Posted on 11/10/2004 2:09:47 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
ping...
I too have understood leftism in terms of their subscribing to a sort of "Prime Directive" for a while now. My reasoning and basis for coming to this conclusion ran along different lines than yours (I actually like yours better).
To recapitulate my thinking in this area a bit: I think any analysis of lefty thought has to take into account their millenial utopianism. The future will be utopia; the utopian monoculture will cover the world; this is a given. The only question is, what will be that monoculture be like? Or rather, what current culture will form the seed or root of, and evolve into, that monoculture? Clearly this question must plague most leftists, because they look around, and what is there to root for - especially with USSR gone?
Here's where I believe that the "paradox" you've discovered can be resolved and understood. Basically, the Prime Directive needs to be obeyed because lefties don't like our culture enough to be willing to see it become the future utopia. Other "indigenous" cultures therefore need to be coddled and firewalled because if they are not, lefties know we will swallow them up. This is intolerable not because our swallowing up other cultures will harm those cultures (in most cases they'd benefit) but because then there would be no alternatives.
And the main thing the lefty wants to preserve is alternatives to our society. Why? Again: because he does not like our society.
So, a lefty has a lot of trouble advocating the use of force against even the most vicious of "indigenous" killers. Yes, sure (says the lefty subconscious), we could save a lot of indigenous lives doing it, but look at the down-side: (1) we increase our power and prestige, (2) we reinforce our precedent for "interfering", and (3) we will inevitably influence that culture in our direction.
It's "better" to let other cultures, even vicious/murderous ones, to stay out there, protected from us. Think of it as a sort of extension of lefty thinking on the benefits of "diversity". If each Culture is a member of the Culture-Gene-Pool, then (since diversity is good) it's better to keep them around than to risk them being swallowed up by larger, more dominant (even if better and kinder) cultures!
Hence: the Prime Directive.
Within the context of the Star Trek show, my understanding of why lefties like the Prime Directive fulfills a metaphorical function. The effect of the PD on Star Trek is to ensure that the "Federation culture" is never going to be the only one in the universe. There are always going to be "strange new worlds" to explore, "new life forms" - if a Star Trek viewer had ever been concerned about this, the PD ensures it. This is obviously necessary on a TV show whose main appeal is often the alien encounters. In fact, the humans of Star Trek are often rather boring, so of course a rule to ensure others survive, is a priori a good thing.
Well, lefties, perhaps by definition, think that "our" culture is rather boring (=should NOT be the sole root of future utopian monoculture) thus find it necessary to "protect" others with a PD. Even if this leads to apparent betrayal of their principles.
The betrayal is only apparent because the truth is their principles have less to do with their oft-professed devotion to "human rights" etc., and more than anything else to do with fundamentally disliking their own culture.
IMHO.
Very well thought out. This goes far to explain why liberals can
rail against bigotry/racism while being bigots and racist
LOL.
My first paper as a freshman in philosophy 101 (it was ultimately my major), I got a C on which the prof wrote, "I wouldn't be surprised if you thought you worked hard on this, students tend not to know what real work is."
I was seriously offended for 10 minutes, until I thought about how right he was. My 25th reunion is next year. Some things stick with you.
That prof turned out to be my advisor when I went for the honors degree, (I passed), but I did get to spike his a$$ during a student / faculty volleyball game.
My first blush reaction is: thought provoking. I think it is a natural human response to engage in contrary behavior: we hold "us" to both higher standards and lower ones, depending on the context. No prophet is with honor in his own town, no great person is great in his valet's eyes. But we also tend to give "our folks" the benefit of the doubt and assume that, when they conflict with "them", they are in the right. I like the way you've mapped this split onto leftism, but I wonder if it doesn't apply more broadly. We hold our children to higher standards than their guests in our homes, yet defend them against criticism by outsiders.
If you could go back to the planet that you came from and not have to be a dispassionate observer any more, what would you do? Be native (as opposed to going native)? Just live an unreflective life immersed unquestioningly in your folkways?
bump for bookmark
ping
Sounds very pleasant. Sure beats having to eternally fight liberals in defense of everything good.
Then of course there are the "palestinians" who are "piss loving pipples."
As originally formulated, it only applied to cultures that had not achieved spaceflight.
Essentially, once they'd gotten off-planet, other cultures could be told to play nice with others--and it could be made to stick.
To further expand and clarify your analogy the prime directive does not allow The Federation to interfere in pre warp drive cultures.Once a planet advances enough to achieve warp drive then first contact can be made.Once said planet achieves a global peace and one government then they can apply for membership in the Federation.
I think Japan has been accepted in the "Federation" and is effectively considered and treated as "White/European." Eskimos can hunt whales,that is perfectly acceptable but the Japanese can not.They must now live by "Federation Rules."
Thank you for commenting on and expanding upon my analogy (I've watched "Star Trek" but I'm not a fanatic or anything).
Japan is an intersting case. They have been absolved of guilt for their World War II era atrocities ("it was their culture"), but Pat Buchanan regards them as "white" (as did the apartheid regime of South Africa).
Why do the Ainu never get any press? Is it because they're indigenous "caucasians" in a country ruled by "people of color?"
Good thing I currently have no beverage anywhere near me.
I like it. It has a certain internal consistent and some broad insights into the demented mind of the left.
The Ainu. Aboriginal caucasions. Almost sounds like an oxymoron. A native any redneck could love.....
Ping for later. Great read. The dicotomy of diversity. Gotta be a haiku in there somewhere.
Bump for bookmark & later read
While your figuring out third world leftists, can you tell me why socialist/collectivist (thinking about what that means) revolutions in these geographic latrines turn immediatly to the task of tribal warfare and genocide?
But why are Fundamentalist Protestant Blacks, whose religion is at least theoretically the same as that of the "knuckle-dragging neanderthals," treated as something strange and exotic and "other?" Granted, we conservatives often forget that before they were discovered by the radical left they were often mercilessly and cruely persecuted by their "anti-evolutionist co-religionists," but why do today's liberals see something so different from Rev. Jimmy Swaggart's religion? Perhaps it is merely a passing fancy, just as the Left once celebrated (and then discarded) the white Okies of the Dust Bowl days?
Re the idea of a plurality of cultures vs. the monoculture, it is interesting that the European-style "right" identifies the Left with a rootless universal monoculture and call for "multiculturalism" among cultures just as leftists call for it within (Western) cultures. This gives them a certain amount of common ground with the advocates of mystical indigenous nationalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.