CDZ A Moderate Maifesto

[JimBowie1958]

Are you actually thinking you were attacked there, dude?

Attacked? No, of course not. I do feel like I am being trolled however.

I was not reminded of you in any way.

Do you feel like you have a history of trolling or mockery?

I have not noticed that of you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

 

[OldLady]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

 

[oldsoul]

Wow, just wow. Just yesterday I was thinking, "What's the point any more? I'm not learning anything anymore (the whole reason I started this adventure), and I can't seem to get through to anyone that disagrees with me either. I should just stop going on this board." Then, today, I read this. Wow, I'm not alone, I'm not the only one.

Thank you folks for renewing my faith that this ongoing discussion on the various topics of the day might, someday, lead to a better tomorrow. I shall carry on. I shall continue to make an attempt at bringing sanity back to the public discussion, I shall continue hoping that Dr. King's dream may become a reality and we will be judged by the content of our character alone, one and all.

I cannot say enough to express what this entire thread means to me. I have thought many times in recent years that this country is too far gone, and my best play is to "disappear into the north woods" to live out my life in relative peace and harmony. This thread renews my hope that the day I make that move has not come, yet.

I feel a tear welling up in my eye when I say, "Thank you one and all."

Wait, no that was just my allergies. LOL

 

[oldsoul]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, however, oftentimes when I hear things like, "well the (insert group here)....." I hear the message that someone/something is to blame for that group's failures. You bring up BLM, when I think of BLM I think, well of course black lives matter, so do everyone else's. I think of the whole "hands up, don't shoot" thing that was based on a lie. I think, it's a free country, if you don't like where you are, move (I know, easier said than done, but the Oregon trail was mostly walked with what one could carry or put in a small wagon). I think of the slogan, "by any means necessary" (yea, I know that's Antifa).
This is the problem, oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth. I have said and done some things that have been quite hurtful to people. That doesn't mean that I am a racist, sexist, or homophobe. It means I was once young and naive, and therefore did things that were hurtful. Often it seems as though no one is given the benefit of the doubt. (IE. "Did you realise that what you said/did was hurtful in this way?") Too often people assume other people understand what they mean when they are unclear. We all know what happens when one ASSuMEs.
Getting back to the example of BLM, it would be much better received to say "Black Lives Matter, too"(you will notice I capitalized the BLM and left the "too" lower case, adding the emphasis where it belongs). Of course that doesn't grab you though, however, it is much more conducive to starting a conversation. I have to wonder, was the BLM movement started to kick off a long overdue conversation, or just to get attention? Don't get me wrong, we do need to shine a very bright spotlight on bigotry in all forms, but I believe it should be in the form of starting conversations, not shouting matches.

 

[OldLady]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, however, oftentimes when I hear things like, "well the (insert group here)....." I hear the message that someone/something is to blame for that group's failures. You bring up BLM, when I think of BLM I think, well of course black lives matter, so do everyone else's. I think of the whole "hands up, don't shoot" thing that was based on a lie. I think, it's a free country, if you don't like where you are, move (I know, easier said than done, but the Oregon trail was mostly walked with what one could carry or put in a small wagon). I think of the slogan, "by any means necessary" (yea, I know that's Antifa).
This is the problem, oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth. I have said and done some things that have been quite hurtful to people. That doesn't mean that I am a racist, sexist, or homophobe. It means I was once young and naive, and therefore did things that were hurtful. Often it seems as though no one is given the benefit of the doubt. (IE. "Did you realise that what you said/did was hurtful in this way?") Too often people assume other people understand what they mean when they are unclear. We all know what happens when one ASSuMEs.
Getting back to the example of BLM, it would be much better received to say "Black Lives Matter, too"(you will notice I capitalized the BLM and left the "too" lower case, adding the emphasis where it belongs). Of course that doesn't grab you though, however, it is much more conducive to starting a conversation. I have to wonder, was the BLM movement started to kick off a long overdue conversation, or just to get attention? Don't get me wrong, we do need to shine a very bright spotlight on bigotry in all forms, but I believe it should be in the form of starting conversations, not shouting matches.

oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth.
I'm not sure what makes you think that, but that is your problem. Not to hurt your feelings, but it is actually YOUR personal reaction, not a reaction to the facts of existing inequalities.

