#and another argument in favor of the introduction role: all the different eras are represented fairly which i also always appreciate | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

princess-of-france · 5 years

Note

I’m interested in your take on Angelo & Isabella w/ personality parallels (also just your opinion on Angelo especially tbh because I feel like I under-analyzed him when I read the play bc I was just. Well, found him scary :P) because obviously w/ your production you’re pretty deep in and I don’t see a lot of MFM content

Oof, this is a loaded question.

I’m happy to answer it, but I think I should make a disclaimer that—as you point out—my opinions of Angelo are skewed by my experiences as an actor inside a specific production. I’m also not an English scholar; I’m a theater artist. My lit crit skills are dodgy at best (as @lizbennett2013 knows all too well), and I don’t believe there is a single way to interpret any character in drama, especially when you’re dealing with heightened text. All I can do is give my honest appraisal of Angelo as I have encountered him dramaturgically through cutting our script, rehearsing Isabella, and seeing his iterations in other productions.

So! Angelo and Isabella. Two sides of the same coin. I really think they are.

Let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way first: Angelo is scary. He just is. His sexually motivated exploitation of authority continues to be one of the most transcendent aspects of this ever-timely play. However you stage it, however you trim the text, whatever charismatic actor you slot into the role, Angelo is a capital-T-Terror and there’s no getting around it. Coercive, manipulative, hypocritical, ruthless, misogynistic, fraudulent, and cruel, he basically spends the entirety of MEASURE FOR MEASURE committing crimes and then soliloquizing about how painful it all is for his bargain-price conscience. You’ll never hear me say he doesn’t deserve his reputation as one of the most reprehensible tyrants in all of Shakespeare.

But.

Of the three defining qualities I see in Angelo—ideological dogmatism, rhetorical prowess, and professional pride—there’s not one of them that is not blisteringly prominent in his antagonist, Isabella. Despite the fact that she’s a Catholic republican (“Butt out of people’s lives, Big Government; God will judge us when we die!”) and he’s a Puritan[ical] bureaucrat (“My job is to regulate people’s lives because purgatory is a myth!”), they have far more in common, cognitively, than not. Understand: I’m not saying that Angelo is not a piece of shit for how he behaves throughout course of the play. Nor am I implying that Isabella is somehow culpable for his masturbatory exercise of power over her. My girl has flaws, but she’s unquestionably the hero of M4M. What I’m trying to articulate is that Angelo and Isabella were born with the same psychological toolkit, which they elect to apply towards radically different purposes. (Think Parseltongue and “It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities…”) This shared intellectual arsenal is what makes their pair of scenes in Act Two so iconic. We basically get to watch them play out Newton’s Third Law in real time: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction… As far as rhetoric goes, neither Isabella nor Angelo can overwhelm the other. For every argument she makes in favor of mercy, he punctures it with legalism. For every judicial explication he provides, she dissolves it with morality. One minute, we’re nodding our heads along with Angelo as he explains why Christian values should have no place in a court of law; the next, we’re on our feet cheering for Isabella to convince him to factor human integrity into his role as a public servant. I can’t read 2.2 as anything other than the blueprint for every screenplay Aaron Sorkin ever wrote. It is the ultimate courtroom drama.

Just look at the play’s opening act. Angelo’s hasty promotion aside, both he and Isabella begin the story at the lowest rung of their respective vocational ladders: he’s a would-be Chief Justice, she’s a would-be Prioress. Deputy/nun. Politics/religion. Different spheres/same ambition. And, in like true zealots, both Angelo and Isabella express their commitment to their new duties in terms of self-flagellation:

“You may not so extenuate his offenseFor I have had such faults, but rather tell me,When I that censure him do so offend,Let mine own judgment pattern out my deathAnd nothing come in partial.” (Angelo, II.i.29-33)

“And have you nuns no farther privileges?[…] I speak not as desiring more,But rather wishing a more strict restraintUpon the sisterhood, the votarists of Saint Clare.” (Isabella, I.iv.1, 3-5)

It’s also worth mentioning that our first introduction to these characters features them scurrying along in the wake of an authority figure they respect.

Act 1, Scene 1: Angelo wants to know the extent to which he can wield his law degree at the pleasure of the Duke of Vienna (the Duke himself!).

Act 1, Scene 4: Isabella wants to know the extent to which she can practice self-denial for the glory of God and the approval of Mother Superior.

They are both drawn to gravitas, to figures who represent order and authority. They are also drawn to discipline. He’s a non-drinking, non-smoking Precision. She’s a gluttony-abhorring Bride of Christ. Let the rest of the world eat cake. They will be eating their sins and purifying their souls, thank you very much.

At the risk of descending into the flaming pits of cliché, I’ll also touch on those three qualities I mentioned earlier, because who says the TPE (Three Paragraph Essay) is dead?

First up: ideological dogmatism.

[Side note: I may be a crappy historian, but I do recognize there’s a historical paradigm at play in this text. Vienna needs to be a Catholic city and Angelo’s Protestantism needs to be allusive because Shakespeare presumably valued all his limbs and didn’t relish the idea of rotting in a Cheapside prison. If he’d lived in a “free press” kind of sociocultural context, he might have endowed his religious figures with a bit more Opinion. I digress.]

In the M4M-centered episode of Isaac Butler’s phenomenal podcast, “Lend Me Your Ears,” he interviews JohnPaul Spiro (Assistant Director of the School of Liberal Arts, Villanova University), who does a wonderfully unfussy job of summing up the Angelo/Isabella ideology parallel:

“In much the same way as our era is filled with political zealots—as well as, to a certain degree, religious zealots—what you’ll find when you look closer is there’s a small number of very loud people who are dominating the discourse. And a lot of people are in the middle and would rather not have to take sides. Claudio, he seems to be monogamous, he seems to want to just live a very simple life, he’s not really concerned with theological things. And when pressed on theological things, his point is: ‘I don’t really know. No one really knows what happen when you die, so I’m scared.’”

Because religious extremism lies at the heart of the rhetorical warfare between Angelo and Isabella, I think there’s a misconception that M4M is a Play About Religion. But the ONLY characters who canonically go to the mat about the finer points of theology are…wait for it…Angelo and Isabella. This is an early modern text brimming with religious figures (Sister Francisca, Friar Thomas, Friar Peter, even the phony Friar Lodowick), but not a single one of them gets on the pulpit about ANYTHING in the course of the entire play. Sister Francisca’s role consists of bemusedly listening to her youthful novitiate describe her desire for stricter prohibitions at the cloister. Friar Thomas, a sycophantic priest whose parish coffers are probably lined with Vincentio’s gold, spends his one onstage scene nodding his head sympathetically as the Duke over-explains why he is disguising himself as a monk. Friar Peter, the poor Jesuit roped into delivering the Duke’s messages, forgoes moralizing and instead uses his limited dialogue to try to help two disenfranchised women receive justice for their abuse. And Friar Lodowick, of course, is nothing but an alias for a cowardly sociopath who wants to run the world without being held accountable for his mistakes. Nothing evangelical about any of that.

But Angelo and Isabella? They can’t shut up about religion.

Isabella wants Angelo to temper his punitive Weltanschauung with morality, ideology, Platonic ideals, metaphysics…in short, all of the intangibles that can’t be used as evidence in a court of law.

“Why, all the souls that were were forfeit onceAnd He that might the vantage best have tookFound out the remedy. How would you be,If He, which is the top of judgment, shouldBut judge you as you are? O, think on thatAnd mercy then will breathe within your lips,Like man new made.” (Isabella, II.ii.97-103)

Angelo, in turn, wants Isabella to recognize the futility of Catholicism as a proper tool for creating heaven on earth because Catholicism permits withdrawal from the world and the abdication of earthly responsibility (cf: nunnery). Instead, he argues, what God actually needs is for people to actively toil in their communities to criminalize, punish, and eradicate sin.

“I show [pity] most of all when I show justice,For then I pity those I do not know,Which a dismissed offense would after gall,And do him right that—answering one foul wrong—Lives not to act another.” (Angelo, II.ii.128-132)

They take up the two sides of a theological debate that predates Christianity: ethics vs. justice. And that conflict is itself inextricably tied to the timeless political debate of non-intervention vs. regulation. And the thing is: even when Angelo and Isabella realize the irreconcilability of their respective schools of thought, they KEEP ARGUING ABOUT IT because extremism is just that: extreme. Angelo and Isabella may be major players in M4M, but they represent the radical minority of their world. They are the “small group of very loud people” and literally everyone is a moderate next to them. Ideology, not desire, is the bedrock of their personhood. When confronted with a person of an uncompromisingly polar viewpoint, they behave as if it might be possible to change the viewpoint of that person because the alternative is to admit defeat. To tragic effect, they hold their ideals more sacred than human life. For Angelo, that ideal is the law (i.e. integrity of action). For Isabella, it’s chastity (i.e. integrity of the soul). They are dogmatic in their beliefs, inflexible in their opinions, and inalienably convinced of their own “rightness.” They are austere, incisive, independent, articulate, and sharp. They are disgusted by the depravity of the world around them and determined to transcend it. What differentiates them is the content of their convictions, but they rate the value of that conviction equally.

So, yes, M4M is a play acutely interested in how religion shapes the law and human behavior. But I would argue that it is really only about one thing: power.

Which brings me to rhetoric.

