The obvious response is that diversity is an idea that means different things to different people; to those who perceive themselves to be the underdogs, it means that the Powers that Be should consider minority views. To the Powers That Be and their philosophical allies, it means that we're all going to be civilized about considering all points of view, even if the philosophical underpinnings of The Powers That Be are pretty slim, and the liberal opposition has held the high ground on campus, but the Powers have hung on to the money and the power.
Diversity is an extra. It is an important extra, because a certain sort of conservatism, a very good part of conservatism, is to preserve as much as possible. To conserve. Conservatism as a philosophy is not about preserving anything except the right of those who have amassed a lot of wealth to keep that wealth. To be fair, that's just modern conservatism; it used to mean slowing down change, and hanging onto tradition. Once a certain sector of society has got an enormous part of the wealth of a society, the two kinds of conservatism have identical goals, right? Let's allow the people who traditionally have all the money to continue to have all the money! That's only fair!
In an unequal society, diversity must be viewed in a political light; the right of those who are in a position of power in society to demand diversity can't be taken seriously, unless they're working to minimize poverty and hardship in the population at large. In the USA today, they are not.
Those in power are conspiring to consume the resources of society, while denying them to the poor.
Those in power are conspiring to enable themselves to have greater economic and political power, and to ensure that the poor and the disadvantaged can never elect their champions into positions from which they can alleviate hunger and poverty and powerlessness.
Those in power flood the media with propaganda to subvert the power of the people.
The minority that controls the majority of the wealth of the nation consumes the resources of the people recklessly, in the name of encouraging "business."
The minority that controls the majority of the wealth of the nation continues to destroy the environment, without regard to how it affects the population at large.
The minority that controls the majority of the wealth of the nation uses religion and superstition to control the minds of the ignorant, and to bend them to their will, and to cloud their thinking about scientific causes and effects.
The affluent minority wages reckless wars in order to further its programme of consumption, destruction of the environment, and intimidation of foreign nations and groups, and to keep open its channels of exploitation, and to fuel its business interests.
In the face of such irresponsible recklessness, how can we take accusations of denying "diversity" seriously?
Having said all that, it is nevertheless true that conservative thinking has to be allowed, and, occasionally, to be heard. Civil discourse must continue even in times when so-called "Conservative Thinking" is under siege, just as it is during times when "Liberal Thinking" is under siege. Intellectuals who pander to the powerful financial interests of the wealthy minority are only to be pitied, as intellectuals. It is amusing to hear these pseudo-intellectuals whining about being heard in public forums, as if there could be any intellectual substance in their thinking. But their thinking has to be countered with logic, rather than with mere rhetoric.
Today, conservative thinking is under siege, but there is a lot of conservative propaganda that is flooding the media, making it appear as if conservative thinking is current, and prevalent. Remember: there are millions of faces behind liberal thinking and demands. Behind conservative thinking there are millions of dollars, but few people.
Unfortunately, the economic theories favored by conservative thinkers has different axioms than the thinking of leftist, or socialist scholars, therefore the only way to counter their arguments is to look at the practical outcomes, and, where possible, to point out the falsehood of common aphorisms that they quote. But it is harder to give a logical response to a slick economic presentation than to lose one's temper. But, out in the media, the battle is being waged with emotion rather than logic. More emotion will not help.
Arch
No comments:
Post a Comment