Narrative 1

Once upon a time people lived in societies that were unequal and oppressive, where the rich got richer and the poor got exploited. Chattel slavery, child labor, economic inequality, racism, sexism and discriminations of all types abounded until the liberal tradition of fairness, justice, care and equality brought about a free and fair society. And now conservatives want to turn back the clock in the name of greed and God.

Narrative 2

Once upon a time people lived in societies that embraced values and tradition, where people took personal responsibility, worked hard, enjoyed the fruits of their labor and through charity helped those in need. Marriage, family, faith, honor, loyalty, sanctity, and respect for authority and the rule of law brought about a free and fair society. But then liberals came along and destroyed everything in the name of “progress” and utopian social engineering.

(No googling before you answer)

Neither, the closest I'd come is that it was and is a mix of the naratives. "progressives" can be just as blinkered by their own ideologies as anyone else and hve brought some good changes while atnthe same time creating new injustice.

Human beings were and remain a mixed bag, some will be thoughtful and actbwith decency, others will act out of greed or from blinkered ideology.

R0bert

Well, I'm with Robert on this one.

Once upon a time, 1977 in fact, as a new worker I was told by most people, son, if you work hard, you will reap the rewards Shen you retire.

Then came along things like family assistance, and other forms of prop up welfare, aimed at bridging the gap between the rich and poor.

Don't get me wrong, it would have been great to all of a sudden able to have a family, knowing you can't actually afford to.

Meanwhile, my wife and I were denied any benefits for our kids, as we earned too much.

So, off we go and introduce these schemes, only, there was one problem looming, how on earth are we going to pay for it.

The answer was quite simple, that being to take from The rich and give to the poor.

So, then came the likes of negative gearing, family trusts, unit trusts, in fact, many entities and structures, as the rich all of a sudden realized that if they too could get get rid of some of their incomes, who knows, perhaps they could get some entitlements.

You see, as long as people are penalized for being successful, you will always have resentment within the ranks.

Now days, we go off and fight other countries wars and, we open our boarders to tens of thousands of illegal arrivals.

All funded by the good old tax payer, who, by the way, has collapsed under the additional load, resulting in not only our taxes being spent, but our future taxes in the form of billions borrowed.

How clever are we!

What a shame.

Dear Steven,

I agree with RObert on this as well.
Humans are indeed a "mixed bag."

It would be great if we could live by the "golden rule."
Otherwise known as "the mean," or moderation in all things.

Some would have us return to a mythical world of the
noble savage in an idealist arcadian setting. While
others tell us that myopic, greed-is-good, and consume,
consume, consume where the most deserving will win.

Apparently these are the only two routes to happiness?
That they are diametrically opposed leads to potentially
nasty conflicts over how to live our lives.

And neither recognise ecological, social and economic reality.

Only the idea of sustainable development based on the golden
rule, the mean, and a steady-state economy offer us hope.

Yep, I agree with RObert as well.

Steven did not goggle.
Looked this morning wanted to post that I agreed with both.
Well the self interest band greed parts.
And thought that was bit shallow so gave it more thought.
First the lost beliefs, any God, took away some control basic and extreme, we still need that if not the belief.
Extreme capitalism is intent on killing the goose that lays the eggs.
Greed is way out in front.
If we you and I could look in to the future say 200 years? we may find capitalism, but just for some, unless we find a way to restore accountability.

Dear steven,

I certainly lean toward the first but depressingly I think you give the majority of us too much credit.

It took a small group of Quakers to rid us of the scourge of slavery and it took a small group of Brown shirts to ferment the horrors that engulfed Europe.

I think most of us are eminently capable of swinging between both narratives and do it with such ease sometimes it is astounding.

Both these narratives that Steven describes are probably operating simultaneously throughout the world at different times and in different places.

But neither is ever permanent. History can and does turn the page completely, throughout the world, as times and centuries pass.

Thanks folks

I saw this on the Scientific American website and I was wondering how Australians would react.

>>Evolution Explains Why Politics Is So Tribal>>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-explains-why-politics-tribal

Incidentally this is how G. K. Chesterton put it:

>>The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.>>

Conservatives and Progressives.
Stevenlmeyer,
You should have made it realistic by including the real culprits, the fence-sitters.

