Sunday, 29 September 2013

The Myth of Equality

The Myth of Equality

The idea of equality is one that whirls all around us, we hear it so often and so convincingly that we can fall for it's seductive charm. It's sirens call is that Human conflict is artificial because under the skin we are all the same, we are all equal to each other. Here is presented a way forward for Humanity, the old tensions are old and best forgotten, the way forward is to remember that there is no difference between you and the person next to you, or on the other side of the world. Best of all equality is easy to remember and it makes people feel good as they are doing something good and resisting something bad. How could anyone oppose it in good conscience? I'll come to that.

The idea of equality isn't a Leftist idea, nor is it a Liberal one, it's origins are Christian, it comes from the belief that we are all Gods children, we are all descendant from Adam and Eve, that we are all born in original sin, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all of Mankind, that we can all be saved, that there is a place in Heaven for all of us if we are saved. In other words we are all equal, at least in theory. 

In reality the vast majority of Christians, Church and Lay, accepted that Christian fellowship was one thing and society was another. That society was hierarchical, that different people did different tasks and had different levels of wealth and obligations. For Traditional Christians there was nothing controversial in this, it was simply life. But that idea of everyone being equal in the eyes of God took on a life of it's own. It left Christianity and came back, weaving in and out of politics and theology along the way. It's origins remembered by some and never known of by others, it went out into the world and spread it's lovely message. That war could be vanquished from the Earth because two equals would see no reason to fight, that our personal relationships would be harmonious as we would see others as our equals and they would return that feeling, that no man should look down upon another man because we are all equal. It is a lovely message.

Sadly, it's not true, to hear that for the first time can be quite shocking. But let me use you, the reader and myself as examples. The chances are I've never met you but I still know we are not equal, in fact I know we are distinct individuals. Which of us is taller? Which one of us is heavier? Which one one of us is smarter? Which one of us has more technical ability? Which one of us is faster? Which one of us is better looking? Which one of us is a better dancer? 

To be honest, I don't know the answer but I heavily suspect that it is unlikely that we are equal in any of these. Either you or I will be the "winner" in each of these, that much I think is clear. So in what way are we equal?

You might argue that that is not what is meant by equality. In my experience thats when people fall back upon the legal definition. That we should all be equal before the law. Ok fair enough, I like that. Unfortunately many people think it also means fairness. That people should be treated fairly regardless of who they are. In principle I think thats a fine thing to aspire too, I'm not sure how you achieve it but in principle it's a worthy goal. Others think equality means that not only are all people equal but all behavior is equal. You can see this in zero tolerance, fighting back against a bully makes you a bully, both equally guilty. Some think that equality means that outcomes should be the same, a sort of every child wins a prize attitude, except for adults.  Still others think that there is something shameful if everyone is not equally good at everything. 

So why is it that these are wrong? 

Being equal before the law isn't wrong, it is both fair and good policy, a Traditional Conservative should always support this equality.

Being fair to all people is one of those things that sounds easy but is in reality very difficult. A big problem is that when you treat everyone equal you treat everyone the same, the distinctiveness of the individual is lost because they must now fit your or your organisations idea of fairness. One size fits all and the individual must give up their distinctiveness to fit that size. It sounds equal but is in reality incredibly dehumanizing. Here there is no perfect answer, both approaches have problems. My suggestion is to have a policy that treats people equally but that still allows for people to be individuals and different, in other words a compromise.

That all behavior is equal is mindless, it is an unintelligent anti-idea. Nothing good can come of this and it should always be rejected. It is not equality it is the promotion of bad behavior and morals, it is the rejection of standards and should not be tolerated.

Equality of outcome is one that Liberalism loves because it means they always have something to fight for. The innate differences in ability and resources that exist within the human race is the enemy here and to fight this "problem" they will call for greater Government power and involvement in peoples lives. It will not solve the unsolvable problem because it is not privilege, nor is it wealth, nor is it negative discrimination that is the enemy, here the enemy is life and peoples ability or lack there of that decides these issues. 

