November 16, 2004


Robert Bosler -- may the energy be upon him -- explains conservatism:

Firstly, we have the term Conservative. We know the conservative wishes to conserve. Taking it to its pure extreme, to its archetype - and this might be hard to accept for some people - the conservative is not capable of creating anything new. In pure form, it can only ever conserve what already exists.

Like the Berlin Wall. Read the whole thing, for the thrill of lines like these: "Conservatives dislike the system of status that their world lives by. They tend to believe that someone else's status is wrongfully attained, or, if rightfully attained, that it is their birth right to attain it"; and: "Conservatives do not like the creative need. To the conservative, the creative need is a threat to their status quo."

Posted by Tim Blair at November 16, 2004 03:19 AM

The "energy"? Oh, right, yes, the Energy!

Bosler's the one who figured out Howard snuck a peek in the Palantír and got his brain et by evil spirits.

Thank god Bosler has the raw guts to stand up and tell it like it is. When he bends his knees too far it cuts off the chi flow to his feet and his powers wane, but now that he's learned to walk upright, well, you'd all better watch out, is all I'm saying. Next year he'll be producing primitive stone tools.

Without Bosler, the nation would be lost.

Posted by: hideous bouncing brain at November 16, 2004 at 03:39 AM

I wonder if this fellow has ever pondered this idea:

A "conservative" in the US seeks to preserve the ideals and institutions that created the US. That includes things like free speech, separation of church and state, federalism, etc. It also includes the unending churn of status and life in the US, where hardly anyone is doing what their grandparents did, where their grandparents did it.

Nah. His head would explode if he tried to think along those lines.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 16, 2004 at 04:04 AM

And what is really astounding to the lazy mind is that what appears as conservative in today's world is in reality often quite the opposite. Conservatives themselves have thrown away the truth of their own term, wearing it now only as a stick-on badge, and are in effect out there creating a whole new world.

Y'know, if you swap out "Progressive" or "Left Winger" for "Conservative" above, you have the absolute truth.

Next we'll examine the term Progressives, or the Left. These terms are used to describe the people and who bring or who wish to bring new ideas into the world. The problem with today's usage is that these terms do not accurately capture the essence of what they seek to represent. They'll be dispensed with here for that reason. In place of those terms we'll use the more accurate term: Creatives.

Creative. Right. So creative, in fact, that they claim to win elections before they lose them.

Conservatives do not like the creative need. To the conservative, the creative need is a threat to their status quo.

Guess I'm not conservative, then. I like new ideas. So why did I vote for Bush? :-P

The world is built upon ideas: conservative ideas and creative ideas.


Idea: Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity. I miss something here? Don't ideas come from....creative thought??

Oh, excuse me, this explains the matter:

Under these archetypal circumstances where it is not possible by definition for the conservative to have a new idea, when the creative's vision or idea is presented to the conservative, the same process then happens to the conservative - the conservative becomes aware of the future - but they do not see it as real, they see it as a possibility, and their natural instinct is that it is one to be avoided. Driving these responses for them are forces of fear and repulsion.

So creativity for conservatives is part of a "fight or flight" instinct, eh? Kinda like sex in the Victorian era, we practise it, but only in private, and with much washing of hands afterwards.

There's no way that people might be weighing options against each other to see which is the most practical or efficient to avoid wasted lives and resources. Nope, the only way to make a decision is, how did he put it....?

Inside the creative is a yet-to-be-created world of the future as though it exists now. This is the creative idea. To them, that idea or that new world is real. They know it is not real in the present reality, but it is still real. Driving this for them are forces of passion, excitement and the force of attraction.

Gotcha! We need passion and excitement. Golly, I must be a serious stick in the mud.

How do we fix this, ummmm, quagmire? Behold:

The creative sees a vision. The creative expresses what they see to the people of the day, and the people choose to trust in the idea presented to them, and agree to achieve it. The conservatives lay the structure into place, securing the vision in real terms, while the creative maintains the vision and trusts the conservative to put it together with things that are real and existing.

Of course, this is ...assuming the reform is desired. But if we do desire reform, the Creative direct the Conservative, because the Conservative knoweth not what they do, and the Creative clearly does. If you don't believe me, ask the Creative.

Right. I'm curious; does Mr. Bosler need that energy just to be this condescending and mediocre? Or did he unplug himself for this particular article?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 16, 2004 at 04:06 AM

Conservative != Rambling incoherant Fucktard?

That's what I'm translating.

Posted by: Rob Read at November 16, 2004 at 04:24 AM

Shhh. This man is busy living in his "real" Creative future, which of course no Conservative could ever envision or understand.

*imagines Mr. Bosler standing in the solarium with the other patients, communing Creatively with the spirits of the air*

Posted by: Rebecca at November 16, 2004 at 05:31 AM

So true, so true. I want nothing ever to change. Just like my bunny collection. I hate new bunnies. Hate 'em. Don't get me started about what happens when one of my bunnies turns up missing. Whoaaa! You don't want to be there. But Helen says I'm a radical. Radical = change. That's why I just stay wasted all the time.

Posted by: Mike at November 16, 2004 at 05:58 AM

To paraphrase his words slightly, but only slightly, he says in this columns that new products are the result of Creative thought, which he informs us is only done by Progressives and left-wingers. Right. So, presumably, all those anti-globalisation protestors have got it completely wrong when criticising conservative governments and corporate interests being in the same pocket.

On the liberals side, we can see such forces of change as:

Huntingdon Life Sciences

Need I carry on?

Who let this intellectual featherweight out of his cot?

Posted by: Steve at November 16, 2004 at 06:18 AM

Me thinks that, like many of the Loony Lefty Losers, the author mistakes fashion for taste.

Posted by: CPatterson at November 16, 2004 at 06:20 AM

I thought conservatism was the study of pickles and jams.

Posted by: rog at November 16, 2004 at 06:27 AM

We know the conservative wishes to conserve.

The disagreeable wish to disagree.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at November 16, 2004 at 06:51 AM

Who would you rather believe on the nature of conservatism? Bosler or Roger Scruton? Here is Professor Scruton on the nature of conservatism:

It is a tautology to say that a conservative is a person who wants to conserve things; the question is what things? To this I think we can give a simple one-word answer, namely: us. At the heart of every conservative endeavor is the effort to conserve a historically given community. In any conflict the conservative is the one who sides with "us" against "them"--not knowing, but trusting. He is the one who looks for the good in the institutions, customs and habits that he has inherited. He is the one who seeks to defend and perpetuate an instinctive sense of loyalty, and who is therefore suspicious of experiments and innovations that put loyalty at risk.

So defined, conservatism is less a philosophy than a temperament; but it is, I believe, a temperament that emerges naturally from the experience of society, and which is indeed necessary if societies are to endure. The conservative strives to diminish social entropy. The second law of thermodynamics implies that, in the long run, all conservatism must fail. But the same is true of life itself, and conservatism might equally be defined as the social organism's will to live.

Of course there are people without the conservative temperament. There are the radicals and innovators, who are impatient with the debris left by the dead; and their temperament too is a necessary ingredient in any healthy social mix. There are also the instinctive rebels of the Chomsky variety, who in every conflict side with "them" against "us," who scoff at the ordinary loyalties of ordinary people, and who look primarily for what is bad in the institutions, customs and habits that define their historical community. Still, by and large, the future of any society depends upon the solid residue of conservative sentiment, which forms the ballast to every innovation, and the equilibriating process that makes innovation possible.

Posted by: walterplinge at November 16, 2004 at 07:18 AM

I liked this quote:

In place of those terms we'll use the more accurate term: Creatives.

To continue the analogy, the problem with political and social creatives is that we always end up with Tracey Emin policies - creative crap. Rip-off, puerile connect-the-dots acrylic daubs but never Albert Namatjira.

Posted by: walterplinge at November 16, 2004 at 07:26 AM

wonder why it is that most engineers i know, for example, are conservative. I mean, we all know what an uncreative, uncapable of an original idea automaton your average engineer is.
Not like your common variety lefty, who seems to be springing out original ideas all over the place. Why, only a few days ago I heard one say 'Bush=Hitler'.......brilliant

Posted by: FusterCluck at November 16, 2004 at 07:47 AM

This reminds me about a Uni lecture i had a few weeks ago . All that talk of conservatives made me think of the goodness it has brought into our lives -
Strawberry Conserve
Blackberry Conserve
Raspberry Conserve
Forest Fruits Conserve

Posted by: Will S at November 16, 2004 at 08:19 AM

Labels like liberal and conservative no longer mean anything unless they are heavily qualified. Similarly the label "rightwing" means nothing due to the number of contradictory principles that get labelled "right" - what do the Religious Right and Libertarians have in common? For the left, the term "right" has huge rhetorical value due to the association with jack boots and concentration camps, so the sooner we can eliminate the term "right" as a general label for a political position the better.

Posted by: Rafe at November 16, 2004 at 08:28 AM

Where would this douche bag put the Anglosphere Coalition vis a vis the Islamo-fascists?

Who is Creative? Who is Conservative?

Which side does he then identify with?

In Bosler's eyes, I may be 'conservative' but to Osama, I'm a libertine demon from Hell and so is Mr. Bosler.

There is no Third Way.

Posted by: JDB at November 16, 2004 at 09:00 AM

As a college professor I had many years back told me (when we were discussing the Age of Innocence): some things are worth preserving.

Posted by: Sean at November 16, 2004 at 09:43 AM

By way of editorial balance I would like to point out that some Conservatives invite ridicule.

Posted by: GoodFace at November 16, 2004 at 10:12 AM

One site:

Posted by: Michael at November 16, 2004 at 10:13 AM

Yes GoodFace, and 90% or more of the news media is assiduously ferreting out those who do. Even "rightwing" blogs do it; the first use of that magnificent word "Idiotarian" was to describe Pat Robertson. Of course, the MSM also tries to ridicule the conservatives who do not deserve ridicule. For example, they ridiculed Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s for saying the USSR was an Evil Empire and that we were then seeing its last days. What a chump he was, eh?

Posted by: Michael Lonie at November 16, 2004 at 01:20 PM

Does webdiary pay by the word or something? My eyes glazed over after a sentence of that tripe.

PJ O'Rourke on conservatism:

The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and - lest individualism run riot - insist upon individual responsibility.

Posted by: Art Vandelay at November 16, 2004 at 01:38 PM

Who is it that's filibustering the the President's nominees to prevent change in the common law?

Liberal and conservative are relative terms, but somehow they don't keep up with the times. This twit Bosler must be out of ideas. This is about the sixth time I've seen this "conservatives should conserve" in the past month. As P. J. O'Rourke rightly noted, what is being conserved is principles, like democracy instead of kritarchy. So-called liberals think of freedom as subjecting a whole society to the whims of the latest group of misfits to claim minority status.

Posted by: AST at November 16, 2004 at 01:57 PM

Most problem solvers are conservatives: engineers, farmers, doctors, builders. And to solve problems you need the ability to think creatively. So what's this tool on about?

Posted by: slatts at November 16, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Back in April you could be creative just by speaking a word or moving your hand. Creativity seems to have gotten more challenging since then.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at November 16, 2004 at 09:09 PM

Looking at the WOT, the creatives pretty much wanted status quo, while the conservatives executed a creative and efficient plan. For less then the cost of lives then 9/11, the coalition is well on the way to freeing 50 million people and enveloping a country whose people under 30 years of age yearn for freedom. It seems to me that, as usual, the progressive’s word does not translate to their actions.

Posted by: Wilky at November 17, 2004 at 02:21 AM

"Next we'll examine the term Progressives, or the Left. These terms are used to describe the people and who bring or who wish to bring new ideas into the world. The problem with today's usage is that these terms do not accurately capture the essence of what they seek to represent"

No, I think there is no way to accurately capture what they represent. If he had written this 200 years ago when new ideas meant limited government and being liberal meant upholding the US constitution you could see the essence of their ideas quite clearly.

What would the average american think if he was suddenly told(by a modern liberal) that declaring independance from europe wasn't good or bad, it was just - a new idea. The US constitution - hey, that was new for awhile, but who cares now. I want NEW. Hey lets try lots of taxes, thats not really new but who cares. Socialism - that's new, lets go with that.

If someone heard that, he would conclude that the sharp decline of liberalism leaves him no choice but to be a conservative if he cares about the survival of his country.

I once read that the democratic party was founded for the purpose of fighting the creation of a central bank, like the fed in 1913 because they predicted it would result in a 1929 crash/depression. Now all they care about is handouts.

Posted by: jay at November 17, 2004 at 08:06 AM

Here's my favorite quote:

"Creatives enjoy the strong sense amongst themselves that each individual one of them can create a whole new world."

Yeah, they enjoy creating their own little worlds which have no basis in objective reality. That is the major problem with the "Creatives."

Posted by: david at November 17, 2004 at 04:51 PM