David Drake, historical accuracy, and conservative logic

[Cyborg Girl]

So on something of a whim, I've been reading Old Nathan, a collection of linked stories by David Drake. It's historical fantasy, but Drake is probably better known for military SF and space opera. Other than that I know very little about him. Given the mil-SF thing and my dislike of most writing in that genre, I wasn't expecting a lot.

It's... interesting, so far. The protagonist is emphatically not a Mary Sue, and it's hard to tell where his opinions overlap Drake's. Some of said character's opinions are fairly messed up in my book; but he happens to be a settler of the Tennessee Territories shortly after the American Revolution, and not a Mary Sue... IOW, a man of his times, with the flaws of his times, and Drake seems to be a real stickler for historical accuracy. And skilled with his prose, too, which I'll admit I also wasn't expecting.

But... politics, since that's what I'm posting about. I'm not sure about Drake (though I can guess), but his character leans pretty conservative. However, he presents an interesting argument.

Basically, what's politically interesting to me about these stories is that their historical context makes it clearer to me where a socially conservative outlook comes from. In a preindustrial society, a community lives much closer to the margin - survival is a more urgent matter, and tweaking the social status quo (with who knows what results) might not be desirable. "Living in a rigid patriarchy" is pretty horrible, but it's a lot better than "dead by starvation."

Given the choice between starting a major social reform and preparing for a long hard winter, it's pretty obvious what people are going to do...

Mind, I don't think that excuses maintaining a shitty status quo today, given that we have the necessary resources to support a social change. Likewise there are limits on what I would consider acceptable even in a more marginal, preindustrial society. But it does clarify the "why" of social conservatism a bit, and makes it easier to accept as a viewpoint - even if I have to disagree most vehemently with it here and now.

...

That said, some things just don't change. The most blatantly political parts of Old Nathan are the ones where Drake lampoons bankers and the wealthy; which makes perfect sense from this standpoint, since hoarding is bad for everyone else's survival. Poor, poor plutocrats, nobody loves them.

[Cyborg Girl]

... Though, thinking about this view of things, I'm having trouble seeing where modern Republicans fit in. Gonzo greed-driven economics don't make much sense if you're talking about survival of a whole group... That would be more like social Darwinism. Likewise religious intolerance, which could easily hamper a community.

I find myself wondering how the Republican party, in its present state, would compare to e.g. the Whigs or the Federalists.

Umm, am I even making sense here?

[Cyborg Girl]

So, since nobody's commenting I'm going to put another note here: it is pretty clear that there is no freakin' way I would have survived in an early 19th century American frontier settlement. And I am perfectly okay with that. The nice thing about a high-tech society with a large middle class is that lots of people can aspire to more than just survival...

Anyway, contrary to what some conservatives seem to think, I believe that if you have the opportunity to ask questions and think about things, you should damn well take it. Attitudes appropriate for day-to-day survival, and of a small community, are not necessarily helpful for long-term survival of an entire species.

... 'course I could be totally full of shit.

[geonuc]

While I agree that social upheaval in times when survival is not only paramount but also uncertain, I don't agree that rigid patriarchal societies are necessary to endure and thrive in such conditions. Not that you argued they are. Communes, for example, might well be a better choice from the start with the two obvious advantages of being fundamentally more fair and making best use of all available resources and talents (i.e., men and women).

I think modern American Republicanism would just cause continual civil warfare.

[SciFiFisher]

much of the pragmatism noted in old style conservative views is based on the scarcity of resources and/or food. If you can't grow your own food or barter for it with a skill useful to society then it's a pretty safe bet that you are going to starve to death. As society gets better at creating surpluses then it can begin to consider less pragmatic and more humanistic approaches. For example, we expend an inordinate amount of resources on people with ALS or other conditions that essentially spell a death sentence without those resources.

The difference is that society as it currently is operating creates enough of a surplus of resources that we don't have to choose to put the weak out on the ice. But, some people feel that we are creating an unsustainable situation which will eventually collapse. This is one of the underpinnings of the modern conservative. That we need to teach self sufficiency and that the current system only teaches dependency. which will lead to a collapse of the system.

[Cyborg Girl]

While I agree that social upheaval in times when survival is not only paramount but also uncertain, I don't agree that rigid patriarchal societies are necessary to endure and thrive in such conditions. Not that you argued they are. Communes, for example, might well be a better choice from the start with the two obvious advantages of being fundamentally more fair and making best use of all available resources and talents (i.e., men and women).