Angelo and Isabella are lawyers. Both of them. High-powered, quick-thinking, weakness-sniffing, self-righteous litigators. Sure, Isabella may not have the paperwork to prove it; she was conceived by an Englishman in the early 17th century. But much in the same way that it’s obvious to everyone with eyes that would-be nun Maria [von Trapp] is a born music teacher from the first scene of The Sound of Music, so is it evident from Isabella’s first moments onstage that she is a born lawyer. She was, quite simply, born to argue.

Consider her first scene onstage: in the nunnery, with Lucio and Francisca. Unlike the audience, Isabella doesn’t have empirical evidence of Lucio’s amorality and notorious womanizing. She doesn’t need it. She can smell it on him. And in six short lines, she wipes the mosaic-laced marble floor of the cathedral with his ass:

LUCIOCan you so stead meAs bring me to the sight of Isabella,A novice of this place and the fair sisterTo her unhappy brother, Claudio?

ISABELLAWhy her “unhappy brother”? Let me ask,The rather for I now must make you knowI am that Isabella, and his sister.

LUCIOGentle and fair, your brother kindly greets you.Not to be weary with you, he’s in prison.

ISABELLAWoe me, for what?

LUCIOFor that which, if myself might be his judge,He should receive his punishment in thanks:He hath got his friend with child.

ISABELLASir, make me not your story.

LUCIO‘Tis true.I would not, though ‘tis my familiar sinWith maids to seem the lapwing and to jest,Tongue far from heart, play with all virgins so.I hold you as a thing enskied and sainted,By your renouncement an immortal spiritAnd to be talked with in sincerityAs with a saint.

ISABELLAYou do blaspheme the good in mocking me.

(I.iv.18-40)

I’m not going to venture down the English professor’s rabbit hole of rhetorical devices and syntactical analysis—partly because there are thousands of scholars who have already done it better than I ever could (check out Claire McEachern and Julie Felise Dubiner!) and partly because I’ve been blathering for too long in general. But sufficed to say that three hallmarks of a good lawyer are as follows:

The ability to seize and repurpose the language of one’s opponent (“Why her ‘unhappy brother?’”)

The ability to spot and sidestep landmines (“Sir, make me not your story.”)

The ability to redirect conversation (“You do blaspheme.”)

By that metric alone, Isabella’s performance here is worthy of the Harvard Law Review.

And then, of course, two scenes later, she meets her match.

A dear friend of mine, who is a first-year at Georgetown Law and basically the smartest person I’ve ever met, once told me: “The best and worst thing that can happen to a good lawyer is to meet another good lawyer with different ideas.” I do apologize for invoking Sorkin twice in one essay, but honestly: “The President likes smart people who disagree with him” (Leo, The West Wing, 2x05). It is a truth universally acknowledged that however infuriating it is for a highly intelligent person to debate with an equally intelligent person who disagrees with everything they stand for, it can also be unbelievably stimulating and monumentally entertaining to watch. (Hello, 50 million seasons of Law & Order.)

I’m now two weeks deep into rehearsals for M4M and I still get gobsmacked, daily, by the sheer majesty of Angelo’s and Isabella’s rhetoric. Theirs goes so far beyond the mental agility of anyone else in this play, or even—dare I say it—in Shakespeare’s canon. They are beyond intelligent. They are freaky genius kids with the kind of sanctimonious stubbornness that would be obnoxious if it weren’t so damn compelling. Between the two of them, between their two infamous scenes, they pull out every rhetorical trick in the book and play approximately seventeen unique rounds of intellectual checkers. (I say checkers because chess is too slow for them. If you want chilly brinksmanship, check out the Roman plays. Angelo and Isabella have agendas and professional pride on the line. Time is of the essence.)

ISABELLAI do think that you might pardon him,And neither heaven nor man grieve at the mercy.

ANGELOI will not do it.

ISABELLABut can you, if you would?

ANGELOLook, what I cannot, that I will not do.

ISABELLABut might you do it, and do the world no wrongIf so your heart were touched with that remorseAs mine is to him?

ANGELOHe’s sentenced. ‘Tis too late.

ISABELLA“Too late”? Why, no. I, that do speak a word,Might call it back again.

(II.ii.67-78 [italics are mine])

Things get even more complicated when they start moving into those same theoretical marshes I described earlier:

“If he had been as you, and you as he,You would have slipped like him, but he like youWould not have been so stern.” (Isabella, II.ii.84-86)

“The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept.Those many had not dared to do that evilIf the first that did th’ edict infringeHad answered for his deed. Now ‘tis awake…” (Angelo, II.ii.117-120)

ENOUGH WITH THE METAPHORS ALREADY. CLAUDIO IS ON DEATH ROW.

And even when they finally, finally get to the point, they remain at an impasse:

ISABELLAYet show some pity.

ANGELOI show it most when I show justice.

(II.ii.127-128)

Which causes Isabella essentially to lose all sense of self-awareness and control because goddam it, never once in her entire life has she met a person she couldn’t out-argue, who the fuck does this deputy think he is, this was supposed to be a simple mission and she’s been standing in this room for ten minutes and he’s still siTTING THERE SMILING AT HER WHAT THE F—

“So you must be the first that gives this sentence,And he that suffers. O, it is excellentTo have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannousTo use it like a giant[…]Could great men thunderAs Jove himself does, Jove would never be quiet,For every pelting, petty officerWould use his heaven for thunder,Nothing but thunder. Merciful heaven,Thou rather with thy sharp and sulfurous boltSplits the un-wedgeable and gnarlèd oakThan the soft myrtle. But man, proud man,Dressed in a little brief authority,Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,His glassy essence like an angry apePlays such fantastic tricks before high heavenAs makes the angels weep, who with our spleensWould all themselves laugh mortal.” (Isabella, II.ii.134-152)

Which causes ANGELO to lose all self-awareness and control because goddam it, never once in his entire life has he met a person he couldn’t out-argue, who the fuck does this nun think she is, this was supposed to be a simple smackdown and she’s been standing in this room for ten minutes and he’s still waiting for her to admit defeat and oh God oh no oh no oh no why can’t he look away from her face, what the fuck is happening what the F—

ANGELOWHY DO YOU PUT THESE SAYINGS UPON ME?

ISABELLABecause authority, though it err like others,Hath yet a kind of medicine in itselfThat skins the vice o’ th’ top. Go to your bosom,Knock there, and ask your heart what it doth knowThat’s like my brother’s fault. If it confessA natural guiltiness such as is his,Let it not sound a thought upon your tongueAgainst my brother’s life.

ANGELO, asideShe speaks and ‘tis such senseThat my sense breeds with it.

(II.ii.163-173)

Finally, Angelo gets her to leave and faces the music. My tremendous co-actor, Jude Van der Voorde, always slays this soliloquy.

“What’s this, what’s this? Is this her fault or mine?The tempter or the tempted, who sins most, ha?Not she; nor doth she tempt, but it is IThat, lying by the violet in the sun,Do as the carrion does, not as the flower,Corrupt with virtuous season.” (Angelo, II.iv.199-204)

[Non sequitur: Jude is the kind of actor actors dream of acting with. He’s always got at least one trick up his sleeve, so my Isabella is constantly second-guessing herself around him. And he does the “sleazy wunderkind act” with a panache rivaling BJ Novak’s in Season 4 of The Office. He’s also one of the funniest people I’ve ever met. Kids, don’t be Method. Make friends with your fellow actors. Leave the emotions onstage and go get a midnight pizza. You will be so much happier.]

With regards to the M4M narrative, we all know what happens next, although it takes an agonizing 175 lines of text in 2.4 before Shakespeare levels off and gives us the canonical threat:

“Redeem thy brotherBy yielding up thy body to my will,Or else he must not only die the death,But thy unkindness shall his death draw outTo lingering sufferance. Answer me tomorrowOr by the affection that now guides me mostI’ll prove a tyrant to him. As for you:Say what you can, my false o’erweighs your true.” (Angelo, II.iv.177-184)

What precedes this is the kind of tension-groaning, hair-splitting, goosebump-raising rhetorical tarantella that television writers today spend their entire careers trying to emulate. Isabella plays the fool for as long as she possibly can…

ANGELONay, but hear me.Your sense pursues not mine. Either you are ignorantOr seem so, crafty, and that’s not good.

ISABELLALet me be ignorant, and in nothing goodBut graciously to know I am no better.

(II.iv.79-83)

…but eventually Angelo forces her hand and she has to deflect his onslaught with the sleek diplomacy of a kidnapping victim.

ISABELLABetter it were a brother died at onceThan that a sister, by redeeming him,Should die forever.

ANGELOWere not you then as cruel as the sentenceThat you have slandered so?

ISABELLAIgnomy in ransom and free pardonAre of two houses. Lawful mercyIs nothing kin to foul redemption.

ANGELOYou seemed of late to make the law a tyrant,And rather proved the sliding of your brotherA merriment than a vice.

ISABELLAO, pardon me, my lord. It oft falls out,To have what we would have, we speak not what we mean.I something do excuse the thing I hateFor his advantage that I dearly love.

(II.iv.114-128)

Remember when I said that Angelo and Isabella are alike in that they are inalienably convinced of their own “rightness”? That still holds true. But now Angelo, without warning, has moved beyond the conceits of debate and is taking Isabella’s rhetorical arguments from 2.2 at literal face value in order to trip her up. He’s brought ideology crashing down to earth and introduced their physical relationship into the conversation…again, without warning and very much without her consent. And she has to figure out a way to back-peddle on her words without yielding defeat of the argument. It is nigh impossible. And I bring it up because guess who gets trapped in the exact same situation three short acts later?

