​I recently had to mute a thread that had followed on me making the observation that there were a lot of good things about conservatism.
 
My main point was thinking of conservatism as an impulse of caution, but read more specifically as principled positions, to which I must have been arguing the existence of which were good.
 
My intent was to take a deeper view, as conservative positions (as have those of progressives) have always changed, and so the best-faith position would be to think of the almost psychological political disposition, and principles that follow most immediately as such.
 
Specific positions such as low taxes, deregulation, pro-life, anti-LGBTQ, etc. are easy for a progressive to identify as wrong.  But if the impulse is caution, and then critiques of progressive over-reach, one can easily find positions that progressives would stop short of, and thus might be thought of as conservative.  Cautious, yes, but in practicality following a logic that I think could be described as conservative.  To illustrate, from a hard left position, the liberal position would be "more conservative", even if not exactly a conservative position per-say.  For instance, the ACA is a liberal approach to health care policy, but quite conservative compared to single payer.  Indeed, it was a position that had previously been advocated a conservative position in the past.  The same could be said for carbon taxes, or 3rd trimester abortion.
 
Many conservative principles, such as limited government, tradition, or free markets, are generally the basis for downstream policies.  However, it may be difficult to determine whether policies are in fact downstream from principles, as policy outcomes may be primary preferences that in turn lead to larger principles.  This is exemplified in historical examples of conservatives arguing for policies in bad faith, citing higher principles as a way of hiding social outcomes that they are otherwise loath to honestly advocate.  One thinks of States' Rights: a preference for segregation was morally difficult to support publicly, and so an appeal to States' Rights was a way of determining such outcomes by an appeal to republicanism and limited government.  Progressives have learned to be skeptical of supposed conservative principles for just this reason, as true policy outcome preferences seem to have a history of being hidden by broader appeals to principles that seem offered up post hoc.  Another example, a progressive might say, is pro-life conservatives advocating state-enforced pregnancy, which would seem antithetical to the notion of limited government.  Of course, the pro-life view of the fetal personhood would be argued as a superior ethic consideration of individual freedom (that of the unborn) that trumps limits on state power.
 
Thinking back - and I'm out of my depth here - but to the origins I believe of modern conservatism versus progressivism falling along the split over how best to deal with European aristocracy.  Conservatives felt the French Revolution went too far too fast, and as such were more comfortable or sympathetic to the status quo and favored a measured winding down towards something like egalitarianism.  They professed a belief in human rights and individual freedom, but stopped somewhere short - in the progressive view - of truly challenging structures of power and wealth that would continue to be the source of debate ever since.
 
The question then becomes one of principal versus pleasure - how much does a measured approach actually signify a preference for social outcomes that preserve hierarchies in which one's own position is more secure?  The rights of the traditionally marginalized, by definition on the oppressed rung of hierarchy, must be sacrificed to gradualism.

 ​  The left and right have different motivations, clearly.  In our current moment, with science, journalism and academia showing a generally liberal ideological bent, the mainstream right has all but forsaken these pillars of institutional democracy.  The twin right wing bases of Christian Nationalism and Elite Capital have their reasons for doubt.  Religious skepticism of any authority outside their fundamentalist biblical interpretation has long put them at odds with evolutionary theory, and in the 20th century the social sciences challenged their beliefs about sexuality, the family structure, and a tacit view of White cultural supremacy.  As they adopted a hardline anti-abortion position in the 1970's, this deepened a sense that biblical purity was directly contradicted by scientific authority to the degree that it took a nuanced view of fetal personhood.  Elite Capital, from the 1% to small business owners, mainly interested in avoiding progressive taxation and government regulations, emphasized private property protections and the maintenance of existing economic structures in which labor power was reduced and resources were freely accessible so as to be more easily exploitable.  Thus, the two essential pillars of social power and order - economic and cultural hegemony - were felt to be under threat by the basic processes of science, journalism and the academy.  

   The tension at the heart of democracy is the historical tendency for power to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands.  To avoid despotism and plutocracy, democratic institutions are required to act as a check on power and to level the playing field such that each citizen is born with an opportunity to live as an equal with his fellow man.

   Journalism has long lived by the maxim "comfort the afflicted and afflict the powerful".  This follows from the press' role as the "Fourth State" in providing to the public a means for preserving an egalitarian, pluralistic democracy.  In 1897, the owner of the New York Times declared his paper's purpose in the line "all the news fit to print".  Implicit in this declaration was the duty of the press to make decisions as what is and is not important for the public to know; it would be absurd to report on events with no consideration to importance.  But what then becomes important?  If a free press is essential to a democracy, then importance becomes lifting up the voices of the powerless and applying scrutiny to the powerful. 

