Posted on Oct 9, 2015
What is the correct way to handle propagandist material from a college professor?
9.34K
149
60
4
4
0
OK, so this is the information being spread by my Political Ideologies professor about conservatism. It gets much worse, but this covers the just of it.
One quote directly from her lecture:
"The newer generation of neoconservatives, including Irving Krisol’s son William Kristol who is the editor of The Weekly Standard, were influential in shaping the foreign and defense policy during the Bush administration. They were instrumental in framing the Arab world as the new enemy of the West in the wake of the Cold War. This strategy is supported by an underlying belief that democracies need enemies to keep them morally fit, otherwise they become weak and lazy, and sink into selfishness and licentiousness. At the domestic level this new generation has campaigned for use of the state as an agent of moral education by establishing discriminatory policies against people’s who don’t demonstrate the correct virtues."
The whole lesson focused on how conservatives had no universal values, other than protecting the status-quo from change, we apparently want a strong utilitarian government that can enforce discriminatory social control and on and on.
How would you respond to this?
One quote directly from her lecture:
"The newer generation of neoconservatives, including Irving Krisol’s son William Kristol who is the editor of The Weekly Standard, were influential in shaping the foreign and defense policy during the Bush administration. They were instrumental in framing the Arab world as the new enemy of the West in the wake of the Cold War. This strategy is supported by an underlying belief that democracies need enemies to keep them morally fit, otherwise they become weak and lazy, and sink into selfishness and licentiousness. At the domestic level this new generation has campaigned for use of the state as an agent of moral education by establishing discriminatory policies against people’s who don’t demonstrate the correct virtues."
The whole lesson focused on how conservatives had no universal values, other than protecting the status-quo from change, we apparently want a strong utilitarian government that can enforce discriminatory social control and on and on.
How would you respond to this?
Politics
College
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 32
2
2
0
You can't set the record straight, just accept as additional information. Get the passing grade and move on. Because that is going to be the same person that will be looking around for who is going to save me.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Many college professors are very liberal...at least you know where he stands. I voted.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
SPC(P) (Join to see) The purpose of education is to make you think about material that you are presented. It seems that you haven't opened your mind to other than your preconceived notions and opinions. Explore what your prof says and think about it!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1SG (Join to see) I'm interested in your feedback (as well as that of others) in my post for this lesson, before I go ahead and submit it. Feel free to tear it apart, I am considering this a sort of peer-review per se.
This lesson really seems to present conservative ideology through a liberal conceptual lens. This lesson has brought about a lot of confusion for me. In several other classes Thomas Hobbes has been referred to as a prominent Liberal philosopher, so I do not understand how his statement about humans being animalistic in nature and needing a strong utilitarian government to control them, is representative of conservatism. As a self-prescribed conservative and member of the Republican Party, I don’t seem to find myself aligning with many of the descriptions of conservatism as is described in this lesson. I ask these things to spur discussion, not to disagree, but for starters, is the conservative ideology really against progression, or just against liberal progression? I ask this because as a conservative, I don’t favor the status-quo; in fact, there are multitudes of things that I would love to alter in conservative ways. To list a few
1. I would like to reconstruct the tax structure to spur economic growth that would benefit not only individuals, but also society as a whole.
2. I don’t favor a strong centralized utilitarian government; in fact, I would like to return the country to a state of federalism, keeping the federal government as was intended, — to keep the nation unified in the international world, and to provide a strong military defense. By removing power from the federal government and returning that power to the states, allowing them to self-govern. I want to see everything governed at the most local-level possible. I would however agree with the notion of wanting a strong foreign policy (though it has nothing to do with a belief that war is necessary to society).
3. I would love to restructure the social welfare system, to provide a hand-up instead of a handout. Having been on the system, I understand the difficulties in getting off the system with upwards of an 80% marginal tax rate. I would like to see safety net programs designed to focus on fostering education and employment with encouragement to get off the system.