LUCIOCome, sir; come, sir; come, sir; foh, sir! Why, you bald-pated, lying rascal, you must be hooded, must you? Show your knave’s visage, with a pox to you! Show your sheep-biting face, and be hanged an hour! Will ‘t not off?

(LUCIO pulls off the friar’s hood and reveals the DUKE.)

DUKEThou art the first knave that e’er made’st a duke.—First, Provost, let me bail these gentle three.—Sneak not away, sir, for the friar and youMust have a word anon.—Lay hold on him.

LUCIOThis may prove worse than hanging.

DUKEWhat you have spoke I pardon. Sit you down.We’ll borrow place of him. (to Angelo)Sir, by your leave.Hast thou or word, or wit, or impudenceThat yet can do thee office? If thou hast,Rely upon it till my tale be heardAnd hold no longer out.

ANGELOO my dread lord,I should be guiltier than my guiltinessTo think I can be undiscernible,When I perceive your Grace, like power divine,Hath looked upon my passes. (V.i.395-421)

Game, set, match.

As for ego… Do I really need to talk about professional pride? I don’t think so. It’s Angelo and Isabella. Pride leaks out of every virtually every line they speak in this play. Pride in their conviction, pride in their moral righteousness, pride in their intellect, pride in their ability to judge the world with clarity (or whatever). Angelo actually admits it out loud to us in perhaps his most famous soliloquy, because the little fucker has a lot more Catholic guilt about lusting after a novitiate nun than his Protestant heart would like to admit:

“The state whereon I studiedIs, like a good thing being often read,Grown sere and tedious. Yea, my gravity,Wherein—let no man hear me—I take pride,Could I with boot change for an idle plumeWhich the air beats for vain.” (Angelo, II.iv.7-15)

And even though Isabella could easily be the poster child for Christian piety, she’s so damn proud of her own humility that she occasionally threatens to void it altogether.

ANGELOWhat would you do?

ISABELLAAs much for my poor brother as myself.That is, were I under the terms of death,Th’ impression of keen whips I’d wear as rubiesAnd strip myself to death as to a bedThat longing have been sick for, ere I’d yieldMy body up to shame.

(II.iv.107-111)

Look at me, Angelo. Look at this body. It’s mine. Mine and God’s. I see what you’re doing, I know where you’re trying to go. And it is never. going. to happen.

Two weeks into rehearsal and I’m still not sure I’m convincing in my delivery of these lines. I’ve watched every filmed production of M4M I can get my hands on, and it’s no help. I just don’t know what to make of this. Scholars disagree virulently about these lines, but also…scholars aren’t actors, you know? I find myself questioning everything every time I get to this passage. Is Isabella actually a virgin? I’m not sure. Chastity and virginity aren’t actually the same thing and Isabella, for all her idealism, is more worldly than many of her ingenue brethren. One thing is for sure: she’s flushed with self-righteousness when she speaks these words. Angelo may be a haughty son of a bitch, but so is she, so is she, so is she.

Ugh, these characters. I love them so much. I hate Angelo, I do. I also love him. And God help me I love Isabella. They’re dumpster fires of human conviction and I’m so grateful to Shakespeare for giving us their story and for understanding four hundred fucking years ago, that this, THIS is the pinnacle of hell in the female experience: “Who would believe thee, Isabel?”

#MeToo

Thank you, Will. Thank you.

I feel like I should apologize for the length of this reply, but I’ve had so much freaking fun that I also don’t feel apologetic. Thank you for this amazing question! Hope you’re doing well! xx Claire

Tagging @malvoliowithin @measureformeasure @harry-leroy @suits-of-woe

#measure for measure #m4m 2019

53 notes · View notes

osurarebooks · 6 years

Text

One World Away: Kiang’s Great Unity and Pauling’s Press for Peace

Post contributed by Ethan Heusser, SCARC Student Archivist

Many Americans – and people around the globe – experienced the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s as an age of political uncertainty and social turmoil. It was a powerful time: everywhere the specter of disaster loomed, yet that fear brought with it a unique capacity for change enabled by commonplace desperation. In the United States alone, mounting resistance to the Vietnam War built confidence among grass-roots activist organizations for their efficacy in up-ending the status quo. And while mutually assured destruction terrified the world, the threat of nuclear war also inspired many thinkers and activists to strive for equally bold solutions. In the light of world chaos and potential mass destruction, the idea of building a global government and abolishing nationalism seemed especially promising – far more promising than what the United Nations seemed ultimately able to provide.

It’s no surprise, then, to see a large proliferation in world peace literature in the Cold War era. Some publications were mild and innocuous, but many took the form of bold declarations and manifestos about the urgent need for radical change.

An excellent example of the latter is One World: The Approach to Permanent Peace on Earth and the General Happiness of Mankind by John Kiang. Self-described as “a manifesto of revolution for world union with the evolutionary law of group expansion as a guiding theory,” it examines shifting technologies and living conditions to build a larger argument in favor of a unified humanity. From that perspective, nations and nation-states can only be seen as counter-productive: the deep-seated but fundamentally arbitrary veil of nationalism impedes sincere appeals to common humanity and mutual accountability.

Although the core text is fairly concise, this copy of One World is a scholarly edition from 1984, replete with extensive sources, commentary, and analysis:

In this work we see the role that cultural context can play in international movements: though not explicitly outlined, One World contains thematic and rhetorical ties to the utopic vision of “Great Unity” in China. Great Unity represents the goal of creating a Chinese society of mutual accountability and selflessness – a cohesive community where people work to help others rather than harm them (Wikipedia).

First described in classic Chinese texts going back millennia, Great Unity was popularized by Sun Yat-Sen in the early 20th century (Wikipedia). In doing so, it was used to help build a cultural momentum in favor of a shift towards a communist ideal. The Great Unity message was adopted overtly in China’s national anthem in 1937; though later supplanted with another song in the People’s Republic of China during the Chinese Civil War, it remains in use by Taiwan to this day (Wikipedia).

John Kiang left China in 1949 in the wake of the earth-shattering Chinese Civil War (Chiamonline). It seems fair to suggest that he nevertheless brought the culturally-specific vision of world peace, prosperity, and harmony with him stateside. It’s hard for those of us living in our countries of birth to imagine the inner turmoil he must have felt during that time, working for global peace a world away while his homeland was experiencing such complete upheaval and division. Perhaps that effort helped him, in some way, to bring his home with him and improve the world as a result.

These efforts manifested in One World. Though a relatively obscure book, One World at last found some degree of traction once it found its way into the hands of two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling – surprisingly, Pauling was willing to attach his name to it in the form of a guest introduction.

As a famous peace activist, Pauling was a prime recipient of unsolicited manuscripts, book ideas, calls for action, and reference requests. But of all of the texts he received and was asked to endorse, why would he choose one such as this?

A large factor was undoubtedly Kiang’s persistent correspondence with Pauling. He wrote with Pauling repeatedly between 1983-4, praising Pauling’s efforts and experience and asking for an introduction to One World. Pauling consistently refused, citing his lack of expertise in Kiang’s specific subject area. This pseudo-humble approach to refusing unsolicited (and often wacky) manuscripts was trademark for Pauling during his peak social activism years. Then, somehow, everything changed for One World. Somehow, Pauling changed his mind. We have as proof Pauling’s written introduction documented in the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Collection, along with letters and cards from the Kiang family thanking him for his collaboration:

Even when meticulously compiled and researched, correspondence collections can still resist post hoc scrutiny. We hold a substantial set of letters between the two activists, but we lack the connection point between the “before” and “after” of when Pauling agreed to add his name to Kiang’s One World project. Was it a letter that went missing? A phone call? An in-person visit? Kiang later sent Pauling a photo of a meeting between them, but the context for how and when it happened is largely absent.

Another probable factor is that the content and message of the book aligned well with Pauling’s driving fears for the future. As Pauling writes in his introduction, “[Kiang’s] principal message is that war has now ruled itself out.” For Pauling, the atom bomb meant that “a war in which the existing nuclear weapons were used would with little doubt mean the end of our civilization, and possibly the end of the human race.” Perhaps that in itself built enough common ground between two men of different backgrounds and fields of expertise to collaborate – if only in a minor way – on what must have felt like a higher calling. (Pauling’s endorsement would be used in later work by John Kiang as well, but always from a distanced position.)

On a general level, One World embodies the slippery way that ideas persist, spread, and evolve. Just like how John Kiang built his own vision upon seeds planted by Sun Yat-Sen and many authors before him, it will be fascinating to witness how the Cold War push towards internationally-regulated peace and world government will rear its head again on the world stage in the decades to come.

“Book of Rites.” Wikipedia, 3 December 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Rites

“Great Unity.” Wikipedia, 2 February 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unity

“John Kiang (1911-2003).” Chiamonline, n.d., http://www.chiamonline.com/People/gkwas/kiangjohn.htm

“National Anthem of the Republic of China.” Wikipedia, 28 May 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Anthem_of_the_Republic_of_China

One World: The Approach to Permanent Peace on Earth and the General Happiness of Mankind, by John Kiang. Notre Dame, Indiana: One World Publishing, 1984, xv.

Two Years After: A Selection of Comments and Other Documents Pertaining to “One World” in the Two Years after its Publication, by John Kiang. Notre Dame, Indiana: One World Publishing Company, 1987, 20.