Why is it that some people are rich and others poor? You might just as well ask why some people are healthy and others unhealthy. It is certainly unfair but it is not a right to be healthy anymore than it is to be wealthy, no matter how desirable it is. Unfortunately there are those who claim that if something is unfair in outcome it must be stopped or changed so that it can no longer occur. Many who seek this don't understand that this has been tried before, it's called Socialism and it doesn't work. The attempt to create a world of equal outcomes sounds to many as fairness but it is exactly the opposite. It takes from those who have done better and gives to others who haven't. Do you want to be operated on by a Surgeon who obtained their degree because it was fair or because they earned it? Annoyingly some people complain that that example is stupid but it simply shows that they haven't thought through the effects this idea would have, if unequal outcomes are bad then it is only a matter of time until we get the first blind surgeon. That is what equality of outcomes means.

Still others think that unless everyone is equal in every way then somehow the world is a bad place, they complain about not enough women doing certain jobs but not about men. But how often do you see them complaining about the Olympics, where not only are there winners and losers but the winners are graded? Of course they don't because their position is untenable, it is the loony side of the equality argument. They only operate on emotions and logic has no place here.

The Traditional Conservative should always support equality before the law and it is probably for the better if we compromise upon trying to treat all people equal in our personal and professional dealings. Of course that doesn't mean put yourself or others at risk, it still means using your judgement and common sense. It is an attempt for us to use our better nature instead of being hard or cynical, of course if you have good reason to be hard and/or cynical than be that way. Just don't start that way.  

In regards to the other "equalities", Traditional Conservatives must reject them, they are not equal they are a rabbit warren into which there is nothing but confusion and despair. We will not gain anything, politically or as individuals by supporting or agreeing to them. Equality is not the natural state of things, it is in fact rare and extreme. We should remember that and strive to do what is right for ourselves and others instead of trying to create a false reality and then trying to force people to live in it.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Monday, 23 September 2013

Liberalism versus the Working Class

Liberalism versus the Working Class

Today there is a class biases in nearly everything Liberalism does and says. Classical Liberalism had very little to say about class, it was irrelevant to it both economically and politically. It was when it became influenced by those further to the left, Socialism and Communism, that it became class conscious, with Marxism having the greatest influence.

Many who reject Marxism move onto Liberalism, but it seems that they don't leave all of the baggage behind. Two of the beliefs that Marxism and Liberalism now share are the idea's that there are special classes of victims and that there is a secret hierarchy. 

The idea of the secret hierarchy is that there is an "official" hierarchy that everyone can see and then there exists the secret hierarchy, a hierarchy of built in privilege. For example, white people are privileged over all other people, men are privileged over women. The secret hierarchy doesn't pay any attention to the poorest white man, nor to the average white man. It ignores numbers, history and behaviour. It doesn't care that when most of the people are white most of the positions of power will be held by whites. It doesn't care that most of those who earned a wage were men, who then provided for their wife. What they saw was the privilege, not the reality which was that these things brought with them obligations. Like seeing that your neighbour has a new car and assuming he must have obtained it by criminal means, it's the privilege of his having a new car that you see, not the reality of how he paid for or obtained the car. 

The secret hierarchy helps to decide who is a special class victim. This is important as it puts everyone into their place, allowing Liberalism to decide who will be supported and who it is safe to ignore. The hierarchy changes as society and circumstances change. But it's general thrust is that not everyone is privileged and it is these groups who need Liberalism 's assistance to break free. Conversely the privileged groups need to be exposed and in time have their power and privilege taken from them and given to those who do not have it. Classical Liberalism didn't believe any of this but Classical Liberalism is dead. It's place has been taken by a Liberalism that has been influenced by generations of Marxists and Socialists. It is from here that the class bias of Liberalism comes. 