I'm also not sure why you immediately leap to the defense of "shouting matches." I've heard lots of people talk about those issues without shouting. Don't expect intelligent discussion during a street march, oldsoul. It will never happen. Otherwise, there are plenty of opportunities to have a conversation if you can enter it without a lot of preconceived notions.

 

[OldLady]

All that said, nice piece, Jim. If only everyone could be that reasonable. Yet the moderates in D.C. seem to be running for the exit. Can we somehow get a message to moderates that a lot of us wish for more of them?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, I'm a Independent, so....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

Yet identity politics is nothing but a reversion to a primitive tribalism.

As such, it is the antithesis of liberalism rather than the promotion thereof.

Liberalism is about creating a color blind society and not restricting people to tribe. Liberalism MAXIMIZES people's ability to determine their own life rather than putting them in a little box that limits them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Oh stop bickering, boys.
The initial post sounded lovely. The second post had what to me seemed embedded messages from the conservative corner. Maybe I'm just being mistrustful, but the message in #6 about Identity Politics is clear, at any rate.

The article also has some commonalities with liberalism.

But I just didnt want to quote the whole article.

Also, Identity {Politics is fairly much rejected by the majority of people as it is basically a new form of racism inherently, as it does precisely IDENTIFYING people/categorizing them/ pigeonholing them by race and explaining their behavior and rights by race.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, however, oftentimes when I hear things like, "well the (insert group here)....." I hear the message that someone/something is to blame for that group's failures. You bring up BLM, when I think of BLM I think, well of course black lives matter, so do everyone else's. I think of the whole "hands up, don't shoot" thing that was based on a lie. I think, it's a free country, if you don't like where you are, move (I know, easier said than done, but the Oregon trail was mostly walked with what one could carry or put in a small wagon). I think of the slogan, "by any means necessary" (yea, I know that's Antifa).
This is the problem, oftentimes when liberals "point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group" it comes across as I have somehow done something wrong. That I am racist, bigoted, or otherwise unfair to minorities just because of my birth. I have said and done some things that have been quite hurtful to people. That doesn't mean that I am a racist, sexist, or homophobe. It means I was once young and naive, and therefore did things that were hurtful. Often it seems as though no one is given the benefit of the doubt. (IE. "Did you realise that what you said/did was hurtful in this way?") Too often people assume other people understand what they mean when they are unclear. We all know what happens when one ASSuMEs.
Getting back to the example of BLM, it would be much better received to say "Black Lives Matter, too"(you will notice I capitalized the BLM and left the "too" lower case, adding the emphasis where it belongs). Of course that doesn't grab you though, however, it is much more conducive to starting a conversation. I have to wonder, was the BLM movement started to kick off a long overdue conversation, or just to get attention? Don't get me wrong, we do need to shine a very bright spotlight on bigotry in all forms, but I believe it should be in the form of starting a head into the ground into a bloody pulp and another black man tried to conversations, not shouting matches.

BLM began after one black man pounded a guy' s head into the ground until it was a bloody pulp and anther black man tried to overpower a cop.

It is nothing but the very reversal of mlk's famous line about judging a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. For those who practice identity politics, it is all about the color of one's skin and not the content of their character.

 

[Tehon]

If this thread were not in the CDZ, we'd see some pretty aggressive mocking.
.

Is this ^ clean debate?

I am confused. How is it not?

It was a troll post, but I digress.

 

[Tehon]

I like most of what I have read on this topic, but I thought I would try to see what some of the folks here think as well.

Centrism: A Moderate Manifesto - Quillette

Like the conservative, the centrist begins with a pessimistic observation about human nature: It is flawed (or, in religious terms, it is sinful). Humans are not infinitely flexible or perfectible. They cannot use reason to transcend fully their basic impulses and prejudices. Our best understanding of human nature today comes from the evolutionary sciences, which strongly suggest that humans are “designed” to navigate a small-scale society; and that they are limited, parochial, biased, prone to violence, status competition, and nearly inescapable tribalism. Even if early evolutionary psychology overemphasized the extent to which there was a “mismatch” between “stone age brains” and modern post-industrial society, it is certainly true that modern Western social structures challenge human nature in ways that smaller societies do not.

