I thought conservatives would know some history.

[catsittingstill]

I've been staying at my Dad's house over the holidays.  This exposes me to reading material I wouldn't ordinarily see, like the Wall Street Journal.  Reading the Wall Street Journal is a valuable reminder of why I generally don't.  For example there is this piece by David Horowitz.

The part that caught my eye was this:

"My life experience had led me to conclude that not only was changing the world an impossible dream,..."

Changing the world is an impossible dream.  This is apparently so well accepted by his conservative audience he doesn't even need to mention why he thinks so, he just tosses it off on the way to something else. 

Changing the world is an impossible dream.

Thomas Jefferson, Fredrick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King will be devastated to hear that.  John Snow, Louis Pasteur, Edwin Chadwick and Margaret Sanger will grieve over their wasted lives.  Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase; John Dalton and Antoine Lavoisier; Wilhelm Rontgen and Marie Curie, have not advanced human understanding one iota.  Henry Ford, Orville and Wilbur Wright, and Bill Gates have not changed one single thing about the world we live in.

Except, there was a time, not that long ago, actually, when slavery was an accepted fact, women were effectively owned by their male relatives, more than half of all people died before they turned ten, and nobody had the faintest idea why the sun came back in the morning. 

Changing the world is not just possible; changing the world is inevitable.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Ah. This sort of column is why us Brits avoid the Daily Mail, the Daily Express the Telegraph and The Times.

Great response.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Thanks

[gingicat]

Well said. May I link?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Certainly. Thank you. :-)

[gingicat]

Done. http://tigerbright.livejournal.com/1043125.html

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

How could he write that in a time of such great changes? In a century of such great change that even its radicals are overwhelmed by change? What happened to his life that he could write that and believe it?

Wow.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I understand how a writer could get carried away and write something silly like that. What I don't get is how nobody at the Wall Street Journal caught it before publication. Don't they have editors over there?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yes, they have editors. It is the editors' job to make sure that nothing which challenges the preconceived notions of the writers or of American "conservatives" in general makes it onto the page.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think computing has overall been bad for editing. When the whole text of an article had to be rekeyed and composed at considerable expense, publishers were more careful about what got through the process.

<croak>Or maybe Rupert Murdoch fired all the editors, sort of like killing all the lawyers.</croak>

[janeg.livejournal.com]

Very well put, Cat!

We are all changing the future every day - we might as well describe our dream and try to change the world towards that dream instead of aimlessly or hopelessly.

The main work I do is helping communities and community benefit organizations realize that, articulate their desired world, and plan to change the current conditions so that world can be achieved. We must believe that it is possible, or we will prove it isn't. This is also a major topic of conversation among my peers. Check out today's blog at http://hildygottlieb.com/; I am part of this community.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I have limited web access right now, but I will try to follow your link later.

We are all changing the future every day - we might as well describe our dream and try to change the world towards that dream instead of aimlessly or hopelessly.

Well put. We can't help but change the world, so it might be a good idea to keep an eye on what we are doing, and change it deliberately for the better instead of incidentally for whatever results from doing the most convenient thing.

Like the difference between driving a bulldozer, and driving a bulldozer blindfolded.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of a song:

What do they tell you is impossible now?
Maybe it's just that no one knows how
But someone will make the impossible true
And maybe - that someone may be YOU!
    -- "The Electric Sunshine Man"

(which is a play about a different Thomas... Mister Edison. Whose lab people tried about a bazillion different filaments before getting the light bulb to work...)

Would like to link, too.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Feel free.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

In junior high I did a book report on a biography of Edison, and there's a line attributed to him that I like to recall when I'm banging my head against a wall in frustration:
"Not made any progress? How can you say that? I now know one thousand ways NOT to make a light bulb!"

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-)

[gorgeousgary]

Excellent response! Worth a letter to the editor.

Also appears to be inspiring a song. Whether I can finish it in 9 days remains to be seen...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I am proud to think I might have inspired a song from you. I hope to hear it someday.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

A song. My thought exactly.

My first thought is something in the spirit of the one hsifyppah sings, where the tag line of the verse is "...and the crowd said, (name of person who changed history), you're crazy!"

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

This one (http://www.threeweirdsisters.com/lyrics_absbonk.htm)? Excellent song.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

That's it. Wow, I didn't know Brenda Sutton wrote that...

[billroper]

I read the column that you've linked to. It strikes me that you (and possibly others) have missed the point.

We can start with the tense of the sentence fragment that you quote: "had led" and "was". If the author still believed that, then the correct tense would be "has led" and "is".

And what is apparent to me, having read the column (and the subhead "Sarah understood that changing the world meant starting with our relationship") is that the author no longer believes that it is impossible to change the world, because of what he has learned from his late daughter.