Marxism placed the working class at the top of it's promised hierarchy and that was to come at the expense of the power and privilege of all the other social classes. Both official and unofficial. But in the Western world something happened on the way to world revolution and that was the cold war. During the 1950's Communist theorists realised that the working class was patriotic, it supported it's own nation against other nations. It happened during two world wars, which most Communist theorists put down to ignorance or coercion. But by the 1950's it was hard to think the working class was ignorant and slowly it dawned on them that the working class didn't really want Communism. The entire rational of Communism was to save the working class and the working class didn't want to be saved.

In the West the high water mark of Communism was the 1940's and slowly over the next 50 years Communism faded in strength and purpose. But many of those who were attracted to Communism kept the idea of why they joined and continued to support causes on the broad Left. Wittingly and unwittingly they pushed ideas and influences from their Communist past, including the idea of the secret hierarchy of privilege and under privilege. Ironically when they were in Communist parties they were controlled and disciplined, the party enforced it's rule, but once they left or were expelled that restraint was gone. The ideas could roam free and influence people who had never considered Communism and it often came from someone who had rejected Communism. 

The 1960's saw the working class pushed off it's pedestal, Communism still put it there, but other Leftists, including Liberals saw that as old fashioned. The working class was seen as reactionary, it didn't support immigration, civil rights, the anti-war movement, it wasn't even anti-capitalist. But it did support it's own military and the police. The working class was once again on the wrong side of history. Slowly but surely the tide turned against the working class in favour of "newer" groups, indigenous peoples, minorities, women and homosexuals. 

The "new" groups, some of whom were old when Moses was a boy, gained support and in theory influence and power. In reality it was often their supporters who gained the power. It was the supporters who made and influenced the law, it felt good and it seemed as if giving these groups things was free. The West was rich, it could afford to pay, economics was for boring men in suits, but it would become respectable when women and minorities wore the suits. 

The idea that giving something to one group was taking something away from another group was explicitly understood by Communists, in one way it was the entire point of Communism. But Liberals did not understand that, nor did they accept it. They believed that people love freedom more than anything, even more than their family or their livelihood or even their security. By supporting the "new" groups instead of the working class they weren't taking away they were setting everyone free. Doing everyone a great service.

So every social and economic failure that we have witnessed Liberalism is genuinely confused by. Until they remember the secret hierarchy and then it all falls into place. It's not their policies that create ghettos, it's the fault of privilege. It's not their policies that are spreading poverty, it's the fault of privilege. On the other hand Divorce isn't a social catastrophe, no it's a freedom for which not enough people thank them. People being single and lonely for year after year isn't a social catastrophe, no it's a freedom for which not enough people thank them. 

Liberalism has made the secret hierarchy it's own, it has forgotten it's Communist heritage. But it's mad belief that it can build utopia on Earth is still here and still causing all the same old problems.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future       

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

The Balanced Society

The Balanced Society

When we think about the society that we want we often have an idealized vision of what it would be like. And its perfectly fine to have that dream, that aspiration of a better world, a world in which you fit and people do the right thing. But in our ideal we imagine a society in which people agree with us and they live their life in a certain manner. They speak and behave in a way that we approve of and again that is a fine thing to desire. But it does leave a question, what happens to those people who do not fit our vision?

In our dreams they are transformed, they see the world though our eyes and they begin to appreciate us a bit more. They abandon their old ways and adopt our way of thinking. It is a dream that is both selfish and selfless. It is both about us and our place in society as well as the want to keep society vital and functioning. It is this twin desire that keeps us on track and not wandering off, the need for a society that works is deep within us. We see the need in the lives of those around us as well as in our own lives. We notice the frayed edges within society and we want answers, we want a better managed world that still lets people make their own decisions.

Of course many of those we believe need to be more like us, simply will not change. It is not a part of their nature and it would become an impossible struggle to force them to change.  We can either fight the impossible fight or we can modify our idealized vision.