Because humans are prone to favoring kin and tribe over other people, a complicated, law-based social order is difficult to achieve. Indeed, many groups of people have not transcended a nepotistic social structure based on tribal affinities and the whims of those who wield power. Therefore, the achievements of Western Civilization–free markets, equal treatment under the law, admiration for open inquiry–should inspire awe and reverence. A progressive looks at modern Western Society and sees a list of ills and misfortunes; a centrist looks and is relieved that the list is so short. Furthermore, the centrist weighs the ills against the remarkable accomplishments. The mightiest and wealthiest kings of earlier epochs would have blushed at the luxuries we take for granted. Even the humble treat of buying an arugula salad at a grocery store for a few dollars is something that would have astonished and delighted our ancestors.

The centrist, like the conservative, is therefore worried about radical utopian proposals because the centrist fears that they might inspire dramatic alterations that upset a reasonably successful social order. Abstract theories about human altruism and blissfulness are appealing, but they haven’t been tested by the pitiless realities of the world. When inspiring theories that misunderstand or misrepresent human nature have been tried, the results have been invariably tragic. The centrist, however, is equally skeptical of radical libertarian ideas on the Right. The modern welfare state, whatever its flaws, has done a pretty good job of holding together a broad and largely urbanized society in which private charity cannot solve the worst problems of poverty. Many libertarian theorists (although not all, of course) appear as wrong about human nature as socialists or other utopians. Not all humans can thrive in a modern information-based economy. Education is obviously a great social good, but it cannot turn a person with an 85 IQ into an engineer. Creating better incentives will not create a society of Einsteins.

Furthermore, markets, although brilliant wealth generators, are often corrosive to social values. This, among other reasons, is why political and cultural leaders have always established rules to guide markets, and have often tried to remove certain commodities from the market system altogether. In most of the United States, for example, sex cannot be bought and sold legally. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for the legalization of prostitution, but it is not immediately obvious that society would be better if all potential market transactions were allowed. The centrist does not need to take a firm stand here; rather he or she should carefully examine the available and future evidence about the effects of legalization. The more important point is that market libertarianism is a radical political philosophy and therefore should be greeted with skepticism.

So far, so conservative. This sounds like a modern version of Edmund Burke’s political philosophy. But, there are two great differences between the centrism here conceived and conservatism: (1) Centrism does not loath change and (2) it does not accept a transcendental (religious) moral order.

The great conservatives of the past–Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Klemens von Metternich, John Calhoun, T.S. Eliot, et cetera–often evinced a peculiarly fervid attachment to the current social order, perhaps best summarized by Bierce’s quip that a conservative is one “enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal who wishes to replace them with others.” Of course, this is a simplification, and most conservatives have realized that slow change is necessary to preserve social order. Nevertheless, it is a fair simplification, and it is not intellectually dishonest to imagine conservatives on the stasis side of a change continuum with progressives on the other (radical change).

The centrist, not surprisingly, wishes to remain in the center of this continuum, encouraging change when prudent, but discouraging abrupt or radical upheavals. The centrist believes, much more than the conservative, in social progress, and believes that humans have made remarkable economic and moral advances in the past 500 years. The conservative is correct that the past is full of wisdom for the future; but the progressive is correct that the past is also full of errors, dogmas, and barbarism. Perhaps one could put it this way: The past is like an old, unused, and rotting library; the books are full of wisdom, but the building is ruined by insects and decay. The conservative wants to keep the library; the centrist wants to keep the books; and the progressive wants to burn the whole thing down and start over.​

I have to say that I don't really understand this need for people to identify themselves as centrist or moderate. Or why they feel they hold high ground in political discourse. It baffles me.

Also, I didn't really read the article as a manifesto. It is more just a list of defining qualities. Which is fine, but isn't it a form of identity politics?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah, good stuff. Thanks Jim.

Unfortunately, the very nature of moderates and centrists - a desire for reason, tolerance, cooperation and a general humility - is easily overwhelmed by the sheer force of the ego, intolerance and narcissism that animates and drives the ends of the spectrum. These people literally identify with their ideology, with "beating" the other "side", and not at all with constructive communication and pragmatism.

If this thread were not in the CDZ, we'd see some pretty aggressive mocking.

Hell, we STILL might.


.

Unfortunately, the very nature of moderates and centrists - a desire for reason, tolerance, cooperation and a general humility - is easily overwhelmed by the sheer force of the ego, intolerance and narcissism that animates and drives the ends of the spectrum.

