Tuesday, December 28, 2004
For a long time, I've been arguing that a basic distinction lies at the heart of the split between Conservatives and Liberals. Reading the New York Times today, I see I've finally got some company.
Fundamentally, a liberal looks at the world and sees a collection of problems and solutions. Government, in its various forms, is a complex set of solutions to problems encountered by society. As humanity advances, and as our best and brightest come up with new ideas and improved methods, more problems can be solved, and more happiness and prosperity will result for mankind.
Conservatives, on the other hand, come at the world from an entirely different perspective. Conservatives are committed to the idea that no matter how much progress is made, or how much suffering is alleviated, the world will always remain inherently unfair, ill-functioning, and Hobbesian, because the world is populated by humans, and humans are an evil, untrustworthy, irredeemable lot. Thus, the systems they create to moderate the brutishness of the world are doomed to be subverted, and cannot provide the protection that they promise.
It's easy to see how compatible conservative philosophy is with Evangelical Christian teachings in particular. The belief that man is Fallen, depraved, and incapable of being worthy of redemption means that all men are suspect, and that the work of their hands is doomed to failure. This sad state of affairs, in which emnity exists between God and Man as a result of Adam's Original Sin, can be remedied only through faith in Jesus. Notably, Evangelical denominations emphasize the importance of faith - of accepting Jesus into your heart - rather than the performace of good deeds (also known in ecumenical circles as 'works'). One who has faith in Jesus will be saved, and live a life eternal.
Perhaps unexpectedly, the major implication of the Conservative position is that the most important question to answer in any given situation is one phrased around the issue of trust. Before asking whether someone has a good idea, you need to know if he's a good person. After all, Conservatives don't believe in the power of good ideas, they believe in the power of good individuals. That's why President Clinton was so reviled by Conservatives - they saw him as nothing more than a facade. Though immoral by traditional and Biblical standards, Clinton presided over an 8-year era of tranquility, prosperity, and economic vigor that has had no equal in the history of humankind. The only way that this set of facts fits into the conservative rubric is if, in fact, Clinton was fiddling while Rome was about to burn. The disaster of 9/11 proved them right, at least in their own minds. Clinton had indeed spent eight years pissing about, ignroing the festering problems of the Middle East, and leaving his successor to deal with an ever more dangerous world. It was particularly galling to conservatives because Bush I was unceremoniously voted out of office even as he was dealing with Saddam Hussein. Certainly, if Bush I had won a second term, conservatives believe that there never would have been a 9/11.
This doublethink infects much conservative thinking. Those who are 'good people' must be succeeding, or at the very least, doing the best possible job. We see this rhetoric in various places. Donald Rumsfeld, for example, has not been incompetent - the only mistakes he's made have been honest mistakes, those that any other person in his position would have made. In other words, Rumsfeld can't ahve made a mistake, because he's a good man. His performance must just be the best that a person can expect - the best possible world. IT's unfortunate that the best possible world isn't better than this, but that's not Rumsfeld's fault - the world is a bad place, filled with bad people.
A conservative is naturally concerned with blame. Systems should reward those who do good, and punish those who do evil. Additional complexity is not helpful, it jsut serves to obscure this essential truth. Moreover, explaining things on more levels than just personal responsibility can only be viewed as an attempt at justifiying bad behavior. For instance, the insight that most sex offenders were abused as children is decried by conservatives as merely an excuse for their behavior. To liberals, this fact is as an indication that the justice system is not the best-equipped ssytem for dealing with the problem of sex offenders in society. But conservatives, with their focus on trustworthiness and personal responsibility, are unwilling to consider solutions that do not rest on bolstering personal discipline and responsibility.
As liberals, we can confront the Conservative establishment on its own terms, by showing that it is in fact corrupt, and staffed by men who are not good men. But more importantly, we must ask the American public a key question: Is this really as good as it gets? As liberals, we often don't think about that question, because we assume that we can improve the world. But to a conservative, the goal of government is getting to a point in which, basically, things are about as good as they are going to get, and then maintaining the status quo. So go out there, and ask "is this really as good as it gets?" And when the answer is no, ask who we should blame.
1 comments
Fundamentally, a liberal looks at the world and sees a collection of problems and solutions. Government, in its various forms, is a complex set of solutions to problems encountered by society. As humanity advances, and as our best and brightest come up with new ideas and improved methods, more problems can be solved, and more happiness and prosperity will result for mankind.
Conservatives, on the other hand, come at the world from an entirely different perspective. Conservatives are committed to the idea that no matter how much progress is made, or how much suffering is alleviated, the world will always remain inherently unfair, ill-functioning, and Hobbesian, because the world is populated by humans, and humans are an evil, untrustworthy, irredeemable lot. Thus, the systems they create to moderate the brutishness of the world are doomed to be subverted, and cannot provide the protection that they promise.
It's easy to see how compatible conservative philosophy is with Evangelical Christian teachings in particular. The belief that man is Fallen, depraved, and incapable of being worthy of redemption means that all men are suspect, and that the work of their hands is doomed to failure. This sad state of affairs, in which emnity exists between God and Man as a result of Adam's Original Sin, can be remedied only through faith in Jesus. Notably, Evangelical denominations emphasize the importance of faith - of accepting Jesus into your heart - rather than the performace of good deeds (also known in ecumenical circles as 'works'). One who has faith in Jesus will be saved, and live a life eternal.