On thing that distinguishes us from our opponents is that we know we do not have all of the answers. We do have answers, just not all of them, we accept that sometimes our vision and the real world conflict and that sometimes we must accept that our vision is wrong and the real world is not wrong. The real world may suck, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

So what is the answer?

The answer is the balanced society, a society in which we do all within our power to promote and protect the traditional family. That includes the traditional marriage of one man and one women, it includes supporting traditional sex roles, that men are better at some things and that women are better at other things and that together they are better than when they are separate. That children are an integral part of both the family and of society, a society without children is a dying society. It is not glamorous to be childless, it is a deep sadness.

It must be accepted, even if reluctantly, that there will always exist extremes within society. There will always be people who are devout and there will always be Atheists, just as there will always be those who are prudish and those who are promiscuous, to give but two examples. We cannot change that even if we wanted to and nor will those we oppose be able to change it. Human nature will defeat anyone who tries to change it, they may try, they may seem to be successful but it will fail. Just as all such ideas and schemes have failed before.

The balanced society would not seek to change human nature but to limit the effects of such behavior. To allow people to make their own decisions and to hold them accountable for when things went wrong. That may or may not involve punishment depending on how wrong things were.

One of the great evils of modern Liberal society is that huge swathes of society are surplus to requirement. The working class and even most of the middle class. But the biggest are the unemployed who are ignored and forgotten, given a handout and left to try and survive as best they can. They do not live, they do not marry, they may have children but most do not form families because the resources to do that are not available to them. To form a family you need a regular job with a regular paycheck at a decent rate of pay. For large amounts of men that simply doesn't exist.

A balanced society would not allow that to happen, because it is an attack on traditional marriage. Male employment should not be an afterthought of economics. The only economics problem bigger than this is the creation of wealth. But we have had for decades the idea that some portions of society can be in boom times whilst others are in depression. That is not a balanced society, that is an exploitative society. Male employment would be a vital part of a balanced society.

When I talk of a balanced society I am not suggesting that everyone be equal as that is impossible. Different abilities and skills will mean that different people get paid different wages. There is nothing wrong with that, but wages should be living wages, wages that are enough to live and raise a family on.

Within the balanced society there must be room for all, not that we must like everyone in society, or approve of them. That is abit much. But we still must give them a reasonable chance to actually have a life. To be a functioning member of society. To have structures in place to help families form and stand upright. Not a structure that keeps them from forming. That is not right nor has it worked and we insist on a functioning society.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Saturday, 14 September 2013

Government and Traditional Conservatism

Government and Traditional Conservatism

Socialism believes that the Government is the saviour of Mankind and that it can solve the problems and inequities that Business create. On the other hand, Anarchy and Libertarianism believe that little or no Government is best. So what should the Traditional Conservative position on Government be?

First we must accept something that is all around us, but which we can often fail to see and that is that Government provides something that no other Human institution can provide, stability to an entire society. It is this stability that makes Government vital and important. All of it's functions revolve (or should revolve) around this ability to provide stability. It allows groups bigger than Families or Tribes to work and build a Nation together. That makes it both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it enables greater protection and opportunity than if it did not exist. A curse because it's strengths can allow it to be an agent against it's own people.

There are functions that Government perform better than the family or Business. War, Justice, Administration, Large scale projects, Maintenance, Foreign Affairs. These are all big areas and the fact is Government does them better than anyone. The mistake is to believe that because Government are good at some things that will make them good at all things, or conversely that because Government doesn't always do a good job that means they can never do a good job.

The Traditional Conservative believes that the relationship between the Government and the people is like a marriage. A union which should be of mutual benefit, a union that provides security and stability, that helps the creation of wealth and a surplus. A union that provides protection when times are bad. A union that see's the Government and the people supporting each other and excluding others. The people should be loyal to only one Government and the Government should be loyal to only one people, it's own.

