thomas said:
Quote:I think there's more to this than a 'sage philosopher elite hiding the truth from the masses lest it upset them.' I believe that many neconservatives are indeed deeply uncomfortable about evolution.
And considering how many neoconservatives started out as socialists, it only seems natural: Darwinian evolution, like the free market, is a process that has proven to be enormously creative and productive. Authoritarian minds, however, are pained and confused by the fact that nobody is in charge of either process. Creationism and socialism soothe that pain and explain away the confusion, so the same minds tend to like both bogus theories. The bogosity of both theories is a small price to pay for the peace of mind they bring.
thomas
I like that. Almost. You point to a psychological factor that seems to motivate the conservative mind (defined as Hayek defines it) such as we'd plausibly attribute to many fundamentalists, protestant, catholic, jew or muslim (plus others who weren't raised in faith).
But I'm not convinced that either Kristol or Himmelfarb, for example, are personally upset in the slightest by the Darwinian process. The quotes from Bailey clearly don't suggest they are. Rather, they see religious mythology as merely and only a workable framework for enforcing predictable behavior in society. Promotion of 'virtue' is a key Straussian notion, yes? And it's a fundamental argument in Himmelfarb's recent book (which I haven't read, but I have heard her speak).
Her notion of virtue is the one to be enforced, of course.
Pretty clearly, they, like Bork and many other individuals in this movement were upset by what happened here and in Europe in the sixties. Their conservativism moved into high gear through some version of abject social terror at boys with long hair, free love, LSD and posters of Che.
But we miss a key historical element here if we don't recognize the importance of Nixon appointed SC Justice Lewis F. Powell's 1971 memo to the US Chamber of Commerce arguing that the "free enterprise system" was under attack and that business needed to "stop suffering in impotent silence, and launch a counter-attack...against "those who would destroy it." Various people have written on the seminal nature of this memo and the strategy it outlined. It is very important. And it points to another 'player' in this picture...the corporate player which can, as you know, operate very much as a conservative force and not a liberal force at all.
thomas
Quote:blatham wrote:And YES! Hayak has the differences in liberal/conservative mindset exactly right.
Glad you liked it, and thanks for pointing me to this thread. You know, of course, that both Hayek and
Reason are part of the evil "Republican noise machine", according to
Davd Brock. (Cough, cough)
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am familiar with the ownership behind Reason. But I don't think we can add Hayek in as you suggest, no moreso than any scholar whose work they might utilize.
These guys have to publish their ideas in order to spread them broadly. And often, they have to be honest and transparent, rather than tempering for public consumption. We can all be happy that they no longer do it in a language that no one else can read.