I do not support discriminatory social policy, and I do not want the government involved in religion, whether in support or infringement of the free expression of it. An example of what I mean by this is that the government should be no more involved in performing a traditional marriage, than a homosexual one.
I do agree that it is a role of government to provide minimal restraints in the form of morality, but I highly doubt that any ideology would disagree with that statement, just the extent to which it is their responsibility. For example, if it were not the role of government to provide moral standards, rape and murder would both be legal. I don’t think many would disagree that the government should be involved in limiting this sort of behavior, the question is what level of morality is to be regulated and I don’t think you could ask two people this question and get the same answer, much less link it to an ideology.
I understand that historically including in the ages of the French Revolution that conservatism was linked to people who were against the destruction of the aristocracy, the progression of democracy, and the revolution, but I find it hard to accept that they shared many values with modern day conservatism, especially that found within America. I also wonder if one of the only similarities that can be found in the conservative ideology, is that it does not favor liberal progression perhaps it really isn’t ideological, but rather, a train of thought that applies itself to the situation with which it is presented. I am interested to hear feedback, I just really felt mischaracterized as a conservative with this lesson.
This lesson really seems to present conservative ideology through a liberal conceptual lens. This lesson has brought about a lot of confusion for me. In several other classes Thomas Hobbes has been referred to as a prominent Liberal philosopher, so I do not understand how his statement about humans being animalistic in nature and needing a strong utilitarian government to control them, is representative of conservatism. As a self-prescribed conservative and member of the Republican Party, I don’t seem to find myself aligning with many of the descriptions of conservatism as is described in this lesson. I ask these things to spur discussion, not to disagree, but for starters, is the conservative ideology really against progression, or just against liberal progression? I ask this because as a conservative, I don’t favor the status-quo; in fact, there are multitudes of things that I would love to alter in conservative ways. To list a few
1. I would like to reconstruct the tax structure to spur economic growth that would benefit not only individuals, but also society as a whole.
2. I don’t favor a strong centralized utilitarian government; in fact, I would like to return the country to a state of federalism, keeping the federal government as was intended, — to keep the nation unified in the international world, and to provide a strong military defense. By removing power from the federal government and returning that power to the states, allowing them to self-govern. I want to see everything governed at the most local-level possible. I would however agree with the notion of wanting a strong foreign policy (though it has nothing to do with a belief that war is necessary to society).
3. I would love to restructure the social welfare system, to provide a hand-up instead of a handout. Having been on the system, I understand the difficulties in getting off the system with upwards of an 80% marginal tax rate. I would like to see safety net programs designed to focus on fostering education and employment with encouragement to get off the system.
I do not support discriminatory social policy, and I do not want the government involved in religion, whether in support or infringement of the free expression of it. An example of what I mean by this is that the government should be no more involved in performing a traditional marriage, than a homosexual one.
I do agree that it is a role of government to provide minimal restraints in the form of morality, but I highly doubt that any ideology would disagree with that statement, just the extent to which it is their responsibility. For example, if it were not the role of government to provide moral standards, rape and murder would both be legal. I don’t think many would disagree that the government should be involved in limiting this sort of behavior, the question is what level of morality is to be regulated and I don’t think you could ask two people this question and get the same answer, much less link it to an ideology.
I understand that historically including in the ages of the French Revolution that conservatism was linked to people who were against the destruction of the aristocracy, the progression of democracy, and the revolution, but I find it hard to accept that they shared many values with modern day conservatism, especially that found within America. I also wonder if one of the only similarities that can be found in the conservative ideology, is that it does not favor liberal progression perhaps it really isn’t ideological, but rather, a train of thought that applies itself to the situation with which it is presented. I am interested to hear feedback, I just really felt mischaracterized as a conservative with this lesson.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Don't look now, SPC(P) (Join to see), but you are a Liberatarian.
I'll have something a little more thoughtful for you tomorrow.
I'll have something a little more thoughtful for you tomorrow.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"...protecting the status-quo from change..."
