Well when two people give radically conflicting accounts of an event and we have no way of knowing who to believe, then sure, the credibility of the participants is all we have to go on. And we base this on their performance.

My take is that (at least democratic) politics has likely ALWAYS been about the spectacle, going all the way back to ancient Athens where sophists trained aspiring young men on how to manipulate the thoughts and emotions of others in order to achieve their desired ends. Politicians are strange hybrid between priests and actors, and our society is becoming increasingly politicized, with a resulting increase in manipulation. I think the cynicism is warranted.

I would like to read Debord's book. All is false may be an overstatement, but "most of life is false" sounds pretty accurate - esp in world of politics. Many better minds than my own have taken such a position (e.g. Nietzsche).

Edit: I originally misread the Debord quote. "The truth is a moment of the false" sounds like an accurate assessment of our world - assuming I'm understanding it. Even genuine sincerity (a redundancy) is viewed with suspicion as being indicative of a shady person working some dishonest angle.

IMO the optics of Kavanaugh's broadside aren't good for Republicans. The juxtaposition between a fragile, soft-spoken, (allegedly) sexually assaulted woman and a confident, powerful, strong-voiced man is pretty extreme and will impact the way people perceive this thing.

The mention of his daughter and subsequent emotional breakdown will likely gain some sympathy though.

At this point it seems like Kavanaugh realizes that he's finished as SC nominee and has decided to take off the gloves and come out swinging.

There really were no free-market Republicans. This was merely dog whistle politics. The GOP slogans of "smaller government" never once brought about an actually smaller government. "Smaller government" was simply code for --- "we'll cut off welfare, which will hurt colored people." Poor white people in the USA have often gone along with policies that hurt them, simply because they liked the idea of hurting colored people in the process. The same with slogans like "law and order," which was code for, "we'll lock up colored people." — LD Saunders

I'd concede that these things are often used as covers for racism, or at least overlap with racist tendencies, but I also think you may be overstating the case. The underlying assumption seems to be that literally anyone - at least in the United States - who expresses reservations about socialist economic policies, or the large administrative welfare state more generally, is ipso facto a racist. As much as I dislike the Hayek/Friedman sort of free market fundamentalism, I do think people can have genuine disagreements over the nature and scope of government, over which policy is more conducive to a thriving economy, etc. that are not related to racism. At the very least I don't rule out that possibility and assume horrible things about a person's character based on their political and economic views. (unless of course they're unapologetic Nazis)

If it is true that these economically conservative positions are always held insincerely to conceal racism, then it would seem to follow that they wouldn't have advocates in countries with racially homogeneous populations, be they white or non-white. I don't believe that's the case but I'm willing to look at relevant data if you can direct me towards it. I just don't see the necessary connection you apparently do. Moreover, you'd have to explain cases of POC living within the US who prefer that small government, individual freedom and responsibility narrative. They're out there and I don't think they'd classify themselves as white supremacists.

Finally, and out of curiosity, what part of the United States do you live in? I've lived mainly among whites and Latinos my entire life and have met only a handful of self-described white supremacists. Seems dangerous to broaden out the notion of "white supremacist" to include anyone who finds Trump preferable to alternatives, or who finds traditional Republican policies (even if not perfectly enacted) to be more congenial to their worldview. The fact that some (or even many) Trump supporters also hold white nationalist views does not mean that all of them do. We may vehemently disagree with people who hold these economic/political positions and think they've been misled, but this implied racism seems extremely uncharitable.

Trump's rhetoric is often careless, he's a compulsive liar who's full of himself, etc. but I don't think he's an aspiring Hitler. He's no Jesus either, of course. And I genuinely don't think the supporters of Trump that I know - including family and many Mexican-Americans - are white nationalists/supremacists. There are some out there but to tarnish all of them with these serious accusations seems incredibly dogmatic and unfair. To re-emphasize the main point of my earlier posts, I think there's more to Trump's victory than can be explained solely by racism, even if that may have been a contributing factor.