“World Government.” Wikipedia, 24 May 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government

#world peace #nuclear #activism #china #peace

30 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Did The Republicans And Democrats Switch

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/did-the-republicans-and-democrats-switch/

Did The Republicans And Democrats Switch

The Ideology Of Old Democrats And Modern Republicans

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?

Andrew Jackson was a southern states rights;populist;and;Jacksonian Democrat, which is similar to todays socially conservativelibertarian.

Early factions;like Jeffersonians;and the Young America movement;were rather progressive. The Copperheads and;War Democrats;in the North were;non-Confederate conservative factions during the Civil War. A;Bourbon Democrat is essentially a Libertarian. Thus, we can say the pro-states rights;Democrats of Lincolns time;held both the beliefs of their predecessors the;Anti-Federalists;and;Democratic-Republicans, and those;of;todays;modern Libertarians and;Republicans.

Compared to their opposition the above major;parties;are roughly;pro-south, pro farmer, pro-state-power, anti-central-bank, anti-debt, and anti-taxes. They tend to;favor;individual rights over collective rights, typically choosing deregulation over;government;enforced social justice. Thus, they are;liberal regarding;authority but conservative in terms of social policy. They are, as a party, classical liberals and social conservatives. Today they might be called;neocons, libertarians, and;paleocons.

TIP: Want to understand modern Republicanism? See this documentary on the Tea Party.

The Rise Of Modern Social Liberalism And Social Conservatism

Later we get a third way with Bill Clintons New Democrats. This third way is an extension;of the;progressive bourbon liberal wing, but mashed-up with the progressive social liberal wing, and Reagan-era;conservatism. These three social liberal ideologies which Clinton embodied can collectively be referred to as an;American liberalism. These factions, which we can today denote as;progressive, neoliberal, and social liberal, can be used to differentiate types of liberals on the political left from the New Deal Coalition and the modern Democratic party of today.

TIP: As noted above in the introduction, there is no one way to understand Americas political ideologies, but each angle we look at things from helps us to better understand;bits of the historic puzzle.

How Can We Tell What Switched If Anything

If we want to more accurately see what is happening with the parties we have to look at each political, party, faction, and platform in regards to each issue. We can take any;issue, from any;major American political party platform over time, and see how it compares to other issues of other parties. This can help us see how parties like;Federalists, Whigs, Republican-Democrats,;Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Progressives;did or didnt change over time, and what that means in perspective.

Below is a chart we created showing one way to view the complex political left-right spectrum;.

A left-right paradigm using a four point graph to show how common government types relate to left and right in terms of who has authority and who says so.

If one had to place historical figures on the left and right, in terms of the chart presented above , then VERY loosely we might say:

Right Wingers: Hamilton , Cleveland ,;Hoover, , Reagan

Left Wingers: Jefferson , Lincoln , Teddy;Roosevelt , FDR , Johnson

If one had to place historical figures on our more complex 4-point spectrum, then VERY loosely, but more accurately than above, we might say:

Again, we find that party names are spread out over political leanings;. From here forward we will focus on telling the history of each Party System;in detail, discussing platforms and political views to better illustrate the changes.

Recommended Reading: Trump Interview People Magazine 1998

The Conservative Coalition Vs The New Deal Coalition

Now that we know the basics, the changes in both parties in the 1900s are perhaps best understood by examining;the Conservative Coalition;and the New Deal Coalition.

The Conservative Coalition was a coalition between the anti-Communist Republicans like Nixon and Reagan and conservative Southern Democrats. It arose to oppose FDRs New Deal progressivism, and it blocked a lot of the progressive legislation the New Deal Coalition tried to pass from the 1930s to the 1960s. The socially conservative solid south;was still its own entity. It sometimes voted;with other Democrats, and sometimes broke off into its own factions. See the 1960 election Kennedy v. Nixon v. Harry F. Byrd. The Coalition tellingly dwindled post 64 Civil Rights and ended in the Clinton era as conservative southerners became Republicans and formed;the modern construct of the Red States and the Blue States.

Meanwhile,;the New Deal coalition explains the progressive coalition of Democrats and Republicans the Conservative coalition opposed. Today the two parties largely resemble these coalitions.

Why Were Different Colors Used

Prior to the 2000s colors were chosen for a variety of reasons. They include:

The flag is Red, White, and Blue. I think we can assume why no one wanted to overtly be the white team.

Every party would try to use;the;color blue as, especially after the Cold War, no one wanted to be RED. Thus, wed often get yellow .

In other cases, red was picked for liberals as that is the traditional international liberal color; blue was picked for conservatives.

Today, when looking at documents produced after 2000, Democrats are typically coded blue. For instance, this color map;of all past elections by state;uses Blue to represent the Democratic Party and Red to Represent Republicans regardless of what color was used at the time.

You May Like: Trump 1998 People Magazine Quote

Better Understanding The Changes In American Politics

Above we summarized the switching of ideologies and platforms;between the parties by looking at the party systems and Presidents.

Below we explore;details, clarify semantics, answer questions, present curated videos, and illustrate some of the key telling moments regarding the changes described above.

Please consider sharing your insight below, our summing up of the history of American politics is an ongoing effort, see the videos for supplemental content from other authors.

For deeper reading:

Also, see a breakdown of each party and President and how they would be placed on the left and right.

This Is Not A New Argument

Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter told USA TODAY that this trope is a fallback argument used to discredit current Democratic Party policies.

At the core of the effort to discredit the current Democratic Party is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century, Hunt said.

In September, NPR host Shereen Marisol Maraji called the claim, one of the most well-worn clapbacks in modern American politics.

Comedian Trevor Noah tackled the misleading trope on an episode of “The Daily Show” in March 2016, after two CNN contributors debated the topic.

Every time I go onto Facebook I see these things: Did you know the Democrats are the real racist party and did you know the Republicans freed the slaves? Noah joked. A lot of people like to skip over the fact that when it comes to race relations, historically, Republicans and Democrats switched positions.

A similar meme attributing the claim;to U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;Ben Carson has been circulating;on social media since November 2016.

Who started the KKK? That was Democrats. Who was the party of slavery? Who was the part of Jim Crow and segregation? Who opposed the Civil Rights Movement? Who opposed voting rights? It was all the Democrats, the meme reads.

Other posts making more specific;claims about the Democratic Party;starting the Civil War or founding the KKK continue to circulate.

Recommended Reading: Did Republicans Cut Funding For Benghazi

Other Factors Of Note Regarding Switching Platforms Progressivism The Red Scare Immigration Religion And Civil Rights In 54

Other key factors involve;the Red Scare , the effect of immigration, unions, and the Catholic vote on the parties.

The Republican party changed after losing to Wilson and moved away from progressivism and toward classical liberal values under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. In this time they also became increasingly anti-Communist following WWI . While both parties were anti-Communist and pro-Capitalist, Wilsons brand of progressive southern bourbon liberalism and his New Freedom plan and then FDRs brand of progressive liberalism and his New Deal were opposed by Republicans like Hoover due to their;use of the state to ensure social justice. Then after WWII,;the Second Red Scare;reignited the conversation, further dividing factions and parties.

Another;important thing to note is;that the Democratic party has historically been pro-immigrant . Over time this;attracted new immigrant groups like Northern Catholics ;and earned;them the support of;Unions;. Big City Machines like Tammany Hall;also play a role in this aspect of the story as well. The immigrant vote is one of the key factors in changing the Democratic party over time in terms of progressivism, unions, religion, and geolocation , and it is well suited to be its own subject.

Despite these general;truisms, the parties themselves have typically been factionalized over;complex factors relating to;left-right ideology, single issues, and the general meaning of;liberty.

Southernization Urbanization And Big Government Vs Small Government

Did the Republicans and Democrats switch Platforms?

Today the Republican party doesnt have a notable progressive left-wing and the Democratic Party doesnt have a notable socially conservative right-wing.

Instead both parties have establishment and populist wings and the parties are divided by stances on social issues.

In other words, regional interests and the basic political identities of liberal and conservative didnt change as much as factions changed parties as party platforms changed along with America.

The modern split is expressed well by;the left-right paradigm Big Government Progressivism vs. Small Government Social Conservatism, where;socially conservative and pro-business conservative factions banded together against socially liberal and pro business liberal factions, to push back against an increasingly progressive Democratic Party and America .

This tension largely created the modern parties of our two-party system, resulting in two Big Tents;who disagree on the purposes of government;and social issues. This tension is then magnified by the;current influence of media and lobbyists, and can be understood by examining;what I call;the Sixth Party Strategy and by a tactic called Dog Whistle Politics).

The result is that today the Democratic Party is dominated by liberal Democrats and Progressives.

Meanwhile, most of those who would have been the old;socially conservative Democrats now have a R next to their name.

Just look at;the 115th United States Congress under Trump;.

Read Also: Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

The Bottom Line On The Party Switch

The parties changed over time as platform planks, party leaders, factions, and voter bases essentially switched between parties.

Third parties aside, the Democratic Party used to be favored in the rural south and had a small government platform , and the Republican party used to be favored in the citied north and had a big government platform .

You can see evidence of it by looking at;the electoral map over time;. Or, you can see it by comparing which congressional seats were controlled by which parties over time . Or, you can see the big switch specifically by looking at the electoral map of the solid south over time. Or, you can dig through;the historic party platforms.

With that in mind, we can sum up the history of the switches that created the modern party system as:

The old southern conservative Democrats, a big faction of voters called the solid south who were in Jeffersons anti-Federalist coalition, have essentially today changed parties and teamed up with the old Republican party of Lincoln .