Until the advent of social media, that really wasn't a problem. It's not that people are so different now than they were before; it's that social media has made clear to us just how abundant are the folks who "don't have anything to say" yet can be and are heard. As Winegard writes, "education is obviously a great social good, but it cannot turn a person with an 85 IQ into an engineer;" however, social media makes it possible for every one of those folks who haven't the skills and acuity of an "engineer" to remark upon "engineering" topics.

This is precisely the theme upon which I expounded in response to another member's having encouraged me to opine on an idea she shared.

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

As with so many discussions, the central theme of Rothbard's comment is one that too few people too infrequently embrace and act accordingly.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I like most of what I have read on this topic, but I thought I would try to see what some of the folks here think as well.

Centrism: A Moderate Manifesto - Quillette

Like the conservative, the centrist begins with a pessimistic observation about human nature: It is flawed (or, in religious terms, it is sinful). Humans are not infinitely flexible or perfectible. They cannot use reason to transcend fully their basic impulses and prejudices. Our best understanding of human nature today comes from the evolutionary sciences, which strongly suggest that humans are “designed” to navigate a small-scale society; and that they are limited, parochial, biased, prone to violence, status competition, and nearly inescapable tribalism. Even if early evolutionary psychology overemphasized the extent to which there was a “mismatch” between “stone age brains” and modern post-industrial society, it is certainly true that modern Western social structures challenge human nature in ways that smaller societies do not.

Because humans are prone to favoring kin and tribe over other people, a complicated, law-based social order is difficult to achieve. Indeed, many groups of people have not transcended a nepotistic social structure based on tribal affinities and the whims of those who wield power. Therefore, the achievements of Western Civilization–free markets, equal treatment under the law, admiration for open inquiry–should inspire awe and reverence. A progressive looks at modern Western Society and sees a list of ills and misfortunes; a centrist looks and is relieved that the list is so short. Furthermore, the centrist weighs the ills against the remarkable accomplishments. The mightiest and wealthiest kings of earlier epochs would have blushed at the luxuries we take for granted. Even the humble treat of buying an arugula salad at a grocery store for a few dollars is something that would have astonished and delighted our ancestors.

The centrist, like the conservative, is therefore worried about radical utopian proposals because the centrist fears that they might inspire dramatic alterations that upset a reasonably successful social order. Abstract theories about human altruism and blissfulness are appealing, but they haven’t been tested by the pitiless realities of the world. When inspiring theories that misunderstand or misrepresent human nature have been tried, the results have been invariably tragic. The centrist, however, is equally skeptical of radical libertarian ideas on the Right. The modern welfare state, whatever its flaws, has done a pretty good job of holding together a broad and largely urbanized society in which private charity cannot solve the worst problems of poverty. Many libertarian theorists (although not all, of course) appear as wrong about human nature as socialists or other utopians. Not all humans can thrive in a modern information-based economy. Education is obviously a great social good, but it cannot turn a person with an 85 IQ into an engineer. Creating better incentives will not create a society of Einsteins.

Furthermore, markets, although brilliant wealth generators, are often corrosive to social values. This, among other reasons, is why political and cultural leaders have always established rules to guide markets, and have often tried to remove certain commodities from the market system altogether. In most of the United States, for example, sex cannot be bought and sold legally. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for the legalization of prostitution, but it is not immediately obvious that society would be better if all potential market transactions were allowed. The centrist does not need to take a firm stand here; rather he or she should carefully examine the available and future evidence about the effects of legalization. The more important point is that market libertarianism is a radical political philosophy and therefore should be greeted with skepticism.

So far, so conservative. This sounds like a modern version of Edmund Burke’s political philosophy. But, there are two great differences between the centrism here conceived and conservatism: (1) Centrism does not loath change and (2) it does not accept a transcendental (religious) moral order.

The great conservatives of the past–Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Klemens von Metternich, John Calhoun, T.S. Eliot, et cetera–often evinced a peculiarly fervid attachment to the current social order, perhaps best summarized by Bierce’s quip that a conservative is one “enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal who wishes to replace them with others.” Of course, this is a simplification, and most conservatives have realized that slow change is necessary to preserve social order. Nevertheless, it is a fair simplification, and it is not intellectually dishonest to imagine conservatives on the stasis side of a change continuum with progressives on the other (radical change).