1- God created people in such a way that they would sin, and he created a system of salvation wherein sinners are damned (and the sacrifice of Jesus saves only a fraction of them).
2- If God created people and his system of salvation in this way, then he is unjust
3- God did create people and His salvation system in this way
4- Therefore, He is unjust (1,2 MP) — Empedocles

I'm way out of my element when it comes to these sorts of theological disputes, but I was under the assumption that even the 'saved' remained sinners. And shouldn't some sense of freedom be included here? Seems an essential aspect in determining whether God is theoretically just or not. God gave humans free will to resist the temptation to sin, or at least to ask for forgiveness for inevitable moral transgressions, etc.

As mentioned though, I'm largely ignorant of these squabbles. I do however think it's a good idea to make the strongest possible case for an opponent's position before attacking it. I think the most charitable interpretation of this issue would involve some notion that the fall into sin was/is a necessary precondition for redemption. I know it sounds harsh, but there's something paradoxically inhuman about a world of perfect happiness and contentment, devoid of all pain and suffering. Sickness makes health sweet sort of thing (Heraclitus).

One could surely argue that it's the egregious level of pain and suffering in this world that makes God unjust, and I'd find that a pretty compelling position which would be hard to counter.

I'd also add the unpopular opinion that if you are a middle or lower class, patriotic, religiously inclined white person then the alternative to an imperfect (to state it mildly) Republican Party under Trump's leadership is not ideal. Think about it. You have been made the enemy, the 'other' in a Schmittian way, for progressives whose overall worldview is radically opposed to yours in almost every essential aspect.

That 'lesser of two evils' position helps explain why, I think, so many white people whose economic interests would seem to align with the Dems choose to vote against those interests by supporting free market Republicans. The cultural issues outweigh the economic ones. And outside of Bernie Sanders I don't think the Dems have hammered home that more class-oriented economic message very well. This shift away from working class whites started with Clinton if not earlier. Listen to them rattle of the groups they represent: blacks, Latinos, women, young people...

So I'd ask, Why should those maligned lower and middle class white citizens vote for a party that's made it very clear they're not welcome under the Democratic Party's umbrella? Or is this an exaggeration? Perhaps I'm mistaken but calculating shifting demographic trends seems to be the preferred tactic of Dems. Probably a winning strategy in the not-too-distant future. Trump cultivates those right-wing resentments while Dems do so among traditionally marginalized racial (and other) groups. We're pretty much fucked.

Seems like Trump is part of a wider global or at least Western trend, in which 'average' people are trying to gain some control over the direction of their countries within the context of an increasingly globalized, neoliberal world order. Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs + mass immigration + increased automation + cultural shifts have combined to create a sense of disorientation and alienation for the masses.

To be fair I think these larger issues should be factored in as contributing causes rather than simply dismissing everything other than racism and xenophobia in a reductionist way, although these also play a role in scapegoating the 'other' both within (elites who benefited a great deal from previous arrangements) and without. Once Trump is gone these issues will linger on and need to be addressed; the fact that they weren't handled proactively by previous leadership - at least not well enough - is part of the reason for Trump's ascendancy in the first place.

IMO as always. Too easy to lay the entirety of the blame for our disturbing situation on dumb, uneducated, racist Trump worshipers, as if things were running smoothly and all was well until he showed up. That wasn't the case, and we should start talking honestly about possible ways to alleviate the suffering of our nation's less fortunate citizens moving forward.

Return the accidentally pilfered ring before it is no longer accidental. — StreetlightX

:up:

I mentioned this previously, but my own political views shifted radically about 15 years ago (if not longer) in large part through the kindness of some radical Leftists on a RATM message board. Their patient and charitable treatment of me as a (they would say misguided) human being were just as important as the actual arguments they put forth against free markets, limited govt., etc. Both aspects were essential to the slow, cumulative change in my overall outlook.

But perhaps I'm an exception to the general rule that people don't change their minds through online debates.

That's the way it can work. Not on the internet though. It's too impersonal. — Baden

Yeah that's a good point, although I think I've had limited success dealing with angry people on social media sites not known for charitable engagement. You're not going to win them all, of course, but I do think the effort is important. Nietzsche's warning to those who battle monsters is something I try to keep in mind.

Is there some inherent moral (or intellectual, etc.) deficit with Nazis that makes them more receptive to that sort of racial worldview? The "authoritarian personality" sort of thing? I would assume there was a time when those who identify as Nazis were not Nazis, and through some confluence of predisposition, life events, and other things they were turned in that direction.