I am not suggesting that you must pick sides between different levels of Government, what I am saying is that you should be loyal and have that loyalty returned by one Government at each level.

In all ages Government has sort more power, it is what allows it to do the good works it performs. But of course it is not a conscious being, it is not alive, it has no soul, it has no conscience, all of that must be provided for it. It comes from the people as a whole as well as those specific people who work within the Government. The Government functions and indeed exists for one reason, to serve it's people, for without it's people it cannot exist. The relationship is symbiotic, one of mutual benefit and survival. If one dies the other may very well die.

It should go without saying that many Governments have not lived up to their side of the bargain. They believe that they are above the people, instead of being one part of the people. They believe that the Government being strong, should prey upon the people who are weaker. But one thing that history shows again and again is a vampire Government will die. It will be destroyed, either by foreign enemies or by the people, whether that brings happiness or unhappiness.

The people must broadly speaking believe that the Government is on their side, once they come to believe otherwise then that is the definition of a tyranny.

Another issue that has been much debated is who is supreme, the Government or the people. That one is easy for Traditional Conservatives. The Government serves the people, the people serve not the Government but the Nation. Because the people and the Nation are one and the Government is merely the representative of the Nation. The people can change the Government, even the system of Government but the Government has no right to change the people.

You might argue that the Government is more powerful than the people, but there is a downside to power for Government and that is that for a Government to function it must be seen as legitimate. It may survive for a time being seen as illegitimate but it cannot survive indefinitely. Legitimacy is the language of Government, once it loses that it may never recover. The only thing that may save it is that there is nothing viable to replace it. It is surprising how long this problem can haunt Governments.

For the Traditional Conservative the Government is a servant of the people and the Nation, it may function otherwise but it's true purpose is to be the peoples representative and not to be the peoples Master.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

The Sixth Month

The Sixth Month

It is six months ago today that I started Upon Hope Blog and it has really helped me work out my thoughts on a variety of different topics. Like all writers, vain as we all are, I always want more readers. This has been my best month yet, but as always there seems to be both good and bad news all at once.

My best day was the 13th August when my post on the Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination was linked to by Mrs. Wood over at her site The Thinking Housewife. On that day I had 377 visitors, by far my best day. The worst day this month was the 31st of August when I only had 21 visitors. But I must admit that is the highest low number since I started.

Thanks once again Mrs. Wood!

The dates as always are from the 11th of the month to the following 11th of the month.

United States
United Kingdom

United States
United Kingdom

My American readers jumped up amazingly and on most days the majority of my readers are from the United States, always glad to have you around. Canada has also doubled but it is no where as consistent. Germany rose as well but it remains much lower than it used to be, sadly.

A few new countries have joined the list, Romania jumped up very high and I have a small but steady stream from day to day. The Netherlands is also new and they joined in after the link was put in at The Thinking Housewife. I normally get a handful of visitors from China, but a jump to 19 was nice to see. To all three new countries, welcome!

My saddest news is my own country Australia, numbers have dropped off quite abit, I have had around a 100 fewer visits this month than the one before. Having said that it is still normally in second place for the number of visitors a day. Russia has also halved, but it has started to pick up.

The United Kingdom has gone down slightly but it's still good numbers and Latvia is still there with less visitors, it seems they come in once or twice a month.

Countries that have dropped out of the top 10 are Croatia, Ireland and France.

I don't write a list of each country that visits so in time I forget, but the ones I remember are Iceland, Poland, Bulgaria, Israel, India, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Venezuela and Brazil. I'm sure there are others that I've forgotten.

Thank you for reading my blog and I hope you find what I write of interest.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Moncrieff

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future   

Sunday, 8 September 2013

The Australian Election

The Australian Election

Yesterday for only the seventh time since 1945 Australia has elected a new Government, we have had many more elections but Australians are very reluctant to put a new Government in place. Political parties like to talk about how they win elections but the truth is, here we don't elect Governments, we sack them.