I don't think that rigid patriarchal societies are necessary... ever, really.

BTW, I'm not sure about how communes work internally, but IIRC some Native American societies - e.g. the Iroquois - had ideas about gender roles and distribution of power that were quite different from the European "norm." And they survived very well for a very long time, before the Europeans showed up...

I think modern American Republicanism would just cause continual civil warfare.

Like I said, I don't know where modern Republicans fit in. I think they may be closer to Fascism (and how I wish I were kidding).

[Cyborg Girl]

much of the pragmatism noted in old style conservative views is based on the scarcity of resources and/or food. If you can't grow your own food or barter for it with a skill useful to society then it's a pretty safe bet that you are going to starve to death. As society gets better at creating surpluses then it can begin to consider less pragmatic and more humanistic approaches. For example, we expend an inordinate amount of resources on people with ALS or other conditions that essentially spell a death sentence without those resources.

This is basically what I was getting at. I guess I'd argue that the "more humanistic" approach starts being desirable once your society starts to get past that point.

The difference is that society as it currently is operating creates enough of a surplus of resources that we don't have to choose to put the weak out on the ice. But, some people feel that we are creating an unsustainable situation which will eventually collapse. This is one of the underpinnings of the modern conservative. That we need to teach self sufficiency and that the current system only teaches dependency. which will lead to a collapse of the system.

The problem I see there is that, again, what's good for ~200 years ago for survival of a small community may not be so good for survival of the whole species. Jobs have gotten more specialized, people face a different set of hazards, etc.

Also I feel pretty strongly that there are some "humanistic" things we want to preserve in the event of a total collapse, and that putting them aside in case of disaster would be a really bad idea. e.g. the idea that women should be treated as legal equals of men, not as chattel slaves, should never be thrown out.

BTW Fisher, I'm curious where you think the current Republican party fits here, because it seems hellbent on not preparing for disaster. See for instance global warming denialism...

[SciFiFisher]

BTW Fisher, I'm curious where you think the current Republican party fits here, because it seems hellbent on not preparing for disaster. See for instance global warming denialism...

Leadership is an interesting concept. One concept of leadership is that it's the art of figuring out which way the group is going and getting in front of them. Which means that what you see from the Republican party is their version of deciding which way the group is going. I think what a lot of people are misunderstanding about global warming is that the Republican party (or the base) isn't denying global warming. They just deny that it is man made and/or that there is any way man can influence it. we have only a couple hundred years of semi-reliable weather reporting and data to work with. We are dealing with trends that are thousands of years in duration. it's egocentric for people to assume that man can have that big of an impact on the world's weather.

[Cyborg Girl]

Egotistical or not, you know what the scientific community's consensus is. I won't argue it (and I trust it a damn sight more than the opinions of various elected politicians).

But I would stress the point further: look at the religious attitudes among the Republicans! There are people saying we don't have to worry about rising sea levels because God will save us, we don't have to worry about wrecking the biosphere because the Rapture is coming, etc. People who make themselves the party of the Invisible Sky Daddy pretty much lose the right to talk about pragmatism.

Also a bit rich for a bunch of moneyed white guys to talk about "encouraging self-sufficiency." But I digress.

[SciFiFisher]

Egotistical or not, you know what the scientific community's consensus is. I won't argue it (and I trust it a damn sight more than the opinions of various elected politicians).

But I would stress the point further: look at the religious attitudes among the Republicans! There are people saying we don't have to worry about rising sea levels because God will save us, we don't have to worry about wrecking the biosphere because the Rapture is coming, etc. People who make themselves the party of the Invisible Sky Daddy pretty much lose the right to talk about pragmatism.

Also a bit rich for a bunch of moneyed white guys to talk about "encouraging self-sufficiency." But I digress.

Don't lose sight of the fact that while the Mad Hatter types are the most vocal they are not the majority. The problem in recent history is that a much smaller number of voters are having an outsized influence because of a variety of factors. Including low voter turn out.

Here is an interesting fact about consensus. It doesn't mean everyone agrees with the findings. There are honest sincere scientists who don't agree with the consensus about global warming. Now, whether the science is right or not isn't really the issue when it comes to politics or what people are going to do.

It's sort of like acid rain. You are too young to remember the fight about acid rain. But, for a lot of people it wasn't until the rain started stripping the paint off their cars that they became true believers. unless it really affects your world it's hard to believe in something that might be as world changing as global warming. Add in the fact that so many locations are recording record cold winters and snow and it becomes very difficult for the average normal rational person to understand and believe that global warming is something we really need to do something about.