The centrist, not surprisingly, wishes to remain in the center of this continuum, encouraging change when prudent, but discouraging abrupt or radical upheavals. The centrist believes, much more than the conservative, in social progress, and believes that humans have made remarkable economic and moral advances in the past 500 years. The conservative is correct that the past is full of wisdom for the future; but the progressive is correct that the past is also full of errors, dogmas, and barbarism. Perhaps one could put it this way: The past is like an old, unused, and rotting library; the books are full of wisdom, but the building is ruined by insects and decay. The conservative wants to keep the library; the centrist wants to keep the books; and the progressive wants to burn the whole thing down and start over.​

I have to say that I don't really understand this need for people to identify themselves as centrist or moderate. Or why they feel they hold high ground in political discourse. It baffles me.

Also, I didn't really read the article as a manifesto. It is more just a list of defining qualities. Which is fine, but isn't it a form of identity politics?

I don't really understand this need for people to identify themselves as centrist or moderate.

One does not at all need to do so. Doing that -- that is, assigning such labels to others -- and placing credence in the value of doing so is among the hobgoblins accruing from, to use Winegard's terms, the "mismatch" between the "stone age mind" and the exigencies of an expansive society. That said, the problem isn't in ascribing to or assigning the labels. No, the problem arises when, as Winegard explains, one uses the label -- be it apt or not -- " [impute] nefarious motives to people voicing well-intentioned concerns."

 

[jwoodie]

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! -Barry Goldwater, 1964

LBJ's "moderate" approach to the Vietnam war resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 55,000 Americans soldiers.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I have to say that I don't really understand this need for people to identify themselves as centrist or moderate. Or why they feel they hold high ground in political discourse. It baffles me.

Also, I didn't really read the article as a manifesto. It is more just a list of defining qualities. Which is fine, but isn't it a form of identity politics?

I agree with you here. Which hasn't been too often.

Ultimately, collectivism is a mindset which teaches/promotes the view that humans are strictly members of groups rather than Individuals. The obsession with group identity is inherently collectivist. The true antidote to collectivism is to promote/teach Individual liberty.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

As with so many discussions, the central theme of Rothbard's comment is one that too few people too infrequently embrace and act accordingly.

Murray was one of the great writers of our time. Though, I personally tend to be in agreement with Mises over Rothbard in terms of economic theory. But Murray was correct here.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have to say that I don't really understand this need for people to identify themselves as centrist or moderate. Or why they feel they hold high ground in political discourse. It baffles me.

Also, I didn't really read the article as a manifesto. It is more just a list of defining qualities. Which is fine, but isn't it a form of identity politics?

I agree with you here. Which hasn't been too often.

Ultimately, collectivism is a mindset which teaches/promotes the view that humans are strictly members of groups rather than Individuals. The obsession with group identity is inherently collectivist. The true antidote to collectivism is to promote/teach Individual liberty.

...And the value of shifting from one extreme to another is... You prefer one extreme and others prefer a different one, yet a central point of the rubric is that neither extreme holds more merit than does the center.

Di omen auertant deus obstat, quo loco in capite tuo.​

 

[Natural Citizen]

...And the value of shifting from one extreme to another is... You prefer one extreme and others prefer a different one, yet a central point of the rubric is that neither extreme holds more merit than does the center.

​

Why do you hate freedom? Why is the concept of Individual Liberty over collectivism extreme to you?

Are you going to give me your Mussolini speech about the Individual being multiplied for the purpose of empowering the state again? It didn't work out for you the last time. What makes you think it will this time? Hm?




Let us revisit so that we may all understand your interest in discussion such as this...

Xelor said: Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.


Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism (1932) said: In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.


Does everyone see this? Xelor is precisely echoing Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. This is what you're up against. That you as the Individual do not matter. That only the collective matters. But in reality there is no collective. There is only the state.

There's your newsflash.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Terms like "centrist" and "moderate" imply a "middle" ground that doesn't exist.

The "manifesto" in the OP - as the author states - is a modern rehashing of Burkean conservatism - which, while significantly better than what modern conservatism has turned into, is not a "middle ground" between any other ideologies.

What is entertaining about some of the responses in this thread is that Burkean conservatism (or just "Conservatism", if you're a political science major) is a rebellion against the "individualism" of Locke's liberalism.

You can't doubt the inherent good of individuals and call yourself an individualist at the same time.