As far as "changing the world", I think that the rest of the paragraph from which you draw the quote explains why he was hesitant about it -- because he was able to name at least two great movements that set out to "change the world" which led to great evil.

But perhaps the right way to look at it is this:

I see the list of people above. For the most part, I don't think any of them set out to change the world. They set out to change a thing or to do something.

And as a result, they changed the world.

But I don't believe that Henry Ford got out of bed and said "I'm going to change the world today". I think he got out of bed and said "I'm going to make a better automobile. And I'm going to make it affordable."

And the result is history.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Thomas Jefferson, Fredrick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King most certainly did set out to change the world--they were activists with large-scale goals. One of the goals of the practice of the scientific, engineering, and medical research disciplines is changing the world, though usually the changes are smaller than those made by Cat's list of greats.

By Regnery's summary of the book (nofollow link) Horowitz writing about his relationship with his daughter; he does not seem to have a had broader change of heart. "For if you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?"

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Supposing the author only meant that he *used to* think changing the world was an impossible dream but had since changed his mind, I'm still puzzled how anyone who knew the first thing about history would make that mistake in the first place. Even a cursory glance shows world has changed pretty drastically over the course of known history, and sometimes very fast. I didn't even start on a list of great conquerors, for example.

As far as "changing the world", I think that the rest of the paragraph from which you draw the quote explains why he was hesitant about it -- because he was able to name at least two great movements that set out to "change the world" which led to great evil.


If what the writer meant was "trying to change the world sometimes works out badly" I would have to agree--indeed the point borders on the trivial. However that concept is not clearly expressed by "Changing the world is an impossible dream." The concept "it is impossible to change the world" *is* clearly expressed by "Changing the world is an impossible dream." Hence my confusion.

While I agree that some of the people on my list changed the world without particularly setting out to do so, I'm pretty sure the five randwolf picked did it very much on purpose.

And even supposing that it was *only* possible to change the world without setting out to do so (supposing that is your point) it still disproves the idea that changing the world might be an impossible dream.

Indeed we get into the issue of whether it is even possible to *not* change the world as a result of living in it. My own belief is that any choice we make, including the choice to follow the easiest way, affects the world around us, and there are six billion of us, so those choices agreggate to make big changes. Under the circumstances, I think choosing the changes you make, as best you can, is a good idea. Like, as I put it elsewhere, driving a bulldozer; you might as well not drive it blindfolded.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think I hear the sound of six billion butterfly wings flapping.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

And it makes quite a roar.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

I had a lot more respect for and common ground with conservatives back when their spokespeople were cultured William F. Buckley types who did their homework and knew what they were talking about.

Seems to me, today's prominent conservatives take pride in ignorance, boorish culture, and offensive manners. They wear those things like a badge of honor in reaction to what they consider snooty ivory tower intellect, cultural elitism, political correctness. disagree with them and point out a scientific or historical fact in support of your view, and they tell you they don't care about no stupid book learning; their religion or their political principles or the guy on FOX tells them what the truth is. Then they call you an offensive name.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I would class David Horowitz among those conservatives. I got the impression (admittedly from a single opinion piece) that he was at least trying to be thoughtful and not insulting.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Gods, yes, where's that old cheshire beagle when you need him? I *miss* Buckley.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

(Pointed at this by tigerbright)

From a post at Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/) (a top-notch blog helmed by John Cole, who is an ex-wingnut specializing in pointed observations and excellent snark):

When you are dealing with the current GOP, you simply have to think of the most shamelessly cynical thing they could do or say, and realize that they will in fact do just that. They are completely unhindered by reality and show no allegiance to facts or recent history. They will say or do anything, they know they will not be held accountable by the media or their own party, and that the Democrats don’t have the balls to hit them head on. And when folks like Grayson do, our beltway betters get the vapors.

This is just the reality we have to deal with- one party is filled with shameless hypocritical liars who will do or say anything, they are aided by a lazy and corrupt media, and the other party must spend all their time reacting to yesterday’s bullshit charges while new ones are launched their way today. It is what it is.

I've given up on getting actual facts to back up right-wing arguments. Thank Ghu for the internet, on which we can (usually) fact-check their stuff pretty reliably.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I completely agree that there are conservatives/Republicans who behave this way. I just didn't have the impression that David Horowitz was one of them. The rest of the piece doesn't really read like it.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Horowitz (best known for his attacks on liberal teaching on college campuses, disguised as a campaign for "fairness") is one of the breed whose arguments are reasonable on the surface, but become less so with each inquiry. Here are several posts (of many) that show the outlines of this (and also have links to even more detailed analyses): 1 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003/09/get-out-your-handkerchiefs.html), 2 (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/is_that_david_horowitz_i_smell.php), and 3 (http://collegefreedom.blogspot.com/2009/03/one-party-analysis-reviewing-david.html)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm on dialup and it's near midnight so I only followed the first link, but I can see I may have to rethink my position on this.