Meanwhile, Teddys progressive faction essentially switched as well starting after Teddys run as a Bull Moose in 1912.

Generally then, the Democratic party started moving toward progressivism and the Republican party starting shifting more toward the conservative right from Harding forward, and this in turn changed the parties .

Also Check: How Many Republicans Voted Against Budget

Fourth Party System: The Progressive Era Mckinley And Teddy 1896 1932

The election between;Theodore Roosevelt;William McKinley was pretty heated;over social issues, but the parties stay the same. Republican Theodore Teddy Roosevelt is arguably the last of the left wing Republicans. Roosevelt;is;a very progressive president, and he even started his own progressive party after breaking away from the Republicans. The parties are more or less still the same as they were since the split over reconstruction, but the lines are much less clear due to the changing tides of the time.

Don’t Miss: What Have Republicans Done For The Middle Class

A Quick Summary Of How The Major Parties Changed And Switched With Some Visuals

Above was an overview of the main points, below is a more detailed;summary of points that will help one understand the party switches of the different party systems. After the summary are some images and videos which help tell the main points of the story:

Also consider the following general notes about the party platforms in any era:

Northern City Interests : Federalists, Whigs, Third Party Republicans, Fourth Party Progressive era Republicans , Fifth;Party Democrats , Modern Democrats.

Southern Rural Interests : Anti-Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Third Party Democrats, Fourth Party Progressive Era Democrats , Fifth;Party Republicans , Modern Republicans.

NOTE: Saying there is way too much ground to cover to say it all in a consumable bite is an understatement, so if you are looking for specifics use command find or our site search.

TIP: The Confederates wanted free-trade and states rights, meanwhile the northern Republicans wanted a debt-based economy with modernization and protectionist trade. Things have changed considerably, but not every plank changed. What happened was complex.

Below some images that might help tell the story without me even having to say another word:

A map showing realigning elections and Presidents who represent major changes in the U.S. parties. We can see something happened, that is empirically undeniable, but what?

An Overview Of Platform Switching In The Modern Era From Lbj To Today

The;growing tension between progressive southern Democrats and social conservative southern Democrats came to a boil;with 1954s;Brown v. Board of Education. This Supreme Court ruling;led to divisive issues like;Desegregation busing;causing further splits in the Democratic Party, which Republicans capitalized on as;they did under Hoover.

Tellingly, progressive Southerners like;Albert Gore, Sr.;,;Estes Kefauver,;Ralph Yarborough, and;Lyndon B. Johnson;;refused to sign 1956s;Southern Manifesto;.

By the 60s, the tension was mounting around;LBJs;Great Society programs;;specifically 64s Civil Rights. Some conservative Dixiecrats like;Strom Thurmond began to leave the Democratic Party for the Republican Party and;the George Wallace-led American Independent Party. .

Other;southern politicians and voters followed Strom Thurmond over time. Their exit left the now social-liberal ;Democrats;to support the;increasingly socially conservative Republicans under Goldwater-Reagan-Nixon. The southern strategy these leaders developed was continued into the 80s under;Lee Atwater, and even extended;into the 2000s).

In the transition period of the mid-to-late 60s, progressive Democrats and Republicans usually carried the less progressive Dixiecrats and Republicans on social issues like;Voting Rights 65;and;Civil Rights 68,;but over time, as the Republicans moved further to the political right, this became increasingly less true.

Also Check: How Many Registered Republicans In The Us

Choosing Who To Vote For

Douglas was right. As citizens we must vote righteously. And by the way, this first assumes that we are voting. This responsibility to vote and to vote righteously has been made clear from generation to generation.

Once such a voice heralding this responsibility was that of Charles Finney. Finney was a famous American revivalist, a leader in the American revival movement called the Second Great Awakening.

He was also the president of a college that even decades before the Civil War admitted both black and white students as equals. In fact, the students from the college where Reverend Finney was president not only became some of the most active conductors of the underground railroad but also started several of Americas black colleges and universities.

Reverend Finney wisely admonished, The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics. Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this manner but the time has come when they must act differently. Christians seem to act as if they think God does not see what they do in politics but I tell you, he does see it. And he will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics.

Recommended Reading: Why Do Republicans Want To Get Rid Of The Epa

The Myth Of The Republican

When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate rather pernicious myth–that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called “switch” of the parties.

This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked. ;;

The Republican Party, of course, was founded in 1848 with the abolition of slavery as its core mission. Almost immediately after its second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the 1860 election, Democrat-controlled southern states seceded on the assumption that Lincoln would destroy their slave-based economies.

Once the Civil War ended, the newly freed slaves as expected flocked to the Republican Party, but Democrat control of the South from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era was near total. ;In 1960, Democrats held every Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line. ;In the 13 states that made up the Confederacy a century earlier, Democrats held a staggering 117-8 advantage in the House of Representatives. ;The Democratic Party was so strong in the south that those 117 House members made up a full 41% of Democrats’ 283-153 advantage in the Chamber.

So how did this myth of a sudden “switch” get started?

It would not be the last time they used it.

You May Like: Who Said Democrats Want To Exterminate Republicans

History Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

The Democratic Party was founded in 1828, while the Republican Party was founded in 1854.;

;You can trace the historical backgrounds of these two parties back to their Founding Fathers.

The United States founding fathers had different political beliefs. The contrasting political views eventually led to the formation of two parties.;

The political view of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams was to have a powerful government. Therefore, they wanted a government with a national bank and a central banking system. Hence, their unique banking system ideas birthed the Federalists party.;

In contrast, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had different political ideologies. They wanted a political system where they can advocate for a minimal, more decentralized approach. With their decentralized government views, they founded the Democratic-Republicans party.

Also Check: What If The Republicans Win Everything Again

0 notes

anarchistbanjo · 7 years

Text

The Kali Yuga

I would like to begin this chapter with an excerpt about the Kali Yuga from the book "The yoga of power; Tantra, Shakti, and the Secret Way" by Julius Evola. It will serve as an introduction to some of the concepts that I would like to address later in this post.This excerpt also proves that Organic Gnosticism has been known all through the ages but kept secret.

"The intent was to convey the idea that Tantrism presents an extension or a further development of those traditional teachings originally found in the Vedas and later articulated in the Brahmanans, the Upanishads, and the Puranas. That is why the Tantras have claimed for themselves the dignity befitting a fifth Veda, that is, a further revelation beyond what is found in the traditional four Vedas. To this they added a reference to the doctrine of the four ages (Yugas) of the world. It is claimed that the teachings, writings, and disciplines that would have been viable in the first age (the Krita or Satya Yuga, the equivalent of Hesiod's golden age) are no longer fit for people living in the following ages, especially in the last age, the dark age (Kali Yuga, the Iron Age, the age of the wolf in the Edda). Mankind in these later ages may find knowledge, a worldview, rituals, and adequate practices for elevating humans over and beyond their conditions and for overcoming death (mrityun javate), not in the Vedas and in other strictly traditional texts, but rather in the Tantras and in the Agamas. It is stated therefore that only Tantric practices based on Shakti (Shakti –sadhana) are suitable and efficious in our contemporary age. All others are considered to be as powerless as a snake deprived of its poison.

Although Tantrism is far from rejecting ancient wisdom, it is characterized by a reaction against (1) a hollow and stereotypical ritualism, (2) mere speculation or contemplation, and (3) any aceticism of a unilateral, mortifying, and penitential nature. It opposes to contemplation a path of action, of practical realization, and of direct experience. Its password is practice (sadhana,abhyasa). This runs on the lines of what may be designated the dry way, resembling the original Buddhist doctrine of the awakening, with its reaction against a degenerated Brahmanism and its dislike of speculations and hollow ritualism. One among the many Tantric texts remarks rather significantly:

It is a womanly thing to establish superiority through convincing arguments; it is a manly thing to conquer the world through one's power. Reasoning, argument, and inference may be the work of other schools [shastras]; but the work of the tantra is to accomplish superhuman and divine events through the force of their own words of power [mantras]. And also:

A special virtue of the tantras lies in its mode of Sadhana. It is neither mere worship [upasana] nor prayer. It is not limiting or contemplaation or repentance before the deity. It is the Sadhana which is the union of Purusha and Prakrti; the Sadhana which joins the male principal and the mother element within the body, and strives to make the attributed attribute less… This Sadhana is to be performed through the awakening of the forces within the body… This is not mere philosophy, a mere attempt to ponder upon the husks of words, but something which is to be done in a thoroughly practical manner. The tantras say: begin practicing under the guidance of a good guru; if you did not obtain favorable results immediately, you can freely give it up.

Thus tantras often employ an analogy taken from medicine: the efficacy of the doctrine, like a drug, is proved by the results it produces, and in this particular case, by the siddhis, or powers, that it grants. Another text says: 'Yoga siddhis are not obtained by wearing yoga garments or by conversation about yoga, but only through tireless practice. This is the secret of success. There is no doubt about it.'