Well, to be honest, isn't that "conservative"? Conserving what is, and not opening long-standing traditions for editing because of "social trends"? That's the heart of "defending traditional marriage" and so on, right?
"... we apparently want a strong utilitarian government that can enforce discriminatory social control..."
Again, many conservatives talk about "small government" as an ideal, but at the same time embrace the idea of using government power to regulate the above-mentioned "traditional definitions". Donald Trump is currently popular among conservatives, because he wants to round up and deport immigrants en masse. That pretty much requires a strong government. And taking war to ISIS and Iran-- again, that will need a large government.
Well, to be honest, isn't that "conservative"? Conserving what is, and not opening long-standing traditions for editing because of "social trends"? That's the heart of "defending traditional marriage" and so on, right?
"... we apparently want a strong utilitarian government that can enforce discriminatory social control..."
Again, many conservatives talk about "small government" as an ideal, but at the same time embrace the idea of using government power to regulate the above-mentioned "traditional definitions". Donald Trump is currently popular among conservatives, because he wants to round up and deport immigrants en masse. That pretty much requires a strong government. And taking war to ISIS and Iran-- again, that will need a large government.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Although you have valid points, Trump and many conservatives hold the position of 'rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants en masse' and taking on ISIS' as enumerated powers of the government. Article I, Section defines these powers as such:
To borrow on the credit of the United States (they do plenty of this);
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States (they just won't enforce the laws);
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (they outsourced this to the Federal Reserve);
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States (Secret Service);
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water (they have given abdicated this power to POTUS);
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You will notice that Education, marriage, Union regulation, Environmental Protection, and many other areas the federal government has violated the 10th Amendment.
To borrow on the credit of the United States (they do plenty of this);
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States (they just won't enforce the laws);
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (they outsourced this to the Federal Reserve);
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States (Secret Service);
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water (they have given abdicated this power to POTUS);
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You will notice that Education, marriage, Union regulation, Environmental Protection, and many other areas the federal government has violated the 10th Amendment.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
SPC Nathan Freeman
Not exactly an accurate portrayal. There were Christians in the movie who opposed the student's stand including his girl friend who broke up with him. There are plenty of movies in Hollywood that portray Christians as hateful bigots.
The name of the college was changed but the story is true.
The name of the college was changed but the story is true.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
To add a little more context, another section of the lecture stated referring again to neocons within the United States, stated that they believe the general population to be incapable of taking care of themselves, and formulating public policy, so it is accepted that they lie to the public to get support for things they believe the public is too stupid to understand... This isn't textbook, it is a flat out liberal misrepresentation of conservatism.
I am required to participate in a forum discussion on the lectures, and I am trying to decide if it is in my best interest to just go along, to get my decent grade... or if I need to use that opportunity to clear up the misrepresentation of conservatism. I've studied this stuff through other classes as well, and one of the individuals she uses as her basis for historical conservatism is widely known to be inspirational in philosophical advancements in liberal principles, on the verge of socialism, not conservatism.
I am required to participate in a forum discussion on the lectures, and I am trying to decide if it is in my best interest to just go along, to get my decent grade... or if I need to use that opportunity to clear up the misrepresentation of conservatism. I've studied this stuff through other classes as well, and one of the individuals she uses as her basis for historical conservatism is widely known to be inspirational in philosophical advancements in liberal principles, on the verge of socialism, not conservatism.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC(P) (Join to see) - I don't believe you would get a lot of argument from political scientists that the George W. Bush administration was heavily influenced by Neocons. While the statement "believe the general population to be incapable of taking care of themselves" is a bit of a stretch, stating that they were interventionists would almost mean the same thing and it would be perfectly accurate.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - We have a problem in that we often spend more time arguing labels than ideas. I personally object to seeing people die of starvation in the richest country the world has ever known, leveling the playing field is realized by creating opportunities for people to get a good education and be all they can be.. it doesn't mean were all going to be the same, just that we have the same opportunities. I believe that 99% of people are fully capable of taking care of themselves, that doesn't mean they don't sometimes need a hand up. I hate that Americans settle for handouts instead of hand ups.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG (Join to see) - First of all I would like to say that I am clearly in agreement regarding the temporary hand-up versus the perpetual hand-out issue as described by both you and me. I believe we also agree on the "level playing field concept". That is, that people should have access to equal opportunities (which they may, or may not avail themselves of). The problem arises when some wish to try to attain equal outcomes, and as you correctly pointed out, this is both impossible, and impractical.
