From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Status Quo (was Re: Clinton is President)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:00:14 GMT


In article <1993Jan21.183217.12827@gordian.com>
mike@gordian.com (Michael A.  Thomas) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.131625.7630@macc.wisc.edu>,
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

(The earlier argument had talked about gun control as an
aspect of countering fascism.)

>>Be that as it may, a program of disarming the people is even
>>less likely to succeed than the War on Drugs, and as I'd
>>like actual and incipient fascism to cease being a force in
>>this society, I think it's a mistake to conflate one's
>>anti-gun sentiments with those worthwile objectives.

>I would go further to say that a disarmed populace is ripe
>for any thug to plunder -- a chilling thought considering
>the quality of thugs which we have around.

I don't want to get into the gun-control thing.  My point
was only that getting it mixed into the antifascism discussion
was counterproductive.

>>The answer to fascism is to push a better program.  What the
>>fascists have that we don't have is single-mindedness and
>>excellent organization.  Liberals by their nature are always
>>weak on organization.

>I don't think this is quite on target.  "Conservatives", in
>the true sense of the word (ie those who want the status
>quo) are always weak in organization.

I think the first part, having a better program, *is* on
target.

Is that the proper working definition of conservative?  I
don't see them as wanting to maintain the status quo (there
is lots they would seek to undo) so much as trying to return
to 19th-century conditions and the institutional models in
place in those simpler times.

What is your evidence that conservatives (however defined)
are always weak on organization?  I don't think it's true.
I said liberals were weak on organization because they're
usually committed to doing as little as possible and to
accommodating the wider spectrum of views.

>It is the activist front which always will be better
>organized, be it socialism, fascism, theocracyism, or, even,
>libertarianism.

On the face of it, this would seem to be true.  But
activists are not a monolith.  What I called liberalism, is
usually less well organized, even in its activism, than
fascists, theocrats, and libertarians (the last especially;
they have a party).

>The fact that religious right has become radical only speaks
>to the fact that they are *not* part of the status quo.

Valid up to a point, I think.  But the fascists have been
gaining and in the past several years at an alarming rate.
Wasn't it you who mentioned in a subsequent posting that the
fundamentalist have taken over a couple Southern California
local governments?  We have three of them (not a majority,
but too many) on the Madison school board.

And George Bush was on record as saying atheists were not
entitled to citizenship; having such a view in the White
House is moving rather too close to the status quo.

>The fact that "liberals" are weak in organization (now)
>speaks greatly to the notion that they *are*.

Are what?  The status quo?  I think not.  The country as a
whole is well to the right of center.  Ask any European,
almost.

<> In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.
<> -- Albert Einstein
-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss