May 29, 2006
O'Sullivan's First Law...
On the topic of the previous post, here's the "law" I was referring to:
(John) O'Sullivan's First Law states that all organizations that are not explicitly conservative become left-wing over time. [link]
Why? For the same reason that "student government" on any campus is always a hotbed of radicals, even if the mass of the students are not radical at all. NOBODY ELSE CARES! Not enough to spend vast amounts of time and energy taking over the organization. Most students just want to get on with life and studies, or possibly both. For the lefties, this is a chance to gain power and influence and make changes that the voters would never endorse at the ballot box. They are hungry for it. They will do the boring (in both senses of the word) work.
Also, running a group like AI feeds that ravenous hunger for superiority that exists in all of us. A hunger that can not be sated by the "success" of becoming Brand Manager for Cocoa Pebbles, or making Partner at your law firm. The people who started Amnesty International probably put in their stints helping run the group, but were soon happy to relinquish that drudgery to those who were hungry for it. Which means, people who want to get something more out of it than just the satisfaction of helping the poor prisoners.
I think the same kind of thing is possible on the conservative side, but it runs against the grain, and is not seen often. One can imagine a group that was formed to fight, say, trendy liturgical changes in their church gradually being taken over by people who want to oppose everything that has a leftish flavor. But it doesn't seem to be a big problem...Any examples?
Posted by John Weidner at May 29, 2006 10:35 AMI found myself seeking power in student government while in college, but my main motivation ties in with O'Sullivan's rule: I wanted to keep the power out of the hands of the twits. I saw the kinds of jerks who were looking to run things, and I couldn't stand by and let them run roughshod over things without trying to check them.
I was definitely the odd one out, though.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at May 29, 2006 01:13 PMI once blogged (can't find it now) a great story about some guys who put up a "moderate" slate of candidates at their college, and won handily. They were able to de-fund Hispanic Jihad, and various similar nut groups...
Posted by: John Weidner at May 29, 2006 01:23 PM"I think the same kind of thing is possible on the conservative side, but it runs against the grain..."
You don't see evangelical Christianity as an implacable and far-reaching quest to undermine women's rights, academia, fair and equal treatment for gays, and virtually anything that could be construed as "liberal"? I'd classify this as a bg fucking problem.
Posted by: Beaming Visionary at May 29, 2006 10:55 PMBut they didn't begin as the Parish Decoration Committee and the proceed to hijack the church's theology. Obviously, there are extremist groups both to the right and to the left. But did you not see that John's talking about groups that begin as one thing and then drift one way or another?
Conservative Evangelical Christian theology has not changed over time. Its teachings and beliefs are pretty fixed (which is what you get when you've got sola scriptura); its methods of evangelization may have changed, and its success in gaining converts may have grown, but it hasn't drifted rightward.
And it hasn't gotten the least bit more political with time - the illusion folks carry that back in the good ol' days, we had a complete separation of religion from politics, and these churches today are taking religion where it doesn't belong - that's plain stupid. Religious folks have always been politically involved.
So no, Conservative Evangelical Christianity most assuredly does NOT fit the model John asked about. Would you like to try again?
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at May 30, 2006 05:27 AMMaybe if rethugs and conservatives tried pitching something other than hate they could get some momentum!
Posted by: madmatt at May 30, 2006 07:10 AMThat is one seriously stupid fucking "law."
Posted by: Ed Meese Jr. at May 30, 2006 08:24 AMMaybe if rethugs and conservatives tried pitching something other than hate they could get some momentum!
Wow, you've changed my mind. I didn't realize how much I hated everything until your post. And yes, that's a great plan for acquiring momentum. And thanks for addressing the topic!
That is one seriously stupid fucking "law."
I'm dazzled by the subtle arguments being presented. All my convictions are in shambles...wow, so this is what it feels like to have your worldview crushed by logic - man, I need a drink...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at May 30, 2006 08:39 AMSee, Ethan, if this weblog difted left, then your comment would no longer be sarcasm. That's quite an attractive option to people who think strongly but reason poorly like the ones you are replying to. And you'd get to substitute profanity for rhetoric, which is much easier on the old brain.
