Evil Triumps Because Good is Disorganised

[jamesq]

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Intergroup squabbling is a very noisy way of doing nothing.

In the fight between the the liberal and conservative movements I've found that conservatives tend to be better organized. I've speculated that this is because conservative are better at rousing their side with rhetoric and following orders.

Liberals conversely, tend to question authority, which I think is why you don't see an all-encompassing liberal movement. Instead, you see GBLT groups and legalize-marijuana groups and pro-labour groups and pro-choice groups (etc) but they don't necessarily get along with each other.

Of course, being in a pro-X group means you probably think X is very important and therefore pushing topic-Y will seem like a waste of time. That's another part of the problem.

As an analogy, think of World War II and what it would be like if the allied groups couldn't agree on which country to liberate first. Europe would be controlled by fascists, and German girls wouldn't be nearly so fun to hang around with.

(There are exceptions of course, for about a generation the Liberal party governed in Canada because the various conservative factions could not get along. Ah sweet nostalgia.)

What brought this on? While reading through dark_christian today, I found this train wreck of a thread. Did we really need better then half the comments to be a semantical argument over whether evil is equivalent to willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest reactionary? Can't you people see you're on the same side. Cheese and crackers!

Comments

[bungle-lord.livejournal.com]

Another version of what you said:

Conservative means to keep things the same.
Liberal means to change something.
(Oh, and Reactionary means to change things back to the way they were.)

The thing about changing something is that different people want to change different things. And possibly in different ways.

The weird thing I find about this whole conservative versus liberal dichotomy is that most people are conservative about some things while wanting to change others. Yes I know there are people who want to change everything and those who want nothing to change. But most people fall somewhere in the middle. So how does one become labeled one way or another beyond liking one colour over another is beyond me.

On another hand, I am thinking that the conservative or liberal labels just signifies which political sect you identify with and does not actually refer to political beliefs. And like religious sects, one can be quite passionate about those who do not belong.

[jamesq]

You're speaking of the traditional definition of conservative. Think Neocons instead.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

As an analogy, think of World War II and what it would be like if the allied groups couldn't agree on which country to liberate first.

You're smarter than that. You know very well that the allies argued for hours about such things.

If you can't argue with people on your own side when you feel they cross an important line, your cause has bigger problems.

[jamesq]

They did argue about such things. Then they made a plan that took into account certain facts and executed it. Things like "France first, because it's closest".

You're smart enough to know that analogies are used to illustrate points, not be a direct one-to-one correlation.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

Sure. I don't think this one illustrated the point.

Was there any purpose to the post beyond providing information? People got sidetracked into other discussion that belonged elsewhere, but did this prevent the original post from achieving its goal?

Ah, wait. I misread the purpose of the analogy to be about the discussion that triggered you, rather than to the larger matter of interest groups at odds with one another. That was very careless and sloppy of me. I apologize.

Let's take another look at the analogy, then. What's the liberal version of France, and why?

[jamesq]

What would I do? Step one would be to organize people to vote the bastards out.

"But so-and-so is against X."
"Yes, but he's for Y and Z, so hold your nose and get rid of the guy who's against X, Y and Z."

Basically, a government that merely ignores you is not very good, but it is at least a step better then one that's actively out to get you.

Personal example: Politically I'm roughly between the Federal Liberal and ND parties. When I vote I look to see who historically came in second place against the Conservatives and vote for them. I might not get the group I want, but I figure either choice is better then what I'm getting currently.

(I'll admit that in "Reform Fortress Calgary" this doesn't do much good seeing as how the Conservatives routinely get more votes then all the opposition party votes combined)

If I were in a province that changes governments more then once every two generations, I might vote differently. Unfortunately, my home is Alberta.

So step one is to get someone in power who will at least listen to you. True, he might not agree, but it's better then having someone who thinks you're evil simply for being pro-[choice|marijuana|GBLT rights|pagan|etc]

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

I agree with the rest, but I have to ask for clarification on your X, Y, and Z point. Is your concern is that too many people are withholding support solely over one issue, rather than finding more in common with the candidate who is also against X, but opposes Y and Z also? The assumption is that the cliques therefore vote only for one issue candidates or no one at all, then?

I see why that would be frustrating, yes.