If those in this country who consider themselves to be spiritual progressives could see clearly just how closely they are aligned with true conservative principles, perhaps they could begin to reclaim conservatism as one of the core principles upon which to build the movement toward a more spirit-guided world. Obviously, folks are all different. These three key guiding principles – a conservative nature, a progressive heart, and a spiritual soul – are present in most people. Like 3 legs that hold up a stool, they?re each critical to making the overall person. The degree to which one leg or the other is strongest will define which way a person might lean in times of stress.
Though U.S.-centric, I essentially agree that this analysis, written by a self-confessed conservative, applies generally, and that any new social hegemony will be based on a new type of alliance between ‘progressives’ and ‘conservatives’.
Neil Hanson:
“If we?re to have a chance at salvaging something of the secular, pluralistic democracy that founded this country a couple of hundred years ago, a couple of groups who?ve been tricked into thinking they?re opponents need to see past a few minor differences into the vast common ground they share. They then need to turn their combined attention toward the real source of dissonance and destruction in our culture.
The “trickery” that?s occurred is the hijacking of conservatism – its very nature and foundation – turning the word on its head so that folks who are, in fact, truly conservative end up supporting neoliberal ideas and candidates that are actually extreme right-wing ideologues. Enough talk of things that sound truly conservative is sprinkled into the rhetoric to keep folks from thinking too much about it, and at the end of the day, folks who are truly conservative end up alienated from their progressive brothers and sisters, rather than in league with them as the large overlaps in their ideologies should suggest.
I think most Americans are quite conservative by nature. We believe in our right to privacy, free speech, religion and expression, and each of the other 10 Amendments that make up our Bill of Rights. We don?t want the government or anyone else peeking behind the doors of our private lives, telling us whom we can or can?t marry, how we might choose to (or not to) reproduce, or what religion is “most American”. We believe in the notion of caring for and “conserving” the world around us, the relationships we maintain in our lives, and our way of life. We don’t want our world turned upside down or ripped apart. We live by common sense and common courtesy.
I think most Americans are also quite progressive by nature. We value the ideal of “classlessness” in our society, and generally support the basic tenets of progressive taxation (ie: the wealthy pay more than the poor pay.) We are generous by nature, seeking ways to reduce pain and suffering, through both private and public means. We believe that good government is representative of The People, and acts in the best interest of The People – it is a tool to be used wisely to stay true to the US Constitution, where its definition is to, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”
I also think most Americans are pretty “spiritual” by nature. We might define this differently, but the basic attraction to and connection with a “Divine Presence” in our lives is quite common in America – more so than in most western nations. We often wear our spirituality on our sleeves here, and it?s become common to expect that any political candidate who hopes for any success at all is required to display h/er spiritual dedication prominently.
Mix these three qualities together, and you have the vast middle of America, a place where we?re conservative by nature, we have a progressive heart, and we?re driven by a strong sense of spiritual connection, presence, and direction. If everyone stood still for just a second and thought about this, it seems pretty likely to me that the right-wing stranglehold on American politics would rapidly evaporate. I want to be clear here – I?m not advocating for any sort of left-wing stranglehold either. Either extreme – left or right – is equally dangerous. It?s just that the reality today is that there is no viable left wing in this country – at least not one with any strength or organization. There are voices on the extreme left, but they have no pulpit, no power, and apparently no ability to effectively organize. They?re simply not a significant part of the the political equation today.
The right wing, on the other hand, is powered by the neoliberal ideologues who have dominated the Republican party for the past 30+ years. Neoliberals are driven by ruthless belief in social evolution, where only those with power are allowed to survive and thrive. Domination of society by the strongest corporations is their altar. They believe that life exists to allow capital to accrue to those who are best at manipulating the system, regardless of the cost to human life or any other aspect of life in this universe. Capital is God to them, and everything happens and exists to allow the trickiest to accumulate more of it. While the neoliberal will profess to want less government, what they really want is a different government – one friendlier to corporatist interests, and less friendly to the rights and the power of The People. Their version of government is exactly opposite to the one that founded this country – the one where government exists to assure the security and protection of The People, the freedom and rights of The People.”
“any new social hegemony”… uhmmm… I thought P2P economy and society meant no hegemonies. Besides, left-right wing or progressive-conservative doesn’t mean much these days.
hi carlos, with hegemony, I personally a new broad consensus about the basic organizing principles of society, but within that, with a maximum amount of plurarchy. But if we want the deep social change associated with p2p and the commons, I don’t see how to avoid that, unless we want to stay for the rest of human history in a biosphere-destroying infinite growth system. Today, we have a particular hegemony, but within that, a certain pluralism; I expect in the future, a different ‘hegemony’, with even more pluralism. I also agree that in many ways the left-right distinctions is no longer what it was, but has it totally disappeared. Traditionally, I would say, the left thought the human being to be essentially good, with systems holding it back from its potential; while the right thought the human soul essentially evil, with systems needed to keep him in check. I would say the peer to peer approach sees the human being as tragic, a mixture of all kinds of motivations and inclinations, but nevertheless, that intelligent social systems can align and support our better sides with collective interest. In some ways, this is an integration at a higher level of both left-right principles. Nevertheless, I still believe that there will always be a distinction between people essentially defending the status quo and existing power structures and privileges, and those who still believe in human emancipation and the need to go forward towards more inclusion.
Hi Michel, thanks for your answer. I’m of the opinion that we should go beyond the hegemony of the hegemony, but I came to P2P, free and open source movements from an anarchist background. I found this book very inspiring in this matter: http://p2pfoundation.net/Gramsci_is_Dead It’s quite ironic (while appropiate) that I found a summary in the P2PFoundation website 🙂