If something like that is the case, then perhaps radically different experiences could shift them away from Nazism. I read recently about a KKK member whose bail was paid by a black man, under the condition that the former would visit a museum dedicated to slavery. That's the type of magnanimous, loving behavior that brings tears to my eyes.

Moreover, as an added bonus I imagine it's much more efficacious than bludgeoning the KKK guy with insults - although I understand that desire, too, along with other less tolerant strategies.

Incidentally, I thought one of the few positive developments of a Trump victory is that it created (or rather exposed) a rift between working class whites and their Ayn Randian and Milton Friedman-loving GOP overlords, who view them as useful idiots, as nothing more than malleable material. That's actually a pretty big development which will have an impact far beyond Trump's presidency. This group now realizes that the Paul Ryan's and the Bill Kristol's of the world never genuinely respected or cared about them.

That hypothetical political pitch was really good. I honestly think a message like that, if pitched in a tactful yet forceful way, may even appeal to some social conservatives - maybe 10-20%. Gotta appeal to their pride (to their "machismo") and make it clear that these corporations - who've infiltrated the political system to an excessive degree even under the supposed "outsider" Trump - do not care one bit about their children, their communities, their nation, their God, or anything they claim to hold dear. They need to see and feel that blatant injustice instead of focusing all their anger and frustration on the poor, on immigrants, etc. These huge corporations actively undercut everything they value in the world. Point blank.

That cultivated (but justified) resentment then needs to be channeled in a positive direction beyond gaining revenge on the super wealthy and privileged. Outline a vision for America that finally squares with its high ideals, one that remains true to the latent possibilities contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one that appreciates business activity and the entrepreneurial spirit while also believing there are much higher things in life (again: family, community, God - traditional conservative values, right?) than a nation's GDP or a human being's net worth.

It'd be a tough balancing act but I do genuinely believe that an inspiring and semi-realistic narrative could be crafted which draws from the positive elements of both of conservatism and progressivism in a typically pragmatic, American fashion.

No you're just taking things too far and applying stereotypes to the whole country. As If Trump could put on a KKK hat and declare Hitler's birthday a national holiday and everything would be fine because after all we were wrong about Bush and Trump's first election. No, there's a certain point where cynicism descends into parody. — Baden

I think this is a good point. I know each side tends to caricature the other but once again I think it's more complex than those manipulated images. There's definitely some truth to Benkei's stereotypes about average Trump supporters - as I outlined in my previous post - but the idea that they're all KKK supporters or white nationalists is wrong. At least in my experience - things may be much different in the Midwest or Deep South.

Full disclosure: I'm the only non-Republican in my immediate family (family gatherings are rough). All three of my sisters voted for Trump and seem pretty content with the job he's doing. They've all married non-whites - we apparently have a thing for Mexicans - and none of them are at all sympathetic to notions of white supremacy. They do however hold somewhat ignorant views (imo) on things like the country's past and what would be the best economic system for working class people. This biographical detail partly explains why I will never demonize all Trump supporters; I'm admittedly biased on an emotional level.

There are genuinely decent human beings - hardworking, compassionate, etc. - who support Trump and who are not racists or otherwise evil. Deluded in some ways? Ignorant of the nation's past and present? I'm biased of course but I'd say yes, absolutely. I'm not suggesting that all Trump supporters are ignorant (e.g. Tiff, Hanover, and Agustino are intelligent and well-educated), but that simplistic view of the nation and the world more generally does seem to prevail among many rank and file Republicans, and it's always seemed that way to me. It seems they're more susceptible to the "noble lies" or "founding myths" or whatever they're called.

Anyhow, just wanted to throw that out there.

Thanks, Benkei.

The racist element is obviously there among many Trump supporters, there's no denying this, but I also think there's more to it than that, although I'd be hard-pressed to pinpoint exactly what "it" is other than my previous comments concerning the way they feel about the alternative. For example, I have many Latino friends (mainly Facebook "friends" I went to HS with) who support Trump and despise the Left. These are people who (generally speaking) grew up in the suburbs of Los Angeles and who've assimilated their identify completely with the culture - not sure if that's the right word to use - of this part of the United States: flag-waving, church-going, football-watching, police-supporting, etc.

