Of last year, at least, at least, though I suspect we'll hear this theme riffed again and again in this new year. From Rick Santorum, whom I've tended to avoid because he's been an also-ran until some very recent polling (and who, the article suggests, isn't likely to do much beyond Iowa, assuming his "surge" is even accurate):
“Diversity creates conflict. If we celebrate diversity, we create conflict."
And that is the conservative mind-set in a nutshell (appropriately enough). Diversity creates conflict, and we want to avoid conflict (because that's all conflicty, not to mention kinda Marxist dialectical, but them's fancy Eastern Liberal words), so we want to avoid diversity, too. If everyone would just be Camazotzy tykes bouncing their balls and skipping their rope in perfect unison, then IT would love us again. Or something like this.
Diversity means conflict, and change, and recognizing that what we know isn't necessarily the only thing out there, indeed, might not even be the best thing out there. It means living with ambiguity and discovering new things and maybe trying Thai instead of Mexican instead of Meatloaf tonight.
Freedom is only important when you have diversity. When everyone thinks and acts the same, then freedom is an illusion. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Rick Santorum May Win Iowa — And Nowhere Else
Rick Santorum May Win Iowa — And Nowhere Else: The hot candidate learned the good news about his poll results from BuzzFeed last nigh…
Freedom is only important when you have diversity. When everyone thinks and acts the same, then freedom is an illusion
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think if you'll ask almost any Conservative (or anyone leaning that way), they'll say there's absolutely nothing wrong with diversity. The problem arises, in my view, when it becomes "diversity for diversity's sake" or "diversity at any cost".
Of course, some diversity (and conflict) they like. “My company wants to charge a different price (good diversity) so we can create competition (good conflict), and therefore I oppose governmental price regulations that would stifle competition (conflict).” And they certainly don’t seem to have a problem with the diversity of Christian sects (except for the ones that are a bit too diverse and don’t sufficiently hate and condemn the same things their chosen religions do). How would they feel about a government-sponsored official Christian sect to which all Americans must subscribe, thus eliminating religious diversity and therefore conflict (supposedly)? Sounds rather familiar, eh, what?
I’m sure they would welcome such a thing, but @Avo… with the assumption that would be their One True sect on top.
I think too many conservatives (of the authoritarian vs libertarian bent) associate diversity with dissent and disorder. They encourage diversity the point where it challenges the established order, at which point it's labeled anarchy and reckless change and chaos and must be suppressed. Plus, it's scary.
I would agree that "diversity at any cost" is problematic, since it's in its own way authoritarian. The question is, what obvious costs are worthwhile for the not-always-obvious benefits of increasing diversity?
Your comment reminds me of one of my favorite sketches by the Frantics: Heaven is for Presbyterians.
I see they aired a slightly different version on television.