a tool of faith; on this reading, what instrumentalism is to secular conservatives, moralism is to religious conservatives.

God's grace does not need the "help of the state". I don't even know what that would mean. The state's proper goal is not to promote religion. Here he brings up prayer in schools. I could discuss this, but his point already doesn't apply to me, so I'll move on.

The fourth moral error of political conservatism is Caesarism. According to this notion the laws of man are higher than the laws of God; according to Christianity the laws of God are higher than the laws of man.

I'm not a "Caesarist". In fact, in the past, people in this country have explicitly based the justification for laws on the laws of God. (This is relevant here).

The fifth moral error of political conservatism is traditionalism. According to this notion what has been done is what should be done;

I discussed this above.

The sixth moral error of political conservatism is neutralism... In essence, conservative neutralism is the notion that because everyone ought to mind his own business, moral and religious judgments should be avoided.

I discussed this above.

The seventh moral error of political conservatism is mammonism. According to this notion wealth is the object of commonwealth, and its continual increase even better;

I just discussed this in a comment on another post. See comments about "balance".

The eighth moral error of political conservatism is meritism. According to this notion I should do unto others as they deserve. ... According to Christianity I should do unto others not as they deserve, but as they need.

Here he's confusing the role of the church and the individual with the state. The state is not a charitable organization.

Ok, that's the whole thing. I've hope I've illustrated what I understand by "conservatism" and why that article didn't touch it at all. I think lots of things the article discusses aren't implications of conservatism at all, and, like I said before, I think the author is theologically confused.

Footnotes:
[1]: This is very much like the view of the founders of my country, and was the reasoning behind the "balance of powers" between the brances of government

Whoa! I didn't expect that so soon! I haven't read your critique just yet, but I'm going to print it out.

Whoa! I didn't expect that so soon!

Yeah, I just finished with finals, so I've had more time

Yeah, I just finished with finals, so I've had more time

I'm just after starting my finals. Had software engineering on Wednesday, but they really screwed the pooch with my timetable for the coming week: I've Compilers on Monday, and my electives, Artificial Intelligence and Realtime Systems, are on Wednesday and Friday. Then there's Distributed Systems the week after, with a week and a half until my Management exam, which is the last one.

Me: However, though I've been getting more and more irritated with it recently as it appears to be becoming more and more like its sister channel, I quite like Sky News.
...
You: Ok, I was confused, because I knew that Sky News was Fox News' sister channel, but you said Fox News was becoming more like its sister channel and that that was irritating you, but you said that you quite like Sky News.

I've read over what I wrote, and the "it" in that subclause seems pretty clear to me as referring to Sky, ergo the sister channel being Fox.

Mind you, the English language isn't exactly known for its perfect clarity.

non-activist (there's a word for it I don't remember)

Impartial?

I'd highly recommend you check out Sowell's book.

I will when I'm out of college and have money. Not just yet though.

However, I don't quite hold to Sowell's exact distinction between constrained and unconstrained. I hold, based on my Christianity, that man's nature is fundamentally corrupt, and that therefore power should not be intrusted to few people.

I would say that humanity is flawed rather than corrupt, hence loose-coupling of power make sense in so far as it makes society more resilient to the errors of any one person.

For instance, this even translates into things like the more liberal branches (sic.) of Christianity [...] being the ones which strongly opposed the Iraq war.

I was skeptical for different reasons. I saw and still see it as being in part the expression of a family grudge against Hussain. I don't think it could be rationally justified, and that Afghanistan should have been wrapped up before the "Warren Terism" was started. Newt Gingrich got it right when he said:

What America needs now not more enemies but more allies. The hardcore terrorists number an infinitesimal percentage of the people out there, but they disappear against the camouflage background of general resentment and hostility. Turn all that hostility into goodwill, and then watch: against that background, the terrorists will stand out like flies on vanilla ice cream.

Starting this "war" gave the real terrorists more camouflage. The whole idea of making a pre-emptive strike just makes you into an agressor, and nobody likes an agressor. The smart thing to do would have been to get Saddam to make the first move. This would have made him into the agressor and gave the invasion a solid grounding as opposed to "Saddam's nasty, so we have to get rid of him", which is true but never stopped the US supporting him in the '80s.

However, that's different than thinking ...

Can't... help... myself... becoming... pedantic... Aarrgh! It's "different to" or "different from".

Feminism ... [is an] illustrative issue[s] here.

How?

However, if I wasn't Christian, I would only view marriage as a mere social convention, and therefore not of great importance anyway.

There's many non-Christians who would disagree with you on that quite vehemently, you know! Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jainists, &c, for instance.

In fact, if I wasn't a Christian, an "oath" or "promise" would have no import, and that itself would undermine the foundation marriage is built upon.

See above. As an aside, my oaths and promises are based upon my sense of honour, and that for me is of great import.

Though, in the absence of Christianity, whatever morals those might be would be without basis.

Considering that people managed to get on just fine as far as morals went before Christianity and still do (see above again), I don't hold this to be true.

The easiest way to discuss the article is to cover the "acute moral errors" in conservatism which the author lists.

And there's your first error of analysis. The author was critiquing a set of errors common amongst conservatives and liberals. He stated that virtually all are guilty of committing at least one of them. However, he didn't state that all liberals and all conservatives make them all, so there may be liberals and conservatives who made none of them. If you're not guilty of any, that doesn't mean that the errors given in the articles aren't made by most.

I don't hold to this. [...] I do, however, believe that America has played a very special role in history, and has often been God's instrument in fighting evil and in keeping the world free (among other things). I do believe America is the greatest nation to have ever existed -- the most powerful yet at the same time most benevolent -- and I do believe that has something to do with our foundation of Christianity.

I'd hold that this is one you do commit. You see, by stating that the US has a "special role", you hold it as exalted above other nations. That's a kind of civil religionism. Anyway, most people hold their nation to be best. That's just patriotism, and it's just fine as long as it doesn't descend into it's fanatical form: jingoism. <digression>Mind you, the idea that it's unpatriotic to question the acts of a sitting cabinet is, well, dumb.</digression>

Here he's confusing the role of the church and the individual with the state. The state is not a charitable organization.

The state never came into it, except to show the difference between conservative and liberal thinking with state assistance to lone parents as an example. He stated exactly what you said--that the state is not a charitable organisation--but that the common conservative justification for the state not to provide such assistance was incorrect as far as Christianity goes.

Ok, all done! Now to tackle "evil"!

How do you do a blockquote inside a blockquote? I've tried various different ways, but none seem to work.

How do you do a blockquote inside a blockquote? I've tried various different ways, but none seem to work.

Unfortunately, blockquotes don't nest yet (my parser doesn't do it). Do something like this:

blah blah blah

> this is a tested blockquote
> more nested blockquote

back to the original quote

The code for this is:

> blah blah blah
>
>> this is a tested blockquote
>> more nested blockquote
>
> back to the original quote

It'll A. get the point across well enough, and B. actually work once I get around to making nested blockquotes work.