Surprisingly, even some Latinos who are more closely connected with their native culture support him. My wife's family are relatively recent immigrants from Mexico who grew up in predominately Mexican-American neighborhoods. And a few of her cousins are enthusiastic Trump supporters. I don't want to mislead here: most of the family members despise Trump and recognize that he's attempted to demonize them. But the exceptions are interesting.

This is old news and known during election period. It's not going to change anything. People continue to surprise me when they think trump's behaviour is going to make him any less popular with his base. It's not going to happen. — Benkei

I think a large part of the reason for this is that many of his most ardent supporters don't see a viable alternative. The "other side" feels nothing but contempt for them and what they hold dear - for their patriotism, for their religious beliefs, for their lack of culture and sophistication, etc.

Less charitably (some would argue more accurately), one could say that they cling to their racism, sexism, xenophobia and the like, and that the Left should isolate and shame this group rather than reach out and try to connect with them.

Whatever the case, this demographic serves as the necessary "enemy" which the "friends" of all that's good and just and decent in the world must rally against. Politics as theology (Carl Schmitt?).

Being & Time is very interesting.
I enjoy his idea of anxiety, as well as Sartre's, in the midst of a fight for authenticity... — Blue Lux

I agree. I'd also suggest reading his "post-turn" Letter on Humanism to see where he departs from Sartre and existentialism more generally.

Are there any books about this? I think any book about it would have to be short, because there isn't that much to say. Or maybe there's more to say than I think, because of all the questions it to which it can lead. Why am I here? and stuff like that. It wouldn't be about answering the questions (that would be religion!), but about just being in that state of not-knowing. — ScottVal

I think you may appreciate Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics, although it can be tough going if you're not at all familiar with his jargon. He meditates on this very issue you raise and then relates it to our current situation in the modern West, which is characterized by a lack of wonder and a concomitant narrowed down relationship towards beings - human beings included - as "nothing more" than calculable, exploitable resources.

Incidentally, Anton has been in the news quite a bit lately with an article on citizenship and another related one on immigration. For anyone who's really interested in the topic (or just bored), here's his lengthy response to the many critics - on both sides of the political aisle - who bashed his original op-ed on citizenship for being pure sophistry.

Seems as though he's trying to assert himself as the primary (only?) intellectual force behind Trumpism, which sounds like a contradiction but is worth exploring in some detail. His background as a West Coast Straussian puts him at odds with East Coast Straussians like Bill Kristol and other allegedly "globalist" neoconservatives.

Yeah, looks like we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, unfortunately.

Ideally, the previous (or maybe even new) powers replace Trump in 2020, with the proviso that they become much more attuned to the needs of average, hardworking citizens. This is a definite wake up call and there's probably no going back to business as usual. Could end up even much worse than before, though, so we'll see...

I do think there's a way for discredited politicians to spin this Trump fiasco in their favor while possibly even moving the country in the direction of eventual reconciliation. It would go something like this: "We take full responsibility for our many past mistakes - for lining our pockets while you suffered, for allowing corporate money to infiltrate the political system which in turn made us less responsive to your needs as average Americans, for appealing to your patriotic sentiments while gladly outsourcing your jobs, for enabling (and profiting from!) such massive and dangerous discrepancies in wealth and opportunity to arise among us..."

Unfortunately, it's much easier to blame Trump's racist, sexist, redneck supporters for our current predicament than to take that sort of accountability. By doing so, they conflate - and thereby invalidate - legitimate and illegitimate grievances (of the racist and sexist sort) alike. This demonization of those who'd challenge their performance creates a corresponding emotional longing among many "good" Americans for the alleged glory days of Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Extremely dishonest and psychologically manipulative imo.

Reminds me a bit of the infamous saying of an American officer concerning a particularly hostile village during the war in Vietnam : "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it." Insanity.

Good analogy. I think it especially applies to the 10% of Bernie voters who apparently ended up voting for Trump.

Just a method to avoid admitting he's wrong. He does it regularly. It's totally inconsistent with the discussions at the start of this thread. — Benkei

I'll have to backtrack and check out his earlier contributions. I think I found a couple potentially serious flaws in his position as I just read through and processed the last couple pages again, but I think I'll back off for the moment. :razz:

I don't have much time now, I will likely get back to this at a later time! — Agustino

:up:

Sounds good. Thanks for answering my questions.

