Whether it’s better or not is in the eye of the person seeking change.I disagree. They crave constant change. Whether things get better as a result of change is of little or no consequence.
For liberals, there is no finish line.
What definition would that be?Whether it’s better or not is in the eye of the person seeking change.
Regardless whether it’s good or not to seek change requires a progressive mind-set, where as the conservative seeks to keep the status quo.
I’m using Pope Benedict XVI’s definition here.
Jim
In his book, Pope Benedict XVI opens the first chapter with the title, “To Change or to Preserve?”What definition would that be?
“The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching, but their ears will be itching for anything new, and they will collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then they will shut their ears to the truth and will turn to myths.” – 2 Timothy, 4:3-4
He goes on to show how change required the opposite of preserving the status quo.Politicians of all parties take it for granted today that they most promise changes-naturally, changes for the better. The once mythical radiance of the word “revolution,” has faded in our days, but far-reaching reforms are demanded and promised all the more insistently. This mus surely mean that there exists in modern society a deep and prevailing sense of dissatisfaction precisely in those place where prosperity and freedom have attained hitherto unknown heights, The world is experienced as hard to bear. It must become better. And it seems that the essential task of politics is to bring this about. So since the general consensus is that the essential task of politics is to improve the world, indeed to usher in a new world, it is easy to understand why the word “conservative” has become disreputable and why scarcely anyone views lightly the prospect of being called conservative, for it appears that what we must do is not preserve the status quo but over come it.
Is that true of conservatives as well?I disagree. They crave constant change. Whether things get better as a result of change is of little or no consequence.
For liberals, there is no finish line.
I think the dynamic of Left/Right plays out in a number of ways. Change/no change, Liberal/reactionary, etc. What seems to be true in my earlier description, and I think holds for many is that the further away one drifts from center, the more unbending and concretized becomes the ideology. No, I don’t particularly want a one party system, but I do want a government where the two sides will negotiate compromise for the good of the country. When we talk about the Church of course, we run into absolutes which are immutable. They are, however, at the very center of our existence and are totally supportive of human and human cultural progress.While it is true that if you oppress a communist, he will scream “Fascists! Fascists!” all the way to jail, the fact is this myth of their being polar opposites was started because Hitler invaded Russia in WW-II and the communists and fascists were enemies, and it has persisted. [See note below.] But this overlooks the fact that Stalin and Hitler were allies just before, so their rivalry was not based on anything ideological. Since they are both for BIG government, fascism and communism are both Leftist ideologies. The opposite end of the spectrum is NO government, more commonly known as anarchy.
[Note: “We’ve been invaded!” – Lillian Hellman rushing into a New York cocktail party, on Hitler’s invasion of Russia]
That would be essentially a one-party rule. Do you want that?
If everyone was a centrist, what would there be to compromise?… No, I don’t particularly want a one party system, but I do want a government where the two sides will negotiate compromise for the good of the country. …
In his book, Pope Benedict XVI opens the first chapter with the title, “To Change or to Preserve?”
He goes on to show how change required the opposite of preserving the status quo.
In essence, progressing toward change, requires a progressive mindset, not a conservative one which prefers keeping the status quo.
Jim
Read Dr. Ray’s quote in my post #20. He addresses these.Is that true of conservatives as well?
I am thinking of those who fought civil rights changes on the 60’s.
Perhaps he feels that V-II was incautious. He certainly acknowledges the concept of “progressive” decadence, IOW, not all “progress” is good, as liberals/Leftists would have us believe.“Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. … The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. … It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
These could be all lumped together with V-II into what I call “Do-It-Yourself” Catholicism.I think in terms of Catholicism it would be something like this: a left-wing Catholic is more likely to be pro-woman-priests, pro-gay-marriage, pro-contraception and pro-killing-unborn-children …
Well in the book I quoted from Pope Benedict XVI is addressing the political/social culture that we find ourselves living in, and how the various cultures around the world have abandoned, the traditional values which create a civilized society. He doesn’t address Vatican II per se, However, he quotes the Tao, Buddhism, and Dharma, and how even in the cultures where these religions were the basis of their social structures, the values have been abandoned, and political structures put in place which reject those values.Read Dr. Ray’s quote in my post #20. He addresses these.