In the previous quotation referring to the body, another important point was alluded to. The analysis of the last age, the dark age or Kali Yuga, brings to light two essential features. The first is that mankind living in this age is strictly connected to the body and cannot precind from it; therefore, the only way open is not that of pure detachment (as in early Buddhism and in the many varieties of yoga) but rather that of knowledge, awakening, and mastery over secret energies trapped in the body. The second characteristic is that of the dissolution typical of this age. During the Kali Yuga, the bull of Dharma stands on only one foot (it lost the other three during the previous three ages). This means that the traditional law (Dharma) is wavering, is reduced to a shadow of its former self, and seems to be almost succumbing. During Kali Yuga, however, the goddess Kali, who was asleep in the previous ages, is now fully awake. I will write at greater length about Kali, a prominent Tantric goddess, in the following pages; for now, let us say that this symbolism implies that during the last stage elementary, infernal, and even abyssal forces are untrammeled. The immediate task consist in facing and absorbing these forces, in taking the risk of 'riding the Tiger', to use a Chinese expression that may best describe the situation, or to 'transform the poison into medicine', according to a Tantric expression. Hence the rituals and special practices of what has been named left-hand tantra, or the path of the left hand (Vama-marga), which despite some problematic aspects (orgies, use of sex, etc.) represents one of the most interesting forms within the trend analyzed in this study.

It is therefore stated – and this is significant – that considering the situation of the Kali Yuga, teachings that were previously kept secret may now be revealed in different degrees, though a word of caution is issued concerning the danger they may represent for those who are not initiated. Hence what we have so far mentioned: the emergence, in Tantrism, of esoteric and initiatory teaching.

A third point must be emphasized. In tantrism the passage from the ideal of liberation to that of freedom marks an essential change in the ideals and ethics of Hinduism. It is true that even previously the ideal of the jivanmukta had been known. The word means one who is freed, that is, the one who has achieved the unconditioned, the sahaja, while alive, in his own body. Tantrism introduces a specification, however: to the existential condition of mankind living in the last age. It relates the overcoming of the anti-thesis between enjoyment of the world and the ascesis, or yoga, which is spiritual aimed at liberation. In the other schools – thus claim the Tantras – one excludes the other, but in the path we follow these opposites meet. In other words, a discipline is developed that allows one to be free and invulnerable even while enjoying the world, or anything the world may offer. In the meantime, the world ceases to be seen in terms of Maya – that is, pure appearance, illusion, or mirage – as is the case in Vedantic philosophy. The world is not Maya but power. This paradoxical existence of freedom, or of the dimension of transcendence in oneself, and enjoyment of the world, freely experimenting with the world's pleasures, carries the strictest relation with Tantrism's formula and main goal: the union of the impassive Shiva with the ardent Shakti in one's being and at all levels of reality.

This leads us to consider a further fundamental element of Tantrism, namely, shaktism. In the complex movement called Tantrism, the central role was played by the emergence and predominance of the figure and of the symbol of the goddess or divine woman, Shakti, in its various epiphanies (especially under the forms of Kali and Durga). She may be either portrayed by herself, as the supreme principle of the universe, or reproduced under the species of multiple Shakti's, that is, female divinities who accompany male Hindu gods (who had enjoyed a greater autonomy in the previous era), and even various Buddhas and bodhisattvas of late Buddhism. This marked the emergence in a thousand forms of the motif of divine couples, in which the feminine, Shaktic element enjoys a great role, to the point of becoming the predominant element in some of its currents."

I could not have described the power and practice of Organic Gnosticism more clearly than the above words about Tantrism by Julius Evola. The Kali Yuga is an age and according to ancient texts it is considered the last age of a great cycle. Tantrism is a specialized sacred practice of soul development and spirituality during this last age. In fact, it is believed that no other spiritual or religious doctrines or practices are effective during this time. In fact, all the others are considered to be as powerless as a snake deprived of its poison. This is a very strong statement to make and should be considered carefully. It is against superficial and empty religious practices, against speculation, meditation, and suffering or penitence of any kind.

This practice involves the joining of male and female energies within the body and is not theoretical, but eminently practical and giving immediate results. Again these are strong words to be considered carefully. Tantrism and Organic Gnosticism is clearly a path of action.

Another final point is made. Tantrism is so powerful and dangerous it is to be kept secret in all the other ages and only made available during the Kali Yuga.

This brings up the main question, is the current age which we are living in representative of the Kali Yuga? It also brings up a second question, if so, why are the secret teachings of Tantrism not widely known in today's world?

This knowledge has always been known and I call it Organic Gnosticism!

It is accepted that approximately every 2000 years a new and higher vibrational energy is introduced into our world. We speak of this happening with the change from one sign of the zodiac to another. We have just left the age of Pisces and entered the age of Aquarius. A great cycle is considered one complete trip around the zodiac.

What is not so widely known is that each age brings in a totally new energy and causes the activation of that energy center or chakra within the human body. The last 2000 years has been dominated by concrete spiritual energy, archetypal thinking, Christianity, Christ consciousness and the development of the third eye. The cycle previous to the last one was dominated by abstract mental energy, philosophy, logic and reason, reading and writing, development of the soul or Observer self and the throat chakra.

With the advent of each new age the energies of the old age are always considered evil and corrupt. They are considered satanic. Followers of the old energies have always been persecuted. During the last age or Christian era it was faith that was most important, not scientific or logical proof. Hairsplitting dialectic arguments were frowned upon as making a mockery of spiritual truths. Both the Jews and Irish at various points in their history were highly literate and suffered greatly because of it. The power of the last age was not in mental creations but in spiritual creations.

The current age, the age of Aquarius, brings in a completely new energy that is higher and more powerful than that of the last age, the Christian age. This is the energy and vibration of unity, the level at which all things merge into spiritual light. It is also the nuclear threshold because mass and energy can be converted for peace or destruction. This is the level of the crown chakra and at this level are opposites are resolved and duality no longer exists. So the next 2000 years will be dominated by the powerful energies of unity and the crown chakra.

Unfortunately, these energies are not accessible to very many life forms. In fact these energies are not accessible to very many humans! So there seems to be a great discrepancy here. What do the energies of Christianity, the third eye and spiritual faith have to do with the Kali Yuga? The last age? More importantly, what do the energies of unity and the crown chakra have to do with the Kali Yuga? It seems that the energies of the Kali Yuga are the lowest possible energies and not the highest possible energies! Aren't we heading toward a golden age and not a dark age?!

There is also the question of Gaia's Ascension. How is it that Gaia can ascend on the energies of unity and the crown chakra? The lower life forms on Gaia's's surface have no access to such high vibratory energies. How can this mystery be resolved?

The answer lies in the cosmic keyboard itself. There are two types of energies that are active and dominate this new age! They are harmonics and octaves of each other and vibrate in unison as one single energy. They are the highest and the lowest energies possible! The other energy is a vital organic energy of life itself, sexual orgasm energy and it is utilized by all life forms. This energy is the garden of Eden energy and the energy that fuels Gaia's Ascension. It manifests through the DNA and cellular life of evolving things. Those life forms that cannot access the unity and crown chakra energies have free access to the lower and more primitive vital life force energy! It is abundantly available to all living things. This is sexual orgasm energy! This is Tantric energy! This is the energy of the male and female combined! This is the energy of divine counterparts!

Suddenly things have changed. For those accustomed to the spiritual energies of the third eye and Christianity, or even to the lower mental energies of the throat chakra, the logic and reason in philosophical speculations, these Tantric energies seem of no consequence and unimportant. They are not taken seriously. They should be! These old eon high-level head tripping energies are no longer effective in developing the soul or raising the human condition. They are no longer useful for true empowerment! For those unable to access the unity energies of the crown chakra the next 2000 years is the dark age, the Kali Yuga, the age of dissolution. The only path available for the development of the soul is Tantrism or Organic Gnosticism! For those that can do this earth will become the new garden of Eden's!

This is the age when gods and goddesses will once more walk upon the earth and mingle with ordinary mortals! These gods and goddesses will be divine counterparts whose individual awarenesses will span the full spectrum of existence, the highest and the lost energies and reveal the complete mysteries of love and sexuality!

#life #blog #thoughts #self improvement #spirituality

6 notes · View notes

hotspreadpage · 7 years

Text

This Week in Content Marketing: New York Times Leverages Snapchat as a Marketing Tool

PNR: This Old Marketing with Joe Pulizzi and Robert Rose can be found on both iTunes and Stitcher.

In this episode, we compare the newly buzzed-about Heineken ad to Pepsi’s debacle from a few weeks back – and conclude that they aren’t all that different. We also discuss ESPN’s decision to cut 100 on-air content creators, and explore The New York Times’ debut as a Snapchat Discover publisher. Our rants and raves feature AT&T’s home page and net neutrality, then we close the show with an example of the week from Pirelli tires.

This week’s show

(Recorded live on May 1, 2017; Length: 1:00:57)

Download this week’s PNR This Old Marketing podcast.

If you enjoy our PNR podcasts, we would love if you would rate it, or post a review, on iTunes.

1. Our sponsor (08:50):

PowerPost – Welcome to the Age of Power Publishing: As content marketers, we understand the importance of creating content that not only educates, but inspires consumers to take action. As a result, we have entered a new era of “brands as publishers” – where brands are increasingly becoming publishers in their own right. With brand publishing and content distribution come several key steps to the publishing process. But the elongated process of content creation, review, scheduling, and tracking analytics can often take more time than we have. Built by marketers for marketers, PowerPost is a time-saving tool for companies who manage content for multiple brands with multiple users – whether it’s a regulated industry or creative agency. With PowerPost, your team can publish from one location across all of your online platforms, quickly and efficiently turning your brand into a power publisher. To help more brands excel at publishing, join us for a webinar on May 9th with CMI founder Joe Pulizzi. We have also created a comprehensive e-book, with insights from 50 experts in the content marketing field, and their strategies on conquering the five pillars of brand publishing: content planning, workflow, distribution, analytics, conversion. Claim your download at powerpost.digital.