What if this supposedly authentic, selfless love is the very source of a rejection of God as typically conceived? In other words, atheists are closer to God than theists. God (as love) rejecting the notion - the human idol - of (e.g.) God as cosmic tyrant who's going to condemn non-believers to everlasting pain and suffering?

I like the direction you're going with this in some ways, but it seems to lead to another counter-intuitive conclusion (similar to your sense of marriage): that there may be plenty of self-professed atheists who are actually theists, and many self-professed theists who are actually atheists. Many an honorable atheist has rejected the idea of God, I think, not only through a perceived lack of evidence, but also in large part by seeing how "theists" have behaved towards others historically: they hate, they persecute, etc.

So where genuine love is found so too will God be found? No need for anything else? No specific beliefs about God as outlined in the Bible are necessary, etc.?

But with that I'm completely out of my element and will vacate the field. Feel free to expand on your notion of God but I haven't much more to add.

Legal marriage is a way to share the "fruits" of your spiritual marriage with society. It is a cause of bringing the community together to celebrate what has happened between the two people and God. So it is only natural, once again, for the inner to reflect itself in the outer. — Agustino

I'm not trying to be tedious here, but within a spiritual relationship is there a moment when the marriage is recognized by both partners? Can one actually be "married" before the other? Is it a sudden or gradual process? Depends on the specifics of each case? Can one be "married" to more than one person? Etc.

It depends on what is between the two of them. So I cannot give a general verdict for all of them.

Please also note that an "atheist" may actually be a believer in their heart. — Agustino

I may be reading too much into this, but are you suggesting that truly "good" and ethical (or whatever superlative you like) people cannot be atheists? Even if they identify as such? I can imagine two great human beings who cannot find it in their hearts to believe in God and yet are 100% committed to each other "for better or worse." I'm just trying to draw out the curious implications of your stance.

What do you mean why not go forward with it? Personally, I do think that, in most cases, legal marriage ought to be one of the "fruits" of the authentic, spiritual relationship between two people and God that I was talking about before. But I admit that there are cases where this may not happen or may be delayed. There could be financial reasons, other social reasons, who knows each individual case... — Agustino

Then let me ask a different question: Why would you go through with a formal marriage given the distinctions you've made between the inauthentic and authentic, the private and public, the bodily and spiritual, the outer and inner, etc.? It would seem completely unnecessary to do so unless you're interested in, say, the practical (legal) advantages of being married.

Okay, I won't deny there are parts of this position of yours that I find appealing. I never particularly cared for the ring aspect of marriage, for instance, and see its as an (oftentimes) ostentatious and superfluous addition to the "inner" commitment you're referring to. But why not just go forward with the public, legal, and conventional components of marriage if the relationship is already sealed in a more lasting way?

I think that may be the other problem I intuited concerning your position on marriage.

In your opinion, what's the status of atheists who are married? The implication of your position would appear to suggest that they're not really married, which, if I'm being perfectly honest, seems a little rude, Agu!

Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand your position a little better. I take it that two people, while not legally married, can still be married in a much deeper and more authentic (spiritual) sense. On the other hand, two people who are legally married may still not be genuinely married in the sense you have in mind.

Is that the gist of it? Something still seems awry with it but I can't pinpoint exactly what it is. I think it may have something to do with continuing to use the term "marriage" instead of eschewing it altogether, maybe for the sake of "spiritual partners" or something along those lines. I'll admit my ignorance of the biblical relevance of the term, though, and assume it has something to do with that.

Hmm, then it seems as though you're using the term "marriage" in a highly idiosyncratic sense, one which is far removed from common usage. This is actually the first time I've ever seen anyone equate "marriage" with "committed relationship." I have heard of "common law" marriages, though, so maybe there's some legal precedent.

I made the logical assumption that "no sex outside of marriage" meant no sex until you're actually married, which I took to mean remaining a virgin up until the marriage is formally recognized by the wider community. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. It still seems bizarre to me that anyone would refer to himself or herself as being married - ostensibly in a "spiritual" sense - when they aren't legally married.

This unique understanding of marriage does however make your position seem less extreme. I'll give you that. A quick and perhaps dumb question: say your "marriage" unravels and you separate from your "wife" for good - would you tell future girlfriends that you were previously married but are now divorced? Seems like marriage only makes sense within a context which includes things like public and formal commitment, separation, divorce, etc.

