The New Paradigm: New Conservative/Progressive

The old paradigm was Liberal/Conservative. It was about moderation and compromise. The current White House changed a lot of things, one was to completely destroy that paradigm and raise the prominence of three different factions: the Neoconservatives, the New Conservatives, and the Progressives.

The unifying element in these groups is that none of them fit within the Liberal/Conservative framework. the Neoconservatives are demented far-left radicals who seek to bring about socialism by means of creating far-right fear-generators like extreme Corporate Militarism and Authoritarianism (with Fascism), the New Conservatives are moderates who honor traditional America and have found new value in that honoring (where before they took it for granted), and Progressives are seeking new solutions for building a new America.

Recognizing the instability and power vacuum that is now America, each of these groups is making their stand. The Neocons are well-known and don’t need to be mentioned. The New Conservatives form much of the American population and have champions in such public figures as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Unlike the New Conservatives (who would like nothing more than a return to the Liberal/Conservative paradigm), Progressives see solutions in new projects, new conceptions and ideas for America. Progressives are more critical of liberals and conservatives and are more excited than the New Conservatives about this new system.

In this new America consensus can be easily reached: New Conservatives and Progressives are not codified, not hardened into their way, not extreme, perhaps most importantly are united against the Neoconservatives, and are happy with each other… there is tremendous support between the two groups, far more than there ever was between liberals and conservatives. Whether this will last after the expected overthrow of the Neocons in 2009 is debatable.

Laws against Influence

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9el69vcUM

One of the aspects of establishing a populist America is to eliminate sources of manipulation. For example, the US media with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is heavily influenced by the owners of media firms, political elites, the Israeli government’s PR campaign, and watchdog groups. By law, none of these factors can have influence.

The major issue here seems to be that *without* influence, why bother staying in that role? But there remains value in owning a media firm, or being a political elite, without manipulating the US media. The kind of value that there has always been, long before this influence became so effective.

With these new laws, the American Public can bring a lawsuit against a news channel for example for manipulation.

The alternative, if the current system stays in place, is that the entire world becomes polarized and ruthless… endless ideological war where truth is ignored in favor of coercion. Under populism the *reality* creates the news, instead of a belief telling you what it wishes reality to be.

The Limitation of Stephen Colbert

This might equally be called "The Limitation of the New Conservative".

The New Conservative, a Postmodern offshoot, is the Sane Man in an Insane World. Specifically, he attacks the modern emphasis on the blind faith in progress, decadence, and humanism. Always introspective, he seeks to take two steps back and examine with an eye toward destruction this "Insane World". As he sees the world being out of control, his fundamental goal is to put it back in control. Unlike Fascism, however, he seeks "Control for the People", and his method is to empower the individual to reshape their own reality. He loves to display injustice, irony, intolerance, anything that shows a corrupt or indifferent world. SEE, SEE, SEE, he cries out… you need the New Conservative!

The limitation is, of course, just that. If the world is not corrupt, not indifferent, not ascetic, then there is no point… no need for the New Conservative and modern life can continue.

A constant fear of the New Conservative is Fascism, since it offers an alternative method of achieving a New World Order, albeit a method New Conservatives find appalling. New Conservatives, however, would say that if they fail, Fascism might be the next best alternative. Two sides of the same coin…

For that reason, Fascism will exist until such a time that the New Conservative succeeds in destroying Modernity.

Stephen Colbert focuses on the decadent nature of modernity with respect to truth. The denial of truth as expressed by the Neocons (among others) is the current ultimate in blasphemy, according to the New Conservative the final outrage of Modernity. The Neocons are pursuing the overcoming of truth by the Will (or pretending to pursue it, given their incompetence)… we may discover that the Neocons are mere patsies designed to make the New Conservative look good… the rise of the New Conservative after all is owed largely to the clownish performance of the Neocons.

The problem with sanity is that its boring, and the New Conservative however much it admires sanity doesn't solve that particular problem. So it may create its individualistic New World Order, but there is no proof of anything impressive as a result.