This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Does Conservatism Have to Be Synonymous With Ignorance?

Viveca's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by Viveca

Comment 14 by danconquer :

Conservatism takes the natural human desire to conserve certain things and turns it into an almost fetishistic position against change, against evolution in human relations and behaviours. One seeks, by default, to prevent evolution in culture, in ideas, in techniques ( unless, of course, those changes happen to permit personal enrichment, at which point monetarist selfishness suddenly trumps any desire to conserve).

You've undone your own analysis by your bracketed comment. Now all you have to do is show how "radicalism" doesn't succumb to the same tendency.

Krauss answered his own question: No, conservatism doesn't have to be synonymous with ignorance. This begs the questions: what has caused the relatively recent slide into stupidity to such a degree? And what, if anything, can be done to reverse it? I don't know the US well enough to answer those questions with any degree of assurance, but, to state the obvious- such candidates presuppose that a significant part of the electorate are apathetic, politically stupid and ill-informed. And yet, what country doesn't harbour a similar bedrock? What Krauss didn't provide was an explanation of why this love-affair with ignorance since G.W.Bush came into existence and why it still persists.

Can anyone here summarise, honestly and concisely, the reasons for this descent into crass stupidity?

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:01:23 UTC | #927410