[egoldberg.livejournal.com]

Our new mayor had a great comment at a sierra club volunteer party I was at, (he said it much more eloquently), "Our opponents think we're dreamers, that we're naive for the change we believe in -- but the real dreamers are the ones who believe that any status quo can be sustained in perpetuity."

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes this.

As anyone with any knowledge of history or prehistory should be well aware, one would think.

[bobg58.livejournal.com]

Actually.... I can't change the world... and you can't change the world. It's just too big.

But we can, through whatever means we have at our disposal, reach other people and convince them of our thoughts and ideas.... Then together, we can change the world.

[capplor.livejournal.com]

I have already helped change the world in small but effective ways. I anticipate a few more opportunities to do so to come my way in the coming years.

& I don't just mean the "pass it on" type of change. I don't intend the "every child is a hope for the future" sort of change, though goodness knows I've done those too. No I mean the "everybody's life is better for my having been there & done what I've done" type of change. & you can do it too.

Sometimes it happens because you just happened to be in the right place & know the right people, & sometimes it happens because it's an integral step towards a larger goal that you are part of a larger group working for an ideal. Either way, we can all do something to make the world a better place or we can fight the inevitable.

Just take a look at the world & say: "What does the world need, & what can I do about it?" and get busy.

[capplor.livejournal.com]

My apologies to Bobg58. I meant this to be part of the larger discussion.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think change is inevitable. That doesn't mean it will be *good* change--indeed if it is made without careful thought it's pretty likely to be bad change. Which is part of why I advocate working for change deliberately--changing stuff accidentally is generally unlikely to improve anything.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The world is big and we are small. But Fredrick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony were small too. We may not live to see the changes we work to bring about, but our work matters. Convincing other people to help change the world is a big part of how we change the world--it counts.

[durconnell.livejournal.com]

Changing the world is not just possible; changing the world is inevitable.

Yes, but...

Granted, the world changes and people are responsible for those changes. However, I think you are a trifle optimistic in assuming that anyone who tries to change the world will succeed. Each change marks where somebody succeeded, but there were a lot of failures along the way.

Two things are needed for people to change the world. The first is the determination to try. The second is a combination of luck and skill/thought. Think of world changing as a lottery. If you don't buy a ticket, you aren't trying and you can't win/change the world. However, trying is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. We remember all of those famous people who changed the world because they succeeded. We don't remember all the ones who tried and failed.

For example, you mentioned the Wright brothers. Yes, they changed the world and we all remember them for it. How many remember Samuel Langley? He was a contemporary of the Wrights and tried very hard to change the world too, but he didn't get the details right and now he is just a historical footnote.

Arguably for Horowitz, he hadn't had any success changing the world (his life experience) so he had stopped trying. Since he wasn't trying, it really was impossible for him to change the world. Being a conservative, he may also have another problem with world changing, because some of the changes sought by some conservatives really are impossible.

From the outside, it looks like a significant number of conservatives would like to change the world and move it back to a supposedly simpler and better time. Regardless of whether their view of the past is idealized or not (I'm sure it is, but it doesn't matter for this argument), they can't really accomplish their goals. Even if, for example, they tried to change US society so that it would recreate US social conditions circa the 1950s, it would be impossible. The society of the 50s functioned without positive knowledge that there are other ways of doing things. That knowledge now exists and can't be eliminated. No matter how much some conservatives would like to go back to the culture of the 50s, it can't be done. For just one example, women now make up half the US workforce. I can't begin to imagine how most women could be persuaded to not work and stay at home. Even if there was a way to do that, the country could not afford it. So even if the 50s really was a golden age (I am quite sure it wasn't, particularly if you weren't a white male) we can not go back to it. That particular change is an impossible dream (imho, a damned good thing too).

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

However, I think you are a trifle optimistic in assuming that anyone who tries to change the world will succeed.

I don't understand how I left you with that impression. I didn't actually point out in so many words that for every Fredrick Douglass there is a Spartacus and a John Brown, but if that's necessary, consider it done.

Two things are needed for people to change the world. The first is the determination to try.

Actually, I disagree. It is perfectly possible to change the world without the thought ever entering your head. Think air pollution. Think global warming. Think blood diamonds and sweatshops--supported by thousands of people who are just buying things they want at prices that seem reasonable. Just doing the easiest and most convenient thing sometimes works very, very well to change the world.

Just not usually in *good* ways.

And even if Horowitz had no luck changing the world himself, I don't understand why he had the impression that it was impossible--that no one else had ever done it. Could anyone in his position really be that ignorant? Does he really think the Classical Greeks had airplanes? Or is he just not bothering to think about what he knows?

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOl1LqyUL4Q

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. I'm on dialup right now but I'll try to follow it later.