Steve,

I read both your narratives, and both are similar in being unrealistic extremes. To some extent it is like asking who are you closer to, the far left (Stalin) or the far right (Hitler).

Social engineering is a luxury, that is desired by a population empowered by the wealth generated from the capitalist system. The debate really lies on the fringes, where over zealous "progressives" would happily drain more and more from the capitalist cow until it runs dry (as in Greece and other EU nations) and conservatives focused on growing the cow and keeping it free of the parasites. It is notable that the real incomes of the lowest paid increased more under Howard than it did in a similar period under any Labor government.

The major problem facing governments now is that as world becomes more globalised the "cow" is more mobile and able to move to different pastures altogether.

Shadow Minister,
If that cow isn't moving to greener pastures soon she'll go mad.

>>conservatives focused on growing the cow and keeping it free of the parasites>>

Do they?

That's certainly what conservatives claim and, until recently, I think there was an element of truth to it. Just an element mind. But it was there.

Then came the bail out of the so-called "to big to fail" banks. Except that they weren't really banks anymore. They were racketeer infiltrated criminal organisations (RICOs).

The essence of capitalism is occasional culls. When they happen they are painful but they clear the way for future growth.

What happened in this case is that the RICOs, disguised as banks, co-opted the socialists so that the criminals disguised as bankers who took them over could continue skimming.

So we don't really have conservatives any more - at least not in the sense that you and I have understood the word. We have two strands of socialists both intent on taking from the needy to give to the greedy.

Call it the dooH niboR principle.

I like the second FantasyLand you created. Can I live there? Will there be streams of chocolate?

An entirely pointless "question".

The fact that it is founded on an article in Scientific American adds a layer of pseudo-sophistication on a profoundly insubstantial opinion piece. The "once upon a time" preamble becomes irrelevant when the final sentences in each paragraph ask you to choose between "now conservatives want to turn back the clock in the name of greed and God" and "then liberals came along and destroyed everything in the name of 'progress' and utopian social engineering."

I've no idea why Scientific American considered it worthy of publication, since it is neither Scientific nor American.

Another five minutes wasted. Pah.

I agree with R0bert, rechtub and others.
The right answer lies in the middle.
I would go further and say that this is precisely the kind of polarisation of views that is destroying the US political system ans would destroy ours if we let it.
It has long been the ploy of lazy, visionless, polticians to create straw man arguments, by inventing an enemy.
And stirring up class warfare is a great way to create an enemy; one that doesn't really exist.
Australia's strength has always been that, to the extent that one can generalise, we are a pragmatic culture, that usually looks for a solution somewhere in the middle.
We get that extremists are always dangerous and almost always wrong.
And thank goodness for that, I say.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Pericles

Actually I agree with you that these are not sensible questions.

The trouble is that a lot of the political rhetoric we see in the US and, to a lesser extent in Australia, really does seem to have one or other of these two narratives as a backdrop.

Many so-called "conservatives" do seem to be saying "everything was great until you socialists came and messed things up."

Many so-called progressives do seem to be saying "you Facists want to take us back to the dark ages."

What passes for political debate has degenerated into name-calling.

Well put, Steven,
I read an interesting study years ago - can't remember where unfortunately - that showed that we humans typically have unrealistically high expectations about perceived positive future events and equally, we have unrealistically bad expectations about perceived negative future events.
The relevance of this to the political arena is that it's in the nature of humans to expect that a win for 'our party' will be wonderful, whilst a win for the other party will be an unmitigated disaster.
The reality is almost always that things are neither as good as we expect, or as bad.
However, these tendency to extreme expectations often leads to - shall we say - overly passionate expressions of opinion for or against.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Steven,

Some fascinating responses, a few notably defensive in nature.

Why is that so?

I think I was the only one to admit leaning more toward one of the narratives than the other.

Yet I feel if people were honest about it anybody reading these would have had a preference, one that resonated even slightly more than the other, yet there seems a real reticence with identifying which one that might be.

I'm going to point the finger at you though Steven since as the author you should really step up to the plate.

So which of the narratives pushes your buttons the most?