[Cyborg Girl]

Like I said, I won't argue re the global warming consensus, because there will be no swaying either of us on that. Point conceded re denialism though.

However, re "mad hatters," people with truly extreme views are more common and more influential within the Republican party by far and away than among the Democrats.

Seriously:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us/po ... .html?_r=1

just look at this crap and tell me that's rational and pragmatic. The Dems have nothing like that kind of crazy, not even close. I mean, they are actually bringing the fucking Christian Apocalypse into their politics. Crazy!

[SciFiFisher]

Like I said, I won't argue re the global warming consensus, because there will be no swaying either of us on that. Point conceded re denialism though.

However, re "mad hatters," people with truly extreme views are more common and more influential within the Republican party by far and away than among the Democrats.

Seriously:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us/po ... .html?_r=1

just look at this crap and tell me that's rational and pragmatic. The Dems have nothing like that kind of crazy, not even close. I mean, they are actually bringing the fucking Christian Apocalypse into their politics. Crazy!

The bottom line is this. The Republicans probably are not going to make significant gains with women, Hispanics, and blacks. That doesn't leave them much in the way of "other" demographics to go after when it comes to espousing conservative platforms.

[Cyborg Girl]

If that's the case, maybe they should adopt a platform that isn't, you know, racist and misogynist.

I mean, if we're talking self-sufficiency, the least they could do is consider some black auto mechanic, who dragged himself out of the slums by his bootstraps, with only the money he earned.

If we're talking pragmatism, the least they could do is consider some guy from Mexico who's working illegally in the US at shit wages, so that his family have food and a safe place to live.

If we're talking pulling your weight, the least they could do is consider some single mom, who made some bad choices when she was young and stupid, and is now paying in full and then some, working two jobs with no off-days so that her kids have a glimmer of hope for the future.

But nope, they'd rather talk about the fucking Apocalypse.

I don't know what I'd call that, but "pragmatic" is definitely not it.

[SciFiFisher]

If that's the case, maybe they should adopt a platform that isn't, you know, racist and misogynist.

I mean, if we're talking self-sufficiency, the least they could do is consider some black auto mechanic, who dragged himself out of the slums by his bootstraps, with only the money he earned.

If we're talking pragmatism, the least they could do is consider some guy from Mexico who's working illegally in the US at shit wages, so that his family have food and a safe place to live.

If we're talking pulling your weight, the least they could do is consider some single mom, who made some bad choices when she was young and stupid, and is now paying in full and then some, working two jobs with no off-days so that her kids have a glimmer of hope for the future.

But nope, they'd rather talk about the fucking Apocalypse.

I don't know what I'd call that, but "pragmatic" is definitely not it.

Technically, they are being quite pragmatic. Fear is a more reliable vote procurer than hope. People who are afraid will vote for things like a more secure border and stricter immigration laws so that illegal immigrant can't come here and drive wages down and take jobs from legal residents who need them. Fear and the knowledge that in a just and god-fearing nation that poor single mom would be married to her baby's daddy and they would be much better off will get religious folk votes quite nicely. As for the black auto mechanic earning an honest living by repairing cars? come on GJ everyone knows that mechanics are some of the biggest crooks in town.

Please note these are not MY beliefs that I am espousing. I am explaining to you why the conservative party is not quite as stupid as you think. If you look at the demographics and the people in this country who vote you might get a sense of what they Republicans are doing. Right now the middle of the road conservative is (in a lot of areas) being ran out of town by his own constituents. They are voting for the hard core, right wing, demagogue who is promising them that they are the chosen ones who will inherit the earth. He is promising them that if they vote for him that "business as usual" will end. That the average hard working man in this country will stop getting the shaft. And the scary part is that a lot of the Mad Hatter Tea Party has the sincerity of their convictions to back them up. Look at what happened in 2010. One of the reasons there is a gridlock in DC is because the MHTP has no intention of making deals, compromising, or being bi-partisan.

People are angry, scared, and desperate. The middle class is disappearing faster than the American buffalo. It is finally dawning on people exactly what we mean by a "jobless recovery". There are a large number of people who will vote for the message that the MHTP is selling. And if that's what it takes to get elected as a republican then trust me. The candidates will be quite pragmatic about adopting the MHTP rhetoric. The scary part is that once they adopt the rhetoric will the also embrace the rest of the mantra?

consider all of that and realize that approximately 62% of the US still identifies itself as white. And that the group of people who have been impacted the most by the last decade are white. If you can get enough of them to show up at the polls and get them to all vote for the same thing the democrats can have the blacks and the Hispanics. hell they can even have the women. Because there are always some percentage of each of those other groups who will vote for the conservatives.

