Replies

After the 20th Century, just don't forget most progressives are usually simpletons of the first order. For most progressives, intentions are all that count. At best, actual costs and consequences are an afterthought. Unless they are your family, ignore them. They are usually not worth the time and effort trying to reason with them. Your chances of converting them to conservatism are much better with the so called moderates and independents, IMHO.

Technology allows progressives to exist. A friend of mine coined the phrase “the Thin Chrome Line” to denote the thin veneer of tech that gives us our comforts that we take for granted. Progressives don’t exist in a world where people have to work to eat on a daily basis, but a world with refrigerators, supermarkets, dishwashers, etc can handle a certain amount of people who survive on the labors of others because there is so much abundance due to technology.

Of course, being dumb progs, they hate some technologies: power, transportation, weapons while mindlessly turning on the lights, hopping in the SUV for a trip to the store, or living peacefully under the umbrella of men with guns.

Progs are parasites on a technological civilization because the only way to make them see the truth is to turn off the conveniences, and those of us who understand and work to make that tech civilization happen aren’t ready to go back to the pre-industrial world just to make some juvenile crybabies wake up and see reality.

Its too bad that we can’t make them put their money where their mouth is. If they don’t like burning fossil fuels for power, pull their power meter. If they don’t like treated sewage (aka water) dumped into the river, turn off their water. If they don’t like gasoline, take the tags off their cars. Let them live in the dark, drink rain water, and bicycle everywhere for a month and there will be no more progs.

The writer speaks of Tocqueville's 1830's observations.

Even earlier, American were seeing the necessity of pairing the teaching of the ideas essential to liberty to rising generations, along with those of new discoveries in science and technology. Jefferson was, of course, one of those wise intellectual leaders.

The Pope's recent Easter message also addressed these things.

Then, there was Thomas Paine of "Give me liberty, or give me death" fame, who made the following observation critical of the education of youth in France. One can imagine what he might say about what is called "education" in America today.

"Thomas Paine on "The Study of God"
Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists" - (Source)

"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.

"When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the author of them. . . ."

"The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal."

One may agree, or disagree, with Paine, but how might his analysis of the past several decades of education in America be different from this 200+-year-old statement?

America's Founders' Declaration of Independence and Constitution were formed on a foundation of Creator-endowed individual life, liberty, and rights. This was the foundation of education for citizenship in their view.

Removing their concept of the Source of individual liberty from textbooks and schools may have been what might be called government's one successful undertaking in education; but is America a more free and prosperous nation than when young minds could be exposed to such ideas and trusted to make their own decisions?

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." - Thomas Jefferson

We must remember that the Founders left us what John Quincy Adams and others described as a "democratic republic," because they deliberately rejected ideas of a "pure democracy," which, in their view had been unsuccessful for liberty throughout history.

In 2008, Michael Ledeen, on another subject altogether, wrote of the degree to which Americans have been "dumbed down" on some basic ideas underlying our freedom:

Ledeen said, "Our educational system has long since banished religion from its texts, and an amazing number of Americans are intellectually unprepared for a discussion in which religion is the central organizing principle."

In the Pope's speech in Germany a few years ago, he observed:

"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."

Liberals are Luddites. That is why they oppose man, his machinery, and anything modern.

Technology is a tool. All tools may be abused--you can build a house with a hammer, or beat someone to death with it. What you choose to do with it is a matter of your character.

The author's assumption is that the US is the foremost user of technology in the world. He needs to get out more. There are Asian countries with better infrastructure for high tech because it is new, and not built on older technologies. Some of these countries have greater adoption of technologies--we still have people who are fearful of computers.

Most of the nerds I have known and worked with were Conservatives, since they are rooted in facts and reality. Fluff headed progressives may adopt some of the technologies, but they are just as likely to indulge in the emotional witlessness of "natural" food, clothing, electric cars, high speed rail, etc. Emotions are not the answer.

Character and a solid understanding of history are the answers. There is no point to being a Conservative Luddite. Flush toilets are a good thing.

seems like an interesting read at first...hope I'll get around to checking the rest of it out. But it will probably turn trite and cliche before I know it, making me mad.

In the mean time, be sure to check out "Understanding Media" by McCluhan, because he pretty much explains the whole thing there.

and lets all be sure to reflect on this in light of your post and reply count here at FR!

If America’s ongoing experiment in democracy and economic freedom is to endure, we will need to think again about cultivating the necessary habits of the heart and resisting the allure of the ideology of technology.

Poor dumb boob. This is a variation on the Barry Commoner theme of the 1970s.

A good history of America with more regard to technology than to politics would be the three books by Daniel J. Boorstin called, The Americans: The Colonial Experience, The Democratic Experience and The National Experience.

To be precise, Tocqueville titled the tenth chapter of volume two, “Why The Americans Are More Addicted To Practical Than To Theoretical Science.” In Tocqueville’s day, the word technology did not yet carry the expansive and inclusive sense it does today.

Nor did the word "addicted" carry the expansive sense of moral degeneracy as it does today. Nor did Tocqueville consider this "addiction" to practical versus theoretical science or the American experiment as a whole to be a bad thing.

Thanks, neverdem. Interesting article, interesting thread.

Those ingenious Yankees: http://www.amazon.com/ingenious-Yankees-Joseph-Gies/dp/0690011504

Excellent book and a must read for Americans young and old. We cannot afford to forget our pragmatic, entrepreneurial, inventive history.