People that think like that are truly surprised by the bin Ladens, but even more so by Taliban John. Slackers are always surprised when someone actually does something.

It is hard to organize against “losers”, if you want to unite reasonable conservatives and classical liberals and anyone else in the “not too far gone towards loserdom” camp. They quite rightly have more important things to do. Let the “losers” act, though, and the situation changes. As I said in another topic (speaking for only myself then), reasonable people don’t mind someone playing the fool, but we do mind them acting as a serious fool.

My reaction against the individualistic versus collectivist pair as being a single explanation does not mean that I don’t think that pair has meaning. It very much does. For one thing, I think crossing into loserdom is mainly an individual decision. The collective nature of the society you find yourself in can certainly make it easier or harder to cross that line. But when push comes to shove, it is a choice.

Optimist are less likely to be losers. But they can be. Pessimists are more likely to be losers, but many are not. Depends on what else you believe.

Steven,

Thanks for that. But I wonder, are losers really hard(er) to motivate? In business for sure. But in politics? Isnít it always easier to focus (if not literally organize many feet on the ground) the resentments of those who are against the system in one form or another, or against whatever conspirators they think are in power? But for those on ìthe rightî who support the free market system, it is always difficult to find political ground on which to stand (you have to oppose one or another aspect of the market as it works at present), while it is easy to organize with winners in business. Thus the tendency towards irresponsible ìcriticismî among our MSM and academics. Itís the easier political path.

On another note, since you see the importance of moments when we shift from being winners to losers, or vice versa, if we are historicizing westerners, we are going to tend to keep looking further back in the past for those moment when things first got started on this winning/losing direction of ours. Some will eventually want to hypothesize a first scene or event of human consciousness to understand the basis, in the first place, for charting winners and losers in human consciousness. And then, instead of simply charting the world of losers and winners on a straight line or circle, we will tend to see our struggles as simply the latest level in a house of cards, where todayís winners and losers are defined by countless games played underneath.

Are winners simply those who forget all that while losers dwell on the past? Or is optimism best served by a sense of tradition, of faith in the human struggle?

Are you sure? That is one thing that started me thinking along “loser” lines. One of the things that makes a “loser” is that they don’t see where all of this is headed. (Or do see it, but think they can avert it later.) Even when their side has some success, most of them get cut out. Thus they lose even when they win. If that doesn’t describe the left-wing in the West, I’m not sure what does. They realy do think that Ashcroft is a bigger threat to their liberty than bin Laden. And in an alternate reality where they had power, wouldn’t they be surprised?

And a “loser” is a non-rigourous definition precisely because exactly when you cross that bottom line can’t be explained solely by these other opposite pairs we have been throwing around. Earlier, I used the example of stoics and pre-Christian Norse as a people that were very much well into a loser camp, but not ultimately losers themselves. It’s hard to be that fatalistic and still will to accomplish something. Yet they did. And of course some did fail and despair. But many had enough positive aspects *in other ways* to carry on.

In like manner, you can have people pretty firmly in the barbaric camp or so “civilized” that they long ago became decadent. Yet, something positive about them refuses to sink any lower. Same thing is true of any of the pairs. It’s not that left/right is no longer relevant. Rather, left/right, like all these categories, simply is a way to identify the losers.

So I think there is a bottom line, but it varies by individual. We all know Jimmy Carter is a loser now, but when did it happen? I don’t know. Perhaps “malaise” was the moment. At what point did he care more about wallowing in his loser status than crossing that line back into sanity? (People being what they are, he still might cross back. Stranger things have happened.)

I think the idea that political thought is a circle instead of a line, where the wackos wrap around and meet, explains a lots. But I also think it obscures this idea that some people simply drop off the line altogether.

Hmm, that’s not really correct, either. I’m struggling for the image here. Think of the circle idea as a globe instead. It’s possible to navigate to the south pole (extreme wacko, for our purposes) in a lot of different ways. It’s also possible to get extremely lost on the way. And in the moral universe, gravity works a bit differently. So lost possibilities are even more numerous than sinking or freezing to death.