2. Notable news and upcoming trends:

Heineken shows Pepsi how to connect people who are worlds apart (11:30): Both BusinessInsider and AdWeek heaped praise on a new video spot from Heineken, in which pairs of people with opposing social and political viewpoints choose to engage in a conversation over a beer rather than letting their differences continue to divide them. AdWeek calls the powerful spot “the antidote to Pepsi’s pop-candy take on our messy political reality.” Though Heineken minimized the product placement and upped the emotional appeal, Robert and I wonder if the two ads are really all that different – especially as both were designed to be one-time “stunts,” rather than ongoing, content-driven conversations.

ESPN evolves its content strategy, losing 100 on-air personalities in the process (21:35): One of the last week’s biggest media stories was ESPN’s decision to cut more than 100 on-air employees, as well as a limited number of non-talent personnel, as reported on Yahoo Stories. In his company-wide memo, which was later posted publicly, ESPN President John Skipper frames the cuts around a shifting content strategy and the need for greater versatility in the face of changing consumer viewing habits. I think the story may have been blown a bit out of proportion – considering the relatively low number of layoffs. However, if you are at all involved in content marketing strategy, you should be paying attention to ESPN’s “over-the-top” strategy and how the company is re-organizing to move away from its role as a third-party content distributor.

Click to enlarge

The New York Times becomes Snapchat’s latest Discover publisher (31:10): Speaking of new media models, Mashable brings us an exclusive report on the Times’ debut as a daily edition on Snapchat, calling it a “dramatic moment for one of the world’s oldest and most respected news brands to dedicate resources to a young app. Robert views this as a smart brand marketing play, and was really encouraged by the quality of the stories selected for the platform. Not only do the articles seem well targeted to the interests of Snapchat’s youthful audience, Robert hopes the experience will serve as a gateway that drives app users to engage with the Times’ content in more monetizable ways.

3. Rants and raves (38:00):

Robert’s rant #1: In a news story that broke just prior to recording, a federal appeals court has declined to review an earlier decision upholding the FCC’s net neutrality regulations. As explained in this Recode post, a lobbying group representing web giants like Facebook and Google is among the vocal opponents of the Trump administration’s promise to roll back Obama-era policies preserving an open internet. As this is surely not the final word on the subject, Robert implores everyone – marketer or otherwise – to stay informed on this issue as it continues to unfold.

Robert’s rant #2: The idea that “you are never too old to chase your dreams” has been mined for many popular internet memes, including a recent viral Facebook status post, which reveals the age some celebrities were when they got their big breaks. While Robert has no argument with the concept of remaining young at heart when it comes to following your passions, he feels the examples given in this case are not only inaccurate, but they are teaching the wrong lesson: As he sees it, they really speak more to the power of persistence when it comes to achieving success than the age factor.

Joe’s rant: We seem to have a lot of phone mishaps in my household, requiring us to have to replace lost or broken equipment more often than the average family. As an AT&T customer, I visited the AT&T website for new phone info recently, and found a fun ad featuring Mark Wahlberg explaining some of the telco’s new policies when it comes to giving consumers access to entertainment on their terms. For a company that is trying to redefine the terms of engagement when it comes to media consumption, they sure missed the mark by inviting site visitors to “watch the TV ad” – something few people would really be interested in doing voluntarily.

Joe’s rave: I recently started reading Dune, and noticed that my copy features an introduction from renowned author Neil Gaiman that lists six of his favorite books published by Penguin Books (including Dune), along with a detailed synopsis of each one. In a nutshell, Penguin found an entertaining way to use its content to get me interested in reading more of the books they publish – a simple, yet smart content marketing technique, if you ask me.

4. This Old Marketing example of the week (52:35):

While we’ve talked about content marketing efforts produced by the Michelin brand on more than a few occasions – including their well-respected restaurant guides – there’s another tire manufacturer whose stellar content had escaped our attention, until now. Pirelli began publishing an annual calendar in 1963, gifting copies of the limited edition publication to its top corporate clients. What always made Pirelli’s calendars stand out was the quality of the photography featured, as well as the caliber of the photographers who participated in the project each year – including notable artists like Richard Avedon, Annie Leibovitz, and Carl Lagerfeld. But the 2017 calendar edition feels like a whole new animal, as the company decided to reboot its original concept by moving away from the classic pin-up style in favor of featuring well-known actresses (like Jessica Chastain, Nicole Kidman, and Julianne Moore) in a more natural, realistic setting – i.e., devoid of the heavy makeup, heavy retouching, and skimpy costumes that some have criticized over the years as being exploitative towards women. It’s a fresh, modern, and more artistic take on the company’s signature content effort – and an interesting This Old Marketing example of how a company can adapt its legacy content to stay in sync with the shifting tastes and interests of its audience.

Image credit

For a full list of PNR archives, go to the main This Old Marketing page.

Cover image by Joseph Kalinowski/Content Marketing Institute

How do I subscribe?

The post This Week in Content Marketing: New York Times Leverages Snapchat as a Marketing Tool appeared first on Content Marketing Institute.

This Week in Content Marketing: New York Times Leverages Snapchat as a Marketing Tool syndicated from http://ift.tt/2maPRjm

0 notes

lucyariablog · 7 years

Text

This Week in Content Marketing: New York Times Leverages Snapchat as a Marketing Tool

PNR: This Old Marketing with Joe Pulizzi and Robert Rose can be found on both iTunes and Stitcher.

This week’s show

(Recorded live on May 1, 2017; Length: 1:00:57)

Download this week’s PNR This Old Marketing podcast.

If you enjoy our PNR podcasts, we would love if you would rate it, or post a review, on iTunes.

1. Our sponsor (08:50):

2. Notable news and upcoming trends:

Click to enlarge

3. Rants and raves (38:00):

4. This Old Marketing example of the week (52:35):

Image credit

For a full list of PNR archives, go to the main This Old Marketing page.

Cover image by Joseph Kalinowski/Content Marketing Institute

How do I subscribe?

The post This Week in Content Marketing: New York Times Leverages Snapchat as a Marketing Tool appeared first on Content Marketing Institute.

from http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2017/05/times-snapchat-marketing-tool/

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

When Did Republicans And Democrats Flip

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/when-did-republicans-and-democrats-flip/

When Did Republicans And Democrats Flip

The Rise Of Modern Social Liberalism And Social Conservatism

Election 2020: Democrats keep control of House and fight to flip the balance of power in the Senate

An Overview Of The Platform Switching By Party System And President From The Founders To Eisenhower

The First and Second Party Systems included some important changes and debates. Examples included the argument;over the Federalist favored Constitution, and the Anti-Federalist favored Articles of Confederation;and Bill of Rights;and debates over slavery, modernization, and;banking.;Major;changes began;at the end of the Second Party System.

The Second Party system ended with the;Whig Party dissolving;in 1854. They were critically divided by the;Kansas-Nebraska Act;and the related debate over;manifest destiny and popular sovereignty;. The heated battle;over whether;Kansas should be a slave state, and the debate over whether the south could keep expanding southward creating slave states,;resulted in the country being split.;This had happened in the Mexican-American war.;One;faction became the Northern Republicans and their;allies the Union, who wanted to hold together the Union under a strong central government. The other became the Southern ex-Democrats and their allies the Confederacy, who wanted independence;and wanted to expand southward, to for instance Cuba, creating new slave states. By the time;Lincoln took;office in 1861, the division was inescapable

FACT: The tension was so great the Democratic party ceased to exist from 1861 1865 as the Confederacy rejected the;concept of party systems; which is why we refer to;them ex-Democrats above.

The Third Party System: Reconstruction And The Gilded Age

Post-Civil War era politics in the United States can be understood by examining the;Third Party System factions of;Reconstruction and the Gilded Age.

In the Gilded Age things change in a major way due to both parties embracing cronyism but before we get there we need to understand Reconstruction.

The changes in the Republican party in this era are best explained by looking at;the conservative, moderate, and radical;Republicans of Reconstruction;. Meanwhile factions like carpet baggers and ex-Southern Unionist scallywags are illustrative of different reconstruction Democrats.

Here it is vital to note one of the hardest;things to talk about in American history, but Ill say it plain. The South didnt want to lose the war, they wanted to win, they didnt want to stop slavery, they wanted to continue it. They did not respond well to losing the war. Lincoln was immediately executed, Andrew Johnson took over, he was impeached, and the military had to occupy the south while the KKK committed what was frankly genocide against Freedmen.

As noted above, Reconstruction was part rebuilding, part Civil Rights ,;part enforcing actual law and order and preventing forced slavery under different names and murder , and part ;Redeemers.

The Redeemers completely changed the Democratic party by unifying the non-racist factions and moving the Democratic party toward business interests .

Recommended Reading: Did Republicans Free The Slaves

Other Factors Of Note Regarding Switching Platforms Progressivism The Red Scare Immigration Religion And Civil Rights In 54

Other key factors involve;the Red Scare , the effect of immigration, unions, and the Catholic vote on the parties.

Despite these general;truisms, the parties themselves have typically been factionalized over;complex factors relating to;left-right ideology, single issues, and the general meaning of;liberty.

Democrats Blue Wave Crashed In Statehouses Across The Country

Democrats failed to flip chambers in Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Republicans flipped New Hampshires Legislature.