Ha, csteele, you have fairly caught some of us on our own petards.
I'll be the first to admit my bias, although I imagine it comes as no surprise to many of my fellow OLOers.
I, er, lean to the Left.
However, I would add that there is a chasm between preference and expectation.
My preference is for the left to be in power, which means, Labor, although I do wish the current lot would get their act together.
However, my expectation is that the next Coalition government won't change things all that much.
Anthony
htp://www.observationpoint.com.au

Both narratives are a mixed bag.

The first ridiculously places "greed and God" together,
the second places "faith" and even "sanctity" together with "respect for authority and the rule of law".

Whenever people follow God, the rest falls nicely into place - negative elements such as greed and slavery only start where faith is absent.

Once upon a time people did not live in societies - people lived with and focused on God, then societies formed as an incidental by-product and harmed no-one.

Yuyutsu,
You seem to be asserting that a belief in God predates the social evolution of societies.
I would be surprised at that.
Do you have any archaeological or anthropological evidence?
My understanding from reading such books, inter alia, as Joseph Campbell's The Mask of God and The Hero with a Thousand Faces, is that the concept of a god evolved after the development of speech when early gatherings, e.g. primitive societies, searched for and discussed possible explanations for the universe they saw around them.
The answer they came up with was a god, or gods.
I think that your chronology is unlikely as if the idea of a god came first, then each person in primitive societies would have his or her own personally thought up god.
Whereas, all the evidence, as far as I know, is that gods tend to be conceptually defined at the societal or community level, and are societally homogeneous, thus indicating that the society or community came first.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthonyve,

You seem to have misunderstood my response:

The CONCEPT OF GOD may indeed be a later product - but I was not referring to a concept, or even mentioned the word "belief". I was not even referring to the dull attempts of people to understand and explain-away the universe: I was plainly referring to when people in fact, were actually following God, not some silly concept.

I also acknowledge that certain societies were also (and still are!) formed by Godless people - however such societies are neither an incidental by-product nor benign - such societies are bound to cause harm and injustice.

Yuyutsu
<Once upon a time people did not live in societies - people lived with and focused on God, then societies formed as an incidental by-product and harmed no-one.>
You can not seriously believe that this is true. Societies, especially back in the so called wonderful
Primitive times were particularly cruel, torture and stoning were everyday penalties for crimes
that really do not deserve that kind of penalty. Religious societies burned harmless people
at the stake for allegedly being sinners.

Religions have always proclaimed their holiness and moral virtues, while never acknowledging that
the dark punitive side of their religion was murderous, cruel and wrong.
There has never been a society as holy and as guiltless of harm as you seem to believe.

Yuyutsu,
I'm intrigued by your position.
You assert as fact that which you believe, but for which you have not a shred of evidence.
How do you do that and keep a straight face?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

You assert as fact that which you believe, but for which you have not a shred of evidence.
Anthonyve,
it's just like religion.

Indi,
Nice try, but you would need to give me an example of when I have asserted a belief as a fact.
Good luck with that.
Anthony
Op

I have asserted a belief as a fact.
Anthonyve,
When you don't commit to a belief you don't need to proof it, an old easy, fence-sitting way out.

I'm sorry, Indi, I've read your latest post several times, and I simply can't make sense of it.
What are you trying to say?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

What are you trying to say?
Anthonyve,
How's this for a lame word game.
I'm saying that asking others to provide evidence re their stance/belief but upon having it explained you don't actually denounce nor approve that belief is proof that my assertion of you not having a point is a fact. :-)
about National Service that is. :-)

Indi,
I cheerfully cede the field to you.
No way to trump that.
Point, set and match to you.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Cherful,

I wrote:

<<Whenever people follow God, the rest falls nicely into place>>

To which you replied:

<<...torture and stoning were everyday penalties for crimes that really do not deserve that kind of penalty. Religious societies burned harmless people at the stake for allegedly being sinners. Religions have always proclaimed their holiness and moral virtues, while never acknowledging that the dark punitive side of their religion was murderous, cruel and wrong.>>

So I wonder - Is this your idea of following God, giving me all those bigots as an example (which has not even crossed my mind)? Could you, or any reasonable person for that matter, possibly believe that those cruel bigots followed God?

Dear Anthony,

I am not here to provide evidence to my views, I am here to relate to Steven's two narratives as he was asking: "Which most closely describes your world view?". I have given my world view - do you also expect me to prove with evidence that this is indeed my world view?