   Science can be defined broadly as a search for truth via empirical means.  The veracity of a claim must be born our by rigorous testing, and subsequent argument and counterargument.  Multiple levels of confirmation have been designed to attempt to produce high levels of confidence, ranging from empiricism, parsimony, philosophical doubt, skepticism, accuracy in testing, controlling of variables, peer review, publication standards, and institutional reputation.  Given the almost limitless boundaries of the natural world, the scientific method remains one of the clearest paths to truth as humanity has developed.  From particle physics to molecular chemistry, cell biology to geology, medicine to behaviorism, and countless other fields of research, the scientific ideal is to operate with no other goal than to expand human knowledge.  As such, it is fundamental to the democratic ideal, in that nothing is more critical to decision making than to have all the facts about a particular issue.

   Similarly, the broader academy - the humanities, the arts, mathematics, history, economics, political science, engineering, social sciences and philosophy - seek to add in their own way to humanity's greater understanding of itself and the larger world.  Though often dealing with an array of variables vastly larger and more nuanced than the hard sciences, as well as methods that approach inquiry not via randomized trials but forms more subjective, poetic, theoretical, and experiential, these disciplines more than pull their weight in answering questions that cannot be resolved merely through experimental analysis.  They inform not only the facts about the world, but also moral, political and economic questions in a complex pluralistic democracy.  While some more or less have explicitly egalitarian aims, others provide essential context for what egalitarianism might mean, what is has looked like in the past, and what it may in the future.  The academy serves a metaphysical role for society to better understand itself, its wants and needs.

   To Christian nationalists who seek cultural hegemony for their particular religious ethnicity - historically dominant in the US over every other group - the fundamental role of these three institutions present a grave threat to their project.  Journalism, science and academic analysis that scrutinizes the unfair results of their dominance serve to promote in the public sentiments that would weaken their grip on cultural power.

   To Elite Capital, these institutions present a threat to their economic power to the degree that they inform egalitarianism.  Externalized costs of deregulation that pollutes the commons, harms workers, or solidifies plutocracy serve to weaken those who would seek to maintain unfair capitalized positions.  Progressive taxation that seeks to redistribute profits more equally amongst the public through the power of government law diminishes their strength.  To the degree that science provides evidence, journalism exposes, and the academy scrutinizes these harms and inequalities, Elite Capital is threatened.

   These institutions are the first things to go under authoritarianism and autocracy.  With mendacious claims, dictatorships realize that, as threats to their legitimate authority, public trust in them must be weakened so as to distract and obfuscate any pushback that might arise from honest inquiry.  Poets are imprisoned, science budgets are slashed or channeled into regime-friendly projects (often with puppets installed to ensure only certain results are confirmed), and media is either nationalized or placed under strict laws that ban what types of stories may be published.

   Liberalism and conservatism are not inherently good or bad.  Thought of as a push and pull between progress and tradition, experiment and experience, both political impulses are necessary in a healthy society.  But the modern right - which in many ways is more progressive in its own twisted way than classically conservative - is more interested in maintaining power and supremacy than anything else.  A proper conservatism is in dialogue with liberalism.  Think of what an honest conservatism would be in journalism, science and the academy: stories on the marginalized would be complemented with scrutiny of over-reach in proposed left wing policy proposals, science on gender or behavior would be studied, as well as the positive effects of traditional family structures or testing of pro-growth pollution remediation, histories of left-wing totalitarianism and musical compositions that present consonance and modern art that elevates traditional technique.

   Of course, these conservative dispositions do exist in these institutions.  However, as human knowledge and inquiry flourishes, they require a deftness of thought and a humility in the face of an ever-changing intellectual and social landscape.  They must be willing to acknowledge new truths, and when it conflicts with their received and well-worn notions, to adapt and adopt.  

   Sadly, the over-representation of liberal thought in these institutions represents not corruptive discounting or marginalizing of conservative views so much as conservative views not being able to compete.  Instead of holding forth with their own steady inquiry, modern conservatism has been a project of leaving the battlefield and encamping to the fringes.  Instead of honest, good-faith argument, they have retreated to stubborn refusal and conspiracy.  And yet from this position, having ceded multiple essential pillars of democracy, egalitarianism and pluralism, they have found themselves on an unfortunate path that has historically come in the form of fascism and mass violence.  Because when one gives up on honest debate and intellectual co-determinism, all that is left to maintain power is brute force.  

Bad day kind of caught me off guard today... went home early from work.  Took half a gummie... tried to nap but too sore... got up and began writing this.... listening to Bonnacons of Doom and finding it one of the more interesting pieces of new music I've heard lately.










​






Saw this on Bluesky and thought: this is what AI was made for. Celebrity para-social reality porn in which sophisticated TV episodes are is crafted specifically for you, starring life-like digital versions of who you imagine celebrities to really be.

This will be followed shortly after by Remakes™, where previously created properties are digitally altered to the famous personality of your choice. Think the Titanic starring Timothée Chalamet and Zendaya. A marketplace will provide Kameo-style pricing options.
----
Up to about track 15 out of the 38 or so to go as I slowly write the beats, guitar chords and vocal melodies for my next project (tentatively titled International Sirens) to midi.