Surely, I thought, no one would live a miserable life for fear of ramification if they attempted to change their situation. After all, the Founding Fathers pledged "to each other [their] Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" as they knew that their Lockean ideals were worth risking their lives for. Revolutionaries have done this time and time again, in Cuba, France, South America, Vietnam, and, most recently, in North Africa and the Middle East.
Finally, one example of a purely conservative country came to mind: North Korea. Even in theocracies such as Iran, there are dissenters; however, in North Korea, very little dissent is known. This may be due to the lack of information available in the country and abroad about the country, but it is clearly an example of conservatism. Ever since the end of the Korean War and the formation of a single party system under the Korean Workers' Party, the governmental structures and societal institutions have remained amazingly static, especially when compared to its neighbor, South Korea (AKA the good Korea).
In my opinion, the people of North Korea willingly submit to these ideologies because they have no access to the outside world and have essentially been brainwashed by state propaganda. While this is certainly an amazing feat, it is not one to be proud of. It concerns me that there are people in this country who also wish to align as "conservatives" because what has become of North Korea is terrifying...
"It concerns me that there are people in this country who also wish to align as "conservatives" because what has become of North Korea is terrifying..."
ReplyDeleteWhat...?
Clarify this statement please.
Mollie,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting post and I can understand what you mean by people being brainwashed in their own countries, More and Burke's writings being examples of this "state propaganda" you mentioned. However, I wish you would elaborate on why the people of North Korea are cut off from the outside world and what sort of ideologies are so terrifying? Also, I don't necessarily think that if there is no outward display of dissent, than there is no disagreement in a system. Often times, people are just too scared to voice their opinions for fear of being killed or tortured as we may observe in Syria today. I think it just takes people to stop fearing their government and be willing to lay their own lives on the line for freedom. At the same time, what you are proposing is totally possible in my opinion.
When she speaks of North Koreans being cut off from the outside world, she is correct in that citizens in the country are banned from accessing internet, television, radio and even literature from outside the boundaries of North Korea (except, I think, some material from neighboring ally China). The ideologies so terrifying to a liberty-loving Westerner like ourselves is that they threaten the peaceful liberal democracy to its south, properly named 'South Korea.' The government maintains a Machiavellian approach of fear, as you mention: its peoples cannot speak out against the government, less they face reprisals. And still, from what little access we have into the country, even starving residents of the country hailed their Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il (and now Kim Jong-un) as a near demi-god. They know no outside, like in Plato's cave, making sense of what they have and realizing that the little good in their life actually DOES derive from their leader (i.e. in the form of rationed food that they receive from the government).
DeleteIn response to Ryan questioning what Mollie meant by her last line, I agree that it comes off problematically/unclearly. I THINK she means to take a liberal view in that refusing to question the status quo, or in living in a society where citizens cannot openly question the means of their government, progress cannot occur. North Korea's government operates much like it did decades ago, transferring power between the powerful, maintaining a military state that treats its citizens brutally. The connection with an American sense of conservatism is much less dramatic, but keen nonetheless: should we not question our institutions, pushing them toward progress? The way one answers that question is of course very close to one's political beliefs and can only be answered by oneself.