I see that there are usually two scenario which make people go off the beaten track.
Scenario 1, people become so wealthy & powerful that they get bored on the straight & narrow. They become dictatorial or excessively frivolous where they then try just about anything just to see how far they can go even to the point of crime.
scenario 2, people are so poor that they have to try anything to make ends meet even to the point of crime.
Within those two groups you have two sub groups who, like termites, gnaw relentlessly at every moment of others' lives'. They are the Law makers & the religious. Although they do not contribute an ounce of positive whatever, they stifle our every attempt in life for reasons only known to their wharped minds. I think it may be an act of frustration of not being someone special but desperately wanting to be. So, the next best thing is to let your frustrations out on others by joining the Public service or some Church. Never mind stuffing up the lives of so many just so you get some perverse satisfaction.

Dear Individual,

<<They are the Law makers & the religious.>>

The old trick to detect an antisemite, is to complain:

"All the troubles of the world are caused by the Jews and the bicycle riders",

to which the antisemite replies:
- "But what's wrong with the bicycle riders?",
to which you reply:
- "And what's wrong with the Jews?".

Now we are in perfect agreement about the law-makers: these are indeed the ones who gnaw on people's lives, absolutely and especially on the lives of the religious - anyway, lets blame the bicycle riders!

the ones who gnaw on people's lives, absolutely and especially on the lives of the religious..
Yuyutsu,
Hang on, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black ? Isn't religion all about laws ?
Aren't the churches just like Governments, exploiting the masses ?

Dear Individual,

These are excellent questions, thanks!

<<Isn't religion all about laws ?>>

NO, NO, and NO again: religion is about coming close to God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some religious people, in the course of striving to come closer to God, take upon themselves certain limitations, they may impose certain laws upon themselves, but that is only one religious technique, not the essence of religion, and in any case, such laws are only imposed over oneself - attempting to impose laws on others has nothing to do with coming closer to God.

<<Aren't the churches just like Governments, exploiting the masses ?>>

I suppose some may - and it would indeed be proper to check it on a case-by-case basis.
Note however, that not every religious person belongs to a church and not every church is indeed promoting religion.

NO, NO, and NO again: religion is about coming close to God. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yuyutsu,
Well, I can't continue debating this because I only have my own experiences & evidence provided to me by religious people to go by. My experience is that most religious people not some as you say, are selfish people. Yes, many put on a great display of kindness etc but when it comes to matters of money & to tolerate others' views the display changes dramatically.
Personally, I rather trust a good non-religious person than a religious one.

Dear Individual,

Do you have supernatural powers?

Because without those I would find it extremely difficult to determine whether and to what extent is a fellow man/woman religious. Just because one belongs to a church; or because they mark a religious persuasion in their census paper; or because they seem to display kindness, does not necessarily imply that they are in fact religious.

Also, bear in mind that religion is the road, a long road, not the final station (which is God), that everyone must begin the journey from where they are at, so it should not be surprising that even a religious person is likely to still retain a portion of selfishness and greed.

Yuyutsu,
I have no problem with faith but it sure puts it into the secret womens' business category. If we're indeed to go the course you (Bible) describe then I'm having difficulty as to why so many people simply can't go through life on their own accord so that everything they do is indeed up to them & them only. There are too many hurdles put up by others. What is the idea of this in the grand plan ? Surely, if I am being judged then shouldn't I be judged on what I did & how I behaved ? Not by what I was forced to do or forced to behave ?
Unless I'm looking at this in an utterly unenlightened way I fail to understand. It's like a Captain who has to cop for what his crew does. No individual can or should be responsible for the action of another unless the individual ordered the other.

Off topic but interesting.

Two sides of religion
- the search for deeper meaning to life
- the avoidance of deeper meaning to to life

I suspect most of the religious people we deal with follow the latter. Religion gives them a framework to avoid personal responsibility for how they choose to live. They will be the ones most loudly proclaiming their faith, the ones needing their rules applied to others, the ones with the blanket attacks on those who don't do it their way.

Probably don't come across many of tne former.

R0bert

Emile Durkheim, was the first sociologist to apply
perspective to religion in a systematic way. His
study, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,"
was first published in 1912 and has since become a
classic. Many of Durkheim's contemporaries saw religion
as nothing more than a primitive relic that would soon
disappear in the more sophisticated modern world.