And I guess my idea has the defect that it is not really possible for all those in the “loser” camp to be losers. They need a few with enough positive mojo to drive the others. Losers are hard to motivate, after all. What distinguishes the loser camp from our side however are the theoretical possibilities for winners. It’s possible for *all* on our side to win. It’s theoretically possible that bin Laden or the French or the left could have an outcome that they prefer. It’s not even theoretically possible that more than a handful of them could share a win.

What do you think about nihilists vs. barbarians? If they are both losers, then can losers vs. not losers be the bottom or base line for our analysis, even if it remains acceptable for our not losers faith? (I’m not sure if you have a bottom line…)

Many western sympathizers with the terrorists are aptly called nihilist. But the terrorists themselves have a more certain faith in restoring the world to some kind of medieval umma ruled by sharia. The terrorists want us all to join the umma, hence become in their minds “not losers”. Sooner or later they will have to come to terms with their nihilist bed partners. It is just my perverse curiosity, but how do we read their differences?

I trailed off before I completed my thoughts in that previous post, never giving the “simple” conclusion: The breakdown is between “losers” and “not losers”–where a person fits into camp not so much on their actual achievement or merit but on their desires. If you really want to be in the “not losers” camp and wish the same for others, then you are. If you believe in “malaise” or the inability of any Arab to pursue democracy or that the “West” is in inevitable decline or that America can isolate itself, ad nauseum–then you might be a “loser”.

It is frequently stated in the negative way. For example, Jimmy Carter and bin Laden are defacto allies on some fronts, however much it may annoy both of them that it is so. The positives tend to get stated only one direction. For example, the Iraqis want a free Iraq, we want a free U.S., and the U.S. wants a free Iraq. What is seldom said is that the Iraqs want a free U.S. It is this last bit, as much as their own self interest, that puts the Iraq people in the “not loser” camp.

I really don’t care about someone’s ideological slant–I’ve known menschs and ghouls on both sides of the aisle. More impressive, to me anyway, are things like fairness, subtlety, the willingness to express doubts and second thoughts, integrity, and willingness to listen to unpopular or out-of-fashion points of view–what used to be called character.

Times of great stress tend to bring the baying ideologues to the ramparts in large numbers–as in Yeats’s great lines, “The best lack all conviction / While the worst are full of passionate intensity.” God save us all from the ill effects of passionate intensity unconstrained by reason or a sense of the inherent value of the individual.

This comment is not worthy of the ongoing discussion but I have pondered what it is the “progressives” want to progress towards. My initial examinations suggest that what they want to achieve, what they view as progress, is movement toward getting the US closer to the European model of the welfare state. I may be way off base but I judge the progressives to be the “Third Way”, Clintonist wing of the “left”.

I believe it was Socalgal in another thread who noted that “some people just want to be taken care of.” Those are the progressives. They just want economic anxiety and uncertainy removed from their lives – they view the purpose of government as guaranteeing their jobs, mortgage or rent, payment of medical and tuition bills, and retirement income; no more, no less.

I need to exercise more care in expressing my thoughts. I don’t believe that neo-caon suffer from lack of faith, I think they lack a codification of beliefs. There is no credo, that I am aware of anyway, from which one might enumerate a set of principles that would constitute the inalterable foundation of neo-conservatism. Strauss himself was a bit enigmatic concerning pragmatism and his writing (and ideas) evolved considerably over time – much like Hayek in that respect.

I do concur with you regarding secular Jews ability to adopt a Jewish ethical praxis without embracing the ritual. The same can be said for Christians without a church. It is a difficult thing to do without the reinforcement of the faith community but it is not impossible.

I think that Steven got closer to where I wished to go than I did. I’ll swap one Roman stoic for a legion of nihilists any day of the week.

Regarding the left-right discussion, one of the things that currently gets a chuckle out of me every time I see a reference is the increasing use of the term “progressive.” Progressing towards what? Progressives’ core values are firmly rooted in a failed past. If liberals think that their label has been tainted so badly that they need a new one, I’m not too sure going for “progressive” is a prudent choice.