In addition and with respect to Pope Benedict, Perhaps he feels that V-II was incautious. He certainly acknowledges the concept of “progressive” decadence, IOW, not all “progress” is good, as liberals/Leftists would have us believe.
For liberals, there is no finish line.
The only thing I disagree with here is the use of the term “progressive” because it carries a positive connotation; that’s why liberals abandoned the term “liberal” and started to call themselves “progressives”. We know that not all change advocated by liberals/Leftists/progressives promotes a better status quo. Some examples are [in alphabetical order]:Well in the book I quoted from Pope Benedict XVI is addressing the political/social culture that we find ourselves living in, and how the various cultures around the world have abandoned, the traditional values which create a civilized society. He doesn’t address Vatican II per se, However, he quotes the Tao, Buddhism, and Dharma, and how even in the cultures where these religions were the basis of their social structures, the values have been abandoned, and political structures put in place which reject those values.
I’m paraphrasing here, but it’s the gist of the book.
Either way, where ever the center is in that structure, the conservative will seen to keep it, where the progressive will seek to change it, because they see it needing to be improved. Whether that improvement is true or for a corrupt political agenda, such as the Nazis, it’s still a progressive mind-set which sets the motion of change in place.
Jim
Pope Benedict XVI is using the classic definitions which the world outside of US Politics understands.The only thing I disagree with here is the use of the term “progressive” because it carries a positive connotation; that’s why liberals abandoned the term “liberal” and started to call themselves “progressives”. We know that not all change advocated by liberals/Leftists/progressives promotes a better status quo. Some examples are [in alphabetical order]:
Abortion
Adultery
Affirmative Action
Aid and comfort for America’s enemies
“Alternative” lifestyles
Anti-Americanism
Anti-democracy
Anti conservative speech
Anti school-choice
Anti-subsidiarity
Appeasement of America’s enemies
Assisted suicide
Bondage and sado-masochism workshops in universities
Citizenship for known terrorists
Coddling of Criminals
Death taxes
Defeat for the U.S. (Priority #1)
Defiance of any and all authority
Distribution of condoms in K-12
Diversity (except viewpoint)
Drug legalization
Euthanasia
Female masturbation workshops in universities
Forcing their personal beliefs on others
Fornication
Glorification of debauchery
Godless Marxism
Gun Control
“Hate” crimes laws
Hate for the Christian religion
Hate for those of faith (except Islamics and Islamic bombers)
Homosexual special rights
Individual human will (will to power) being the ultimate good
Intolerance of the good
Isolationism
K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality
K-12 sex education
Lack of moral clarity
Moral equivalency
Moral Relativism
Multi-culturalism
Nietzscheism
Obliteration of God from the public square
Parole of vicious criminals
Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Polylogism
Pornography
Pornography in public schools
Pro-Europeanism
Racial quotas
Radical egalitarianism
Redistribution of OTHER peoples’ money
Revisionism
Release of known terrorists
Same-sex “marriage”
Sodomy (again, except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Speech codes
Tolerance of evil
Tolerance Über Alles
UN one-world government
Unlimited government
Unlimited taxation
“Victimless” crimes
Voting rights for aliens (legal or otherwise)
Voting rights for felons
What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.
That might be true, but all the liberal Catholics I know have liberal politics. So Dr. Ray’s explanation holds for both US politics and the world outside: liberals crave change.Pope Benedict XVI is using the classic definitions which the world outside of US Politics understands.
Conservative and Liberal/Progressive in US Politics is different than the classical definition and what most of the world understands.
Jim
The lip service they subscribe to.Whats the diffrence between Left and Right wing?