That's true, but I do think it's a bit extreme in a relative sense. Maintaining one's virginity until marriage, while extremely commendable, is just not something that seems practical for most people today. But perhaps things are different in other parts of the world. Anyhow, I respect your own personal stance on sexual purity a great deal, but I don't think it would resonate with people who weren't raised within a strict religious tradition. What's the old saying about not making the perfect the enemy of the good? I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Yeah there's really not much that I've found that I disagree with you (or Baden, or Michael, etc.) on. I have an aversion for (and a suspicion of) people who moralize too much. Strange how they often seem to be the worst offenders of the very vices they rail against in others.

I'll check out that adultery article...

My provisional take on the issue of sex, at least as it relates to the form of social conservatism I have in mind, would include: the belief that sex is good!; the belief that government shouldn't get involved in trying to regulate sexual behavior; the belief that sex within a committed relationship with someone you genuinely care about is preferable to casual sex with many partners; a dislike of things which reduce women (or men) to objects of sexual desire; a preference for a "natural" look and a related hope that someday we'll spend way less money on cosmetics and plastic surgery; an appreciation for modesty in dress and behavior; a belief that the best relationships - and the best sex - transcend mere physical attraction; etc. Pretty standard, relatively conservative but far from puritanical stuff.

So those are my views based on my own experience and I would not attempt to impose them on anyone else. I think they're fairly moderate and reasonable positions that (yet again) may even align in a couple areas with "progressive" positions. I'm not nearly as obsessed with the issue as Agu is, obviously, but also not entirely dismissive of his criticisms of lax sexual morality and the possible negative effects this may have on individuals and the community more generally. I went through a stage in my life (early twenties) where, like a lot of my friends, my primary goal was to get laid as much as possible. Not too difficult around these parts, especially for someone working in the bar business as I was.

I agree with @Ciceronianus the White about the strangeness of being preoccupied with the sex lives of others. I'm only adding my opinion since I don't think Agu's somewhat extreme position should be taken as the only "socially conservative" option out there, even if it is shared by many others who identify as such. I do respect his self-control on the issue though - he's a much better man than me in that regard.

Have you considered changing banks? You can utilise the DJSI and other sustainability indices to inform you and then to change banks and spend your money with different companies.

See for instance: https://yearbook.robecosam.com/companies/#gold

So in the US that would be Bank of America or Citigroup (bronze group). You can also go with ABN AMRO but not sure if they offer retail banking in the US. — Benkei

Thanks for the heads up, Benkei. I'll look into these programs and get back to you (if you don't mind) if I have any questions.

Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, mainly, but also influential among some conservative philosophers up to the middle of the twentieth. More cultural than strictly economic in nature. Respect for the arts, for the natural world, for the community, for "classic" notions of education, etc. To my knowledge, it's never been a unified and coherent movement that's translated into a relevant political party. Some would argue that fascists have indeed appropriated some of their anti-modern positions, but that's a contentious issue and I don't think there's a necessary connection. Highly critical of certain aspects of modernity, though, such as the emphasis on autonomous individuality, on environmental degradation, on the reduction of human beings to exploitable resources, etc. but without necessarily longing for the world which preceded it. In that it's somewhat amorphous and ambiguous.

Incidentally, some of the thinkers I have in mind have been far more influential among the Left than the Right - at least since the mid-twentieth century - as the latter has become more and more fixated on financial freedom, deregulation, limited government, etc.

That's my quick take. Have you read Tocqueville's Democracy in America? I think that nineteenth century work moves within that culturally "conservative" sphere I'm talking about.

Yes, those damned conservatives who inveigh against consumerism and wanton consumption complicate things. Sometimes what they are against is the vulgar consumerism of people who shop at Walmart. I suspect they prefer people who buy their goods at Design Within Reach (mid century modern types) or prefer Ethan Allen (solid elegance). — Bitter Crank

I'm referring more to those who lived in the era of the Enlightenment and French Revolution and the Terror (or shortly afterwards), and who anticipated both the tremendous possibilities and the many dangers of a world shaped by the bourgeoisie. Think Burke or Hegel or the Romantic poets instead of, say, Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand or Mitt Romney. Much different sort of "conservatism" imo; in many ways even more "progressive" in outlook than our current progressives.