Conservative philosophy, including Trumpism, inhibits change for the better (Part 2)

The sort of change I’m talking about: change for the better.

Continued from Part 1

In our politics, people want changes that reflect more trust, transparency, involvement, truth and a higher standard of governance for the people. It also means a more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth.

And if politicians cannot change sufficiently to meet these changing standards, we will not vote for you.

The situation is confused by an acceptance in both the US and Australia, where it would seem that conservatives haven’t heard a word of it and continue to feed us the same old traditionalistic bullshit we have listened to for years.

Preserving a familiarity with our past is something we all long for. Still, for the conservatives and the Christian right, it is the preservation of ideology and faith that are the most important.

For the conservative mindset, change is often a source of discomfort, a notion that stirs unease in the very marrow of their being. Their ideology champions the idea that transformation should unfold gradually, like the slow turning of the seasons rather than a sudden storm. They concede to change only when the relentless machinery of capitalism demands it, specifically when profitability hangs in the balance. In the realm of science, a similar narrative prevails – innovation must directly contribute to financial gain to warrant its pursuit.

Conservatives cling tenaciously to the comforting arms of tradition, custom, and the steady march of continuity. This unwavering adherence may seem quaint in an age that clamours for swift action and dramatic shifts, particularly in the face of pressing global challenges like climate change or the broader societal upheavals that reflect the need for transformation. The urgency for preservation and evolution stands in stark contrast to their cautious philosophy, highlighting a tension that ripples through the fabric of contemporary discourse.

For those on the Christian and political right, change is almost intolerable because of its pace, its acceptance of science and its inevitability. Inevitableness requires a certain amount of critical thinking, which they seem incapable of doing because of their inflexible philosophy.

I raise this because just a few years back, we saw a deplorable example of how this conflict of Christianity, freedom, capitalism, and science inevitably works.

Would you agree that electric cars in Australia are inevitable? I’m assuming you would say yes. It’s almost laughable to say otherwise. Capitalism demands it. A person like Josh Frydenberg, despite being on the right, uses his common sense to say they are inevitable because they just are. He told Sky News critics who ridiculed the technology that they would “probably buy them in a decade”.

A few years ago, Josh Frydenberg said Australia should prepare for the electric car revolution that has already swept Europe and will soon hit China. He said France and Britain would end the sale of new diesel and petrol cars by 2040, and Norway and the Netherlands aimed to do so by 2025.

Yet the seasoned conservative veteran, the then Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, with his flushed cheeks betraying a fervent commitment to capitalism and lips trembling with agitation, resolutely declares no. Not on my watch as the then de facto Prime Minister.

He said his government had “no plan to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars” and “Australia’s transport policies are modelled on Australia’s needs.”

His office declined to elaborate. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

This argument goes that we must make our own because the rest of the world is making electric ones. How bizarre?

Australia will become a republic someday. Why conservatives fight it with such gusto is beyond me.

To repeat myself, one of the central tenets of conservative ideology is that change should be incremental.

It is totality unsuited to a modern society, where technology and a newly awakened benefit of science are driving change at a relentless pace.

However, it is not only technology that drives change. A shift away from things spiritual is also changing society. Conservatives are inclined to fight tooth and nail, even for things they know and admit to knowing have an inevitable result.

“Therefore, even at the age of 84, I find it difficult to understand why a person like our former attorney general, George Brandis, couldn’t embrace computers or the Internet and why John Howard couldn’t send an email.

The same applies to our Former Prime Minister Abbott, who a few years ago, because of his Luddite attitude, appointed Malcolm Turnbull to destroy the NBN.”

Sorry, I have digressed. An example of what I am talking about is music. I don’t mean as in style or genre (which has undergone enormous change) but rather in its delivery.

As a small child, I remember hearing reordered music on a wind-up gramophone with replaceable needles for the first time. Sometime later, 78-rpm records improved, and the things on which we played them were grandiose pieces of furniture.

Then came 45rpm vinyl records, followed by 33 1/3 rpm LP and EP recordings with multiple tracks and stereophonic sound.

A significant step forward in making music transportable came with cassettes and tape recorders. They, in turn, were replaced with CDs, which are now becoming obsolete with the advent of tablets, iPods, and mobile phones. Downloadable music is now the future. I now pay 13 dollars monthly for as much music as I like.

I’ve employed this analogy to vividly illustrate that change is shaped by a multitude of forces: our well-being, the ever-evolving desires of consumers, the pulse of demand, scientific breakthroughs, and more. Change, despite our natural tendency to resist it, is woven into the very fabric of our existence. It’s ingrained in our DNA, an inexorable part of our journey through life, whether we embrace it or shy away from it.

Change is enabling us to live healthier and longer lives. So why do conservatives fight against it?

Will AI revolutionize the very fabric of the Internet and transform our communications technology? What about its profound impact on the realms of physics, engineering, medicine, economics, and agriculture? The possibilities stretch into infinity, painting a vivid landscape of potential that excites the imagination and stirs apprehension in equal measure.

And, undoubtedly, we should not assume that the tides of change will slow over the next century. Instead, they are destined to surge with an intensity fuelled by artificial intelligence, ushering in a cascade of astonishing, life-altering breakthroughs across countless fields. Alternatively, if we succumb to the darker possibilities, we may face an unforeseen doom that could eclipse our wildest fears.

The world has much to look forward to. Still, today’s ideas must be honed with critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry to take advantage of tomorrow’s society clearly.

Science has made the most stunning achievements in my lifetime, and they are embraced, recognised and enjoyed by all sections of society. The Internet has opened up information dissemination, sharing previous and emerging knowledge.

As our capacity for learning advances, it will further bring into question the need for faith-based religion, which is still the reason for much of the world’s woes. The decline in religious belief in the more technologically advanced nations is demonstrable. (USA?)

And for conservatives, who are against change, or at least only support incremental change, the problem of rampant technological change confuses them if there isn’t any profit in it.

An essential factor in all this is our ability to ethically live with the rapid changes that will take place. Will we use the gifts of discovery to bring about equality and make a better world, or will new technologies simply advance greed, capitalism and corporatisation?

Unfortunately, our cognitive ability to intellectually understand the rationale for our technological ingenuity has not matched its progress. Trump sees no profit in it, so it’s dig dig, baby. But coal is cool. $$$.

Our moral landscape still occupies the darkness of war and revenge, and all our thinking on intellectual enlightenment and moral fairness has not advanced any understanding of our purpose in being or the reason for our existence.

I conclude, therefore, that conservatives are unsuited to govern in a time of rapid change.

My thoughts for the day

Change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making, with Its own inevitability.

Frankly, I think the acceptance and embracement of thoughtful change are key aspects of what we try to define as wisdom.

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969