After an election that failed to deliver the powerful gains that Democrats had hoped for, results from statehouses painted a similar picture, with the lowest number of chambers changing hands in more than half a century.

Democrats had hoped for a Blue Wave to sweep statehouses that Republicans had controlled for years, running expensive ad campaigns and extensive get-out-the-vote efforts. But as the results came in, it became increasingly clear that they had failed on multiple fronts.

On Wednesday, the results were not yet final, but the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks state-level races, said there were changes or potential shifts of control in just four chambers: the New Hampshire House and Senate, which Republicans took back from Democrats, and possibly the House and Senate in Arizona, though the contests for those chambers were still too close to call. He said it was the first time since 1946 that so few chambers were changing hands.

This is crazy in that almost nothing has changed, said Tim Storey, an expert with the N.C.S.L. It really jumps off the page.

In all, about 80 percent of the nations 7,383 state legislative seats were up for grabs.

Michael Wines contributed reporting.

You May Like: How Many Democrats Are In The House

Republican Voters Turn Against Their Partys Elites

The Tea Party movement, which sprang into existence in the early years of the Obama administration, was many things. It was partly about opposing Obamas economic policies foreclosure relief, tax increases, and health reform. It was partly about opposing immigration when Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson;interviewed Tea Party activists across the nation, they found that “immigration was always a central, and sometimes the central, concern” those activists expressed.

But the Tea Party also was a challenge to the Republican Party establishment. Several times, these groups helped power little-known far-right primary contenders to shocking primary wins over establishment Republican politicians deemed to be sellouts. Those candidates didnt always win office, but their successful primary bids certainly struck fear into the hearts of many other GOP incumbents, and made many of them more deferential to the concerns of conservative voters.

Furthermore, many Republican voters also came to believe, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly, that their partys national leaders tended to sell them out at every turn.

Talk radio and other conservative media outlets helped stoke this perception, and by May 2015 Republican voters were far more likely to say that their partys politicians were doing a poor job representing their views than Democratic voters were.

Southernization Urbanization And Big Government Vs Small Government

Today the Republican party doesnt have a notable progressive left-wing and the Democratic Party doesnt have a notable socially conservative right-wing.

Instead both parties have establishment and populist wings and the parties are divided by stances on social issues.

In other words, regional interests and the basic political identities of liberal and conservative didnt change as much as factions changed parties as party platforms changed along with America.

The result is that today the Democratic Party is dominated by liberal Democrats and Progressives.

Meanwhile, most of those who would have been the old;socially conservative Democrats now have a R next to their name.

Just look at;the 115th United States Congress under Trump;.

Also Check: What 10 Republicans Voted For Impeachment

James A Haught Says Teddy Roosevelt Was The Last Republican Liberal And Was Shifting By The Time His Democratic Nephew

Strangely, over a century, America’s two major political parties gradually reversed identities, like the magnetic poles of Planet Earth switching direction.

When the Republican Party was formed in 1856, it was fiercely liberal, opposing the expansion of slavery, calling for more spending on public education, seeking more open immigration and the like. Compassionate Abraham Lincoln suited the new party’s progressive agenda.

In that era, Democrats were conservatives, partly dominated by the slave-holding South. Those old-style Democrats generally opposed any government action to create jobs or help underdogs.

Through the latter half of the 19th century, the pattern of Republicans as liberals, Democrats as conservatives, generally held true. In 1888, the GOP elected President Benjamin Harrison on a liberal platform seeking more social services.

Then in 1896, a reversal began when Democrats nominated populist firebrand William Jennings Bryan , “the Great Commoner.”

“He was the first liberal to win the Democratic Party presidential nomination,” political scholar Rich Rubino wrote. “This represented a radical departure from the conservative roots of the Democratic Party.”

The Progressive platform attacked big-money influence in politics, vowing “to destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics.”

How Republicans Gave Up On Reforming The South

Democrats flip Chesterfield blue for first time in 72 years

As mentioned above, Republicans had done a lot to help former slaves in the South, but many of the gains they had made existed more on paper than in practice, and others were in danger of being rolled back.

And indeed, the backlash soon arrived. In the South, whites were dead set against what Radicals had done, and were willing to use violence to fight it.

In the North, whites essentially thought they’d done more than enough for black Southerners at this point. Businessmen wanted their own interests to take center stage. Some intellectuals worried about the federal government squelching states rights.

And public opinion turned there was little appetite among white Northerners for an indefinite violent federal occupation of the South.

But most Republicans no longer cared. The party had achieved its founding aim and had gone quite a bit further, since the Slave Power was now a thing of the past, and that provided a handy rationalization for not doing more. The cause of equal rights for black citizens would now essentially vanish from national American politics for decades.

Also Check: Do Republicans Want To Impeach Trump

Understanding The Basics: How The Parties Changed General Us Party History And Why The Big Switch Isnt A Myth

Above we did an introduction, this next section takes a very general look at how the major parties changed and how factions changed parties.

To sum things up before we get started discussing specific switches, both major U.S. parties used to have notable;progressive socially liberal left-wing;and socially conservative right-wing;factions, and now they dont.

Originally, like today, one party was for big government and one party was for small government .

However, unlike today, party lines were originally drawn over;elitism and populism; and preferred;government type more than by the;left-right social;issues;that define the parties today, as the namesake of the parties themselves imply;.

In those days both parties had progressive and conservative wings, but the Southern Anti-Federalist, Democratic-Republican, and then Democratic Party was populist and favored small government, and the Northern Federalist, Whig, and then Republican Party was elite and favored bigger central government.

However,;from the lines drawn during the Civil War, to Bryan in the Gilded Age, to Teddy Roosevelt leaving the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party in 1912, to FDRs New Deal, to LBJs Civil Rights, to the Clinton and Bush era, the above;became less and less true.

Instead, today the parties are polarized;by left-right social issues, and;each party has a notable populist and elitist wing.

This Is What The Gop Has Unleashed

Texas Democrats are mad and motivated after a slew of new hard-right legislation. But its not clear the party has the organization to translate the anger into electoral wins.

Nancy Thompson, founder of the Mothers Against Greg Abbott Facebook group, protests against the Texas governor outside the state capitol in Austin. | Photo courtesy of Nancy Thompson

Link Copied

Renuka Rayasam covers Texas politics, policy and health care for POLITICO.

EL PASO, Texas One Friday in early August, Nancy Thompson woke up and decided to protest Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. She had, in her words, been stewing all night, worried about sending her kids to school after a summer of rising Covid cases and Republican leaders resistance to mask mandates and other pandemic measures. A day earlier, Abbott also called a second special legislative session to pass a partisan election reform bill that Democrats had blocked earlier in the summer.

Thompson, an Austin-based mother of three, found a poster board and red and bluesharpies. When she finished writing, she realized her sign which read, Mothers Against Greg Abbott spelled out MAGA down the side. Thompson thought that was cool and perfect. She drove south from her home to the state capitol and stood on the steps by herself with the poster. Then, almost on a whim, she created a private Facebook group under the same slogan on her sign.

This, Thompson said, is what the GOP has unleashed.

Texas has been here before, of course.

Recommended Reading: What Is The Number Of Republicans And Democrats In Congress

This Is Not A New Argument

Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter told USA TODAY that this trope is a fallback argument used to discredit current Democratic Party policies.

At the core of the effort to discredit the current Democratic Party is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century, Hunt said.

In September, NPR host Shereen Marisol Maraji called the claim, one of the most well-worn clapbacks in modern American politics.

Comedian Trevor Noah tackled the misleading trope on an episode of “The Daily Show” in March 2016, after two CNN contributors debated the topic.

A similar meme attributing the claim;to U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;Ben Carson has been circulating;on social media since November 2016.

Other posts making more specific;claims about the Democratic Party;starting the Civil War or founding the KKK continue to circulate.

Three Factions Of Modern Republicans To Oppose This

Although conservatism is complex, it is defined well as an opposition philosophy to liberalism. Through this lens, there is a type of conservatism that stands against for;brand;of liberalism. Modern American conservatism wants to conserve, which means not being progressive on a given issue and which by its nature is not conservative. Thus we get modern social conservatism which says no to social programs and federal power, except when it upholds conservative social values.;There is also a;more liberal version that;we call libertarianism. It is against all uses of state power for any reason and is a form of radical classical liberalism, combined with;traditional classical conservatism, which is willing to use federal power to keep order, but not inherently against social programs. These factions can be said to become;allies;the conservative coalition mentioned above, although the establishment of both parties tends to favor aspects of traditional classical conservatism.

TIP: When either party uses government power, they are traditional conservatives, when either party deregulates and lets the private market and individuals handle it, they are classically liberal. More than one ideology uses classical liberalism, and more than one uses classical conservatism, as all political ideologies grow out of these foundational ideologies.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats Republicans Are In The Senate

How Can We Tell What Switched If Anything

Below is a chart we created showing one way to view the complex political left-right spectrum;.

A left-right paradigm using a four point graph to show how common government types relate to left and right in terms of who has authority and who says so.

If one had to place historical figures on the left and right, in terms of the chart presented above , then VERY loosely we might say:

Right Wingers: Hamilton , Cleveland ,;Hoover, , Reagan

Left Wingers: Jefferson , Lincoln , Teddy;Roosevelt , FDR , Johnson

If one had to place historical figures on our more complex 4-point spectrum, then VERY loosely, but more accurately than above, we might say:

0 notes