Lastly, though, a point of contention.... When you claim people die of starvation in the richest country the world has ever known.... (I assume you are talking about the US). I would point out that people, are not dying of starvation in the US because of any lack, or because of any lack of access to food. Instead, the number of Americans that die of starvation every year is around 100. Most of them are children whose parents neglected them either intentionally or accidentally. Additionally, there are another 2000-3000 elderly who die of malnutrition, (not starvation) again though this is not due to a lack of food, or from a lack of access to food... instead, "Malnutrition is more prevalent among older adults, especially over the age of 70. They may eat too little, lack nutrition or have digestion problems related to aging. This can stem from certain medications, trouble chewing due to dental issues, problems swallowing or difficulty absorbing nutrients, according to the Mayo Clinic."
Lastly, though, a point of contention.... When you claim people die of starvation in the richest country the world has ever known.... (I assume you are talking about the US). I would point out that people, are not dying of starvation in the US because of any lack, or because of any lack of access to food. Instead, the number of Americans that die of starvation every year is around 100. Most of them are children whose parents neglected them either intentionally or accidentally. Additionally, there are another 2000-3000 elderly who die of malnutrition, (not starvation) again though this is not due to a lack of food, or from a lack of access to food... instead, "Malnutrition is more prevalent among older adults, especially over the age of 70. They may eat too little, lack nutrition or have digestion problems related to aging. This can stem from certain medications, trouble chewing due to dental issues, problems swallowing or difficulty absorbing nutrients, according to the Mayo Clinic."
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. - I see the desire for equal outcomes as a straw man, being all you can be doesn't mean there is going to be an equal outcome. A level playing field and opportunity is what we should be trying to give people. The more opportunity available, the better... the more people attain, the better off we are as a people. We are all in this together.
Today very few Americans starve, there is an inefficient patchwork of programs and private charities usually step up when someone is sliding through the cracks. I don't think I've ever met a liberal who didn't want to reform the system and make it better, I don't think I've ever seen a conservative politician who didn't want to cut funding for an already tenuous safety net. The irony of course is that countries with strong handup systems like Germany, eventually wind up needing less (as a percentage of GDP) money for social spending.
Today very few Americans starve, there is an inefficient patchwork of programs and private charities usually step up when someone is sliding through the cracks. I don't think I've ever met a liberal who didn't want to reform the system and make it better, I don't think I've ever seen a conservative politician who didn't want to cut funding for an already tenuous safety net. The irony of course is that countries with strong handup systems like Germany, eventually wind up needing less (as a percentage of GDP) money for social spending.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Find out where the material is cited from? If it's not cited from an approved source (textbook), go to the Dept Head, and then the Dean as needed.
Now remember, "our" definition of Conservative/Liberal and the "textbook" definition of Conservative/Liberal are not always the same.
Now remember, "our" definition of Conservative/Liberal and the "textbook" definition of Conservative/Liberal are not always the same.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Most self-proclaimed "conservatives" have no idea of how to define conservatism. Typically their response is nothing more than a catalogue of THEIR beliefs with no basis of a definition.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Take math and science courses! Avoid classes that label and categorize people because the way in which it is done is so often subjective and flawed . . . but then it more or less means avoiding the humanities. If the class is required and you don't have enough time to invest emotional energy in refuting characterizations you think leaves something to be desired, then parrot back what the prof is selling and get good credit for it. No one said you have to buy what is being sold.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google