Now do you see what the Republican party is trying to do? it's quite pragmatic. They can't openly come out and say "we want all the angry, scared, desperate white people" because that's just a tad too racist. And frankly, they are quite happy to have as many scared, angry, desperate minorities vote for them as they can get. They just understand that the demographics don't favor them getting a lot of the liberal, minority, or women's votes because that's not who is turning up at the polls to vote for them.

[Cyborg Girl]

Fisher, I don't think they're stupid, I think they're unethical. That "pragmatism" only extends as far as their own skins.

If they're as good at playing the public as you think, though, then honestly I fear for my country.

Edit: than -> then dammit

[Cyborg Girl]

In other news, the other set of freebie stories from Drake ("The Northworld Trilogy") is typical poorly-written military SF, and starts off on a typical mil-SF note of some unfortunate civilian getting killed by Police Officers Doing What Has To Be Done. Fuckin' yay. I think I'll pass.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Now do you see what the Republican party is trying to do? it's quite pragmatic. They can't openly come out and say "we want all the angry, scared, desperate white people" because that's just a tad too racist. And frankly, they are quite happy to have as many scared, angry, desperate minorities vote for them as they can get. They just understand that the demographics don't favor them getting a lot of the liberal, minority, or women's votes because that's not who is turning up at the polls to vote for them.

Bottom Line: they're using the Joseph McCarthy tactic at a gigantic scale. If it doesn't work, it wasn't pragmatic though.

[SciFiFisher]

Now do you see what the Republican party is trying to do? it's quite pragmatic. They can't openly come out and say "we want all the angry, scared, desperate white people" because that's just a tad too racist. And frankly, they are quite happy to have as many scared, angry, desperate minorities vote for them as they can get. They just understand that the demographics don't favor them getting a lot of the liberal, minority, or women's votes because that's not who is turning up at the polls to vote for them.

Bottom Line: they're using the Joseph McCarthy tactic at a gigantic scale. If it doesn't work, it wasn't pragmatic though.

One of Murphy's laws: If it is stupid and it works it isn't stupid. The trick is to get enough angry, scared, desperate people to all head in the same direction. Look at how Hitler took over Germany. Everyone tends to forget that he and his party were legally elected and then legally handed all the power in a desperate bid to save the country and create security. And he kept (nearly) all of his campaign promises. People should remember that the next time they wish for a politician who actually delivers what he promises.

[Sigma_Orionis]

If we're going to compare the Nazis to the 'Pubs, I'd say the 'pubs are less efficient, they missed the boat with the 2008 recession. After all, they were in power when it happened. So, they have resorted to manufacturing crises and legislative blocking (that one in particular was a Nazi Party tactic, and seems like the Weimar implementation of the parliamentary system was particularly vulnerable to it).

All in all, we'll see how stupid (or not) they have been, in two weeks

[SciFiFisher]

And if you thought I was just making this stuff up.... Why House Republicans Alienate Hispanics

Please note that I scooped this story days before the NY Times.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Sounds reasonable to me.

However I do think it will bite them in the ass in the medium term.

[SciFiFisher]

Sounds reasonable to me.

However I do think it will bite them in the ass in the medium term.

Oh, there is no doubt that if they want win large scale national elections i.e. the presidency they will have to figure out a way to appeal to more minority voters. But they have a dilemma. If they change to adapt to the national stage the local base will defrock them.

so, to win locally they have to be anti-immigration and etc. and to win the white house they have to figure out a way to appeal to "the 47%"

It really suck to be the RNC right now.

[SciFiFisher]

RUH ROH!

It seems that it wasn't stupid.

The republicans have captured a number of state congresses and now the national level sees them winning the Senate and the House. They gambled that fear and anger would win more votes. And they won big.

[Cyborg Girl]

Yeah, you were unfortunately right about them having a winning strategy. I did not expect the American public to be so shortsighted; now I'm recalling an infamous PT Barnum quote...

Pretty disgusting.

[Sigma_Orionis]

RUH ROH!

It seems that it wasn't stupid.

The republicans have captured a number of state congresses and now the national level sees them winning the Senate and the House. They gambled that fear and anger would win more votes. And they won big.

Indeed it wasn't stupid.