While a handful of seats are still in doubt as to who will win them, it is clear that the Coalition has around 90 Parliamentary seats out of 150. The Coalition is a partnership of two political parties, the Liberals and the Nationals. Both claim to be Conservative but are in reality Right-Liberal parties. They defeated the Australian Labor Party who now have 57 seats in the new Parliament. The Greens have one seat and Independents the rest. A new party, the Palmer United Party, may have won non, one or two seats.

The Australian Labor Party was the previous Government and they deserved to lose. I only need to tell you one thing for you to understand how terrible they were as a Government. They introduced a new tax, the mining tax to get more money from the mining industry. Only it didn't bring in any revenue!

How bad do you have to be to bring in a new tax and not get any money from it!

This was really only the tip of the iceberg of their failures.

You might hear about how Australia now has a Conservative Government, about how we are all ashamed or should be of the new Governments actions or words, about how racist and intolerable life is here for immigrants or homosexuals. Of course non of it will be true. Our new Government is not Conservative, some of it's members are, many hold Conservative positions on a number of topics but thats not a Conservative Government. Thats a Government thats simply more Conservative than the last Government.

The new Government has said it will be tough on illegal immigrants, I hope it will be but that remains to be seen. The last Coalition Government had an ill deserved reputation for being tough, but somehow most of the illegal immigrants still managed to get to stay in Australia, for my money that ain't tough. The media love to tell us about how people are ashamed of the Government, but rarely is it true, here or elsewhere. The media are just so used to doing these stories that they believe their own propaganda.

Of course any toughening of immigration will be seen as racist, whether it is or isn't, whether it works or not, the media only care about the story and their message not about reality. The same will go for homosexual marriage, the new Prime Minister is against it, during the campaign to much media ridicule he called it "a fad", even though his sister is a Lesbian. But he will be put under pressure to pass it, if he does as I hope and keeps saying no, don't be surprised to hear stories about how tough it is to be homosexual in Australia. The reality will be it won't be any different at all.

I wish the new Government well and I hope it does good things. But it doesn't detract from the fact that I am not a Right-Liberal and for what i hope and desire for Australia I need a Conservative Government. The work of building a Traditional Conservative movement hasn't ended, it continues just as it did under the last Government.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

The Conservative Messiah

The Conservative Messiah

On the site 'TV Tropes' there is a trope called the 'Magical Negro'. How many movies have you seen were a black man (sometimes a women) appears and offers advice or wisdom that changes the direction of things for the better? Often for no reason, he just appears. In politics a similar phenomena exists, the search for a political Messiah.

The list is long, although mine won't be, Herman Caine, Sarah Palin, Pauline Hanson, Marine Le Pen amongst others. Looking at this list you can also see what I've dubbed 'The Magic Female'.

A women who will save Conservatism, she will  be attractive or if not attractive you will hear people say she is sexy or that she has sex appeal. She offers a kinder and softer Conservatism, one that our enemies cannot attack because now we are both Progressive and Conservative. Of course they do attack, the idea that they will not is simply wishful thinking. Also someone who is both a Progressive and a Conservative has a name, they are called an Opportunists. How much do you think the Political Opportunist will stand up for either Progressiveness  or Conservatism?

Women are better people many assume, they will be more co-operative which must be good for Democracy. They will not be as aggressive as men so the World will be more peaceful. But we will of course talk up how tough she is, don't worry we won't have to do all the work as she will tell us herself how tough she is. A Pit bull with lipstick, just the average, typical Conservative women, or to put it another more accurate way, absolutely not the average typical Conservative women. Because such a women is not a Conservative at all, she is a Feminist. Maybe not a radical Feminist, she is only a mainstream Feminist, but still a Feminist. She shows by her words and her deeds that she believes in female empowerment, in men and women competing against each other.

That is not Conservatism, we believe that men and women are Allies in life and that Allies co-operate, they do not compete or try to defeat the other. A women cannot lead Conservatism because her Leadership attacks the cause she is leading.