But Durkheim was impressed by the fact that religion is
universal in human society, and he wondered why this
should be so. His answer was that religon has a vital
function in maintaining the social system as a whole.

Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were social,
not supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their
source, the rituals enacted in any religon enhance the
solidarity of the community as well as its faith.

Consider such religious rituals as baptism, bar mitzvah,
weddings, Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals.

Rituals like these serve to bring people together, to
remind them of their common group values, to
maintain prohibitions and taboos; to offer comfort in
times of crisis; and, in general, to help transmit the
cultural heritage from one generation to the next.

Some people may no longer believe deeply in traditional
religion, but they haven't found a satisfying substitute.

For many years it was widely felt that as science progressively
provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the universe,
religion would have less and less of a role to play and
would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more than
superstition.

However there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can't fill. On the ultimately important questions -
of the meaning and purpose of life and the nature of
morality.

As I've written many times, few people of modern societies would
utterly deny the possibility of some higher power in the
universe, some supernatural, transcendental realm that
lies beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in
this fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

Speaking of liberals, not the liberal party type but the
liberal/socialists discussed here reminds of this history lesson.

Author Unknown? ---

For those that don't know about history...... here is a condensed
version.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic
hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer
and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:
1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the
beer.

These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the
catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals
2 Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning
of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented
yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to
be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages
were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to barbeque at
night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is
known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live
off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly barbeques and doing
the sewing, fetching, and hairdressing. This was the beginning of the
Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became
known as girlie-men.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of Cats,
the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of
Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that
conservatives provided.

Cont...

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most
powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by
the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer
white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their
beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have
higher testosterone levels than their men Most social workers, personal
injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group
therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule
because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide
for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys,
lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police
officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone
who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other
conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers
And decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans
are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals
remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They
crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying
to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history...

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily
respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute
truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other
true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off

<---->

This pretty much sums it up. This is the world I believe we live in!

Have fun!

I had a good laugh at RawMustard's nonsensical 'world history' and thought to leave it at that.
But then, in the same spirit, I would point out that general Pinochet was a Conservative, Hitler was a Conservative, the Argentinian generals were conservatives. stalin was a conservative. Mussolini was a conservative.
Conservatives Started a stupid war in Iraq, and a stupid war in Afghanistan.
History teaches us an important lesson about Conservatives, and it's this.
Conservatives create wars, not Liberals.
And for that alone, conservatives stand condemned by their brutal and bloody history.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

RawMustard,

"Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans."

Surely not!

Shame the tamers of the Wild West are now sitting on their butts eating chili dogs and watching Fox News.

Here's a lively commentary from a guy from "down home" America, except he saw through the bullsh....

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

"""
I would point out that general Pinochet was a Conservative, Hitler was a Conservative, the Argentinian generals were conservatives. stalin was a conservative. Mussolini was a conservative.
Conservatives Started a stupid war in Iraq, and a stupid war in Afghanistan.
"""

And it was stoopid liberals that joined their armies for a share of the barbeque scraps!

As Einstein once said: Those that will march in rank file deserve not a brain, for a spine would suffice!

I would presume then that your liberals had neither!

I'm sorry, RawMustard but your lack of logic betrays you.
Because conservatives start wars and liberals have to get involved to sort out the mess, you say it is therefore all the fault of the liberals.
You sir, are a perfect example of those who put ideology ahead of rational thought.
Your failed consevative ideology blinds you to historical and moral reality.
And on that petard, you are thoroughly hoisted.
You might consider reading Emmanual Kant on moral philosophy.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Sorry I don't have time to argue with you. I'm too busy working on my solar heating system that will put an affordable, super energy efficient heating system, DDC controlled into your house and save you huge amounts on your energy bills. All this is possible today because some conservative had the get up and go and produced a low cost extremely powerful micro controller instead of spending his whole life jerking off because he knows two words more than the next guy.

Unfortunately, due to liberals making more rules than a human could read in a lifetime, it will only be about 75% efficient. If it wasn't for winging finger painters with arts degrees who sit around all day reading crap and complaining about everything coz they can't make a buck. It would be totally 100% self sufficient. Anyway, let me know when you finish your next book and let me know if what you've learned will help feed or house someone at their own expense and not that of the doers!