While it is possible for a man who is a member of a Minority group to lead Conservatism, it is both unwise and undesirable for such a thing to occur. All peoples have limits, the Left likes to pretend that it doesn't but that is just pretense. Conservatives have limits as well and it is unlikely that they would really support such a candidate (I'm not talking here about the cheerleaders, but about the great bulk of Conservatives).  The Left will say it's because of racism, but the truth is that Conservatives tend to be, well, Conservative. They are not in a mad rush to change or challenge the social order and they will question if such a candidate is in a rush. The question may be unfair but it will be asked, in time the answer may be acceptable, but I suspect that would take years if not decades.

But the Conservative Messiah is not confined to women or Minorities. Once elected a Conservative man can become a Messiah. But he, like the rest will turn out to be a false Prophet because he will fail to deliver what is expected of him for three reasons.

1. He will be expected to fix what is beyond his ability to fix

2. He probably isn't really a Conservative at all but he is most likely a Right-Liberal. Right-Liberals often sound like Conservatives but they support Liberal economics and they like Social Conservatism but they will drop it like a hot potato if it becomes bothersome and then they will tell us about how they wrestled with their soul and simply changed their mind.

3. There is no real Conservative movement to support him, nor is there a real Conservative movement to keep alive the fight, even if a battle is won.

In short the search for a Political Messiah is fools gold, if you need a Messiah get more religious. But if you want to fight politically and win, we need not a Messiah but a real Conservative movement. One that can take a loss, one that can replace a good candidate with another good candidate. A Conservative movement that will protect our Candidates as they protect us and our shared values. Support a Conservative movement and don't fall for the next Messiah.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Sunday, 1 September 2013

The Three Meanings of the Word 'Politics'

The Three Meanings of the Word 'Politics'

When we use the word Politics it can be confusing as to what is meant. The word is simple enough but it can mean so many different things and I have found myself in conversations in which I am talking on one level but the other person is talking on another. Neither of us is wrong but the word is much broader than it is given credit for, so here I am going to distinguish between the three distinct meanings of the word politics. Moving from the higher meaning to the lowest and providing the meanings of each.

Political Philosophy

What do you believe, what do you oppose and why do you oppose it. That is what political philosophy means, it is not about how much you know about a particular belief. That can help certainly, but many who have never read Karl Marx know how they feel about his political philosophy.  


If given power what would you do with it. How would you enact your political philosophy from thought into deeds. We often see policy being used cynically by Politicians and Political Parties, there being two major reasons for this. 1) They want power and will do anything to get it, 2) They do not really understand their own political philosophy. Policy does not have to be cynical, in fact good policy is not cynical.


How do you feel about a particular candidate, do you like him or not, what have you heard about him, do you think what you've heard is true. The personal is sometimes called character, it is sometimes called gossip. Finding out about a candidates character is right, but it can easily fall into gossip, which might be entertaining but will not give a real indication of either their future performance nor of their character.

There is a joke that I've seen that asks which of these two candidates would you vote for:

1) A Teetotaler, a non smoker and a vegetarian, or

2) A Drinker, a heavy smoker who is also over weight

Who would you vote for? Of course all you have is personal information, you have no political philosophy or even policies to help you decide.

If you voted for 1) you voted for Adolf Hitler, if you voted for 2) you voted for Winston Churchill!

I present this as an example of how relying on just the personal can be deceptive. 

This Blog is mostly about political philosophy, I most often write about what constitutes the different viewpoints of Conservatism and Liberalism, as well as other political philosophies. I believe that this is one area that we need to improve on as I often find that many people who call themselves Conservatives are really only "Conservatives". People who support alot more of Liberalism than they realise and then find it hard to reconcile why Liberalism keeps winning. Only when we have a knowledge of political philosophy can we truly know where we stand, what we stand for and what we are against.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future