Perhaps unexpectedly, the major implication of the Conservative position is that the most important question to answer in any given situation is one phrased around the issue of trust. Before asking whether someone has a good idea, you need to know if he's a good person. After all, Conservatives don't believe in the power of good ideas, they believe in the power of good individuals. That's why President Clinton was so reviled by Conservatives - they saw him as nothing more than a facade. Though immoral by traditional and Biblical standards, Clinton presided over an 8-year era of tranquility, prosperity, and economic vigor that has had no equal in the history of humankind. The only way that this set of facts fits into the conservative rubric is if, in fact, Clinton was fiddling while Rome was about to burn. The disaster of 9/11 proved them right, at least in their own minds. Clinton had indeed spent eight years pissing about, ignroing the festering problems of the Middle East, and leaving his successor to deal with an ever more dangerous world. It was particularly galling to conservatives because Bush I was unceremoniously voted out of office even as he was dealing with Saddam Hussein. Certainly, if Bush I had won a second term, conservatives believe that there never would have been a 9/11.
This doublethink infects much conservative thinking. Those who are 'good people' must be succeeding, or at the very least, doing the best possible job. We see this rhetoric in various places. Donald Rumsfeld, for example, has not been incompetent - the only mistakes he's made have been honest mistakes, those that any other person in his position would have made. In other words, Rumsfeld can't ahve made a mistake, because he's a good man. His performance must just be the best that a person can expect - the best possible world. IT's unfortunate that the best possible world isn't better than this, but that's not Rumsfeld's fault - the world is a bad place, filled with bad people.
A conservative is naturally concerned with blame. Systems should reward those who do good, and punish those who do evil. Additional complexity is not helpful, it jsut serves to obscure this essential truth. Moreover, explaining things on more levels than just personal responsibility can only be viewed as an attempt at justifiying bad behavior. For instance, the insight that most sex offenders were abused as children is decried by conservatives as merely an excuse for their behavior. To liberals, this fact is as an indication that the justice system is not the best-equipped ssytem for dealing with the problem of sex offenders in society. But conservatives, with their focus on trustworthiness and personal responsibility, are unwilling to consider solutions that do not rest on bolstering personal discipline and responsibility.
As liberals, we can confront the Conservative establishment on its own terms, by showing that it is in fact corrupt, and staffed by men who are not good men. But more importantly, we must ask the American public a key question: Is this really as good as it gets? As liberals, we often don't think about that question, because we assume that we can improve the world. But to a conservative, the goal of government is getting to a point in which, basically, things are about as good as they are going to get, and then maintaining the status quo. So go out there, and ask "is this really as good as it gets?" And when the answer is no, ask who we should blame.
Comments:
I think I agree with you that Conservatives have found an approach that is non-ideological with respect to expanding their appeal. The old Conservative mantra is that if you work hard and pay your dues, you will succeed, and that this adage is what America is all about. If you weren't doing well, it wasn't because of racism, or poverty, and the like. Those were just excuses for those who were lazy. This approach was succesful particularly among those who were economically well-off. In order to spread more deeply into the middle and lower middle class, Republicans took a new approach.
The new approach was basically a massive bribe. The Republicans came along and said to the electorate: 'You are hard-working, good-hearted Americans. You should be doing well. If you're not doing well, it's because someone is stealing your money from you. So here's a big tax break. But folded into this massive bribe is also a message. If you vote Republican, then you're a real American, the kind who works hard, and overcomes problems. Once the government stops stepping on your neck, you'll be able to achieve paradise. If you keep your money, you'll be able to spend it on what you want. The economy will improve, because you'll have more money to spend. All the people who fall behind in such a system ae the lazy ones who don't want to work hard. But you're not one of those, are you?'
This approach has basically turned all Americans into victims - victims of the New Deal. And that's the great irony. Conservatism is generally only attractive to those who have, not those who need. What Conservatives are syaing to people now is that if they have a lack, they don't need help from the government, they need the government to stop hurting them. Basically, Conservatives are winning the bet that a little more than 50% of the country is willing to believe that their success, even their limited success, is primarily the result of their own achievenments and the work of their hands, and that government should stop constraining them from achieving a slightly better life. That slightly better life is as high as they feel a need to hope for - that world would be be as good as it gets.
It's a pyramid scheme, of course. If you create a system in which it is easier and more rewarding to concentrate money, there can be little doubt that money wil be concentrated. If the rich get richer, it seems inevitable that everyone else will get poorer. The only way that won't happen is if there is an unprecedented and continuous expansion of the American economy. Such a result is unlikely, or at least an irresponsible assumption on which to base national policy, but it is the underlying assumption to support the tax, social security and other fiscal policies of the current administration.
Post a Comment
The new approach was basically a massive bribe. The Republicans came along and said to the electorate: 'You are hard-working, good-hearted Americans. You should be doing well. If you're not doing well, it's because someone is stealing your money from you. So here's a big tax break. But folded into this massive bribe is also a message. If you vote Republican, then you're a real American, the kind who works hard, and overcomes problems. Once the government stops stepping on your neck, you'll be able to achieve paradise. If you keep your money, you'll be able to spend it on what you want. The economy will improve, because you'll have more money to spend. All the people who fall behind in such a system ae the lazy ones who don't want to work hard. But you're not one of those, are you?'
This approach has basically turned all Americans into victims - victims of the New Deal. And that's the great irony. Conservatism is generally only attractive to those who have, not those who need. What Conservatives are syaing to people now is that if they have a lack, they don't need help from the government, they need the government to stop hurting them. Basically, Conservatives are winning the bet that a little more than 50% of the country is willing to believe that their success, even their limited success, is primarily the result of their own achievenments and the work of their hands, and that government should stop constraining them from achieving a slightly better life. That slightly better life is as high as they feel a need to hope for - that world would be be as good as it gets.
It's a pyramid scheme, of course. If you create a system in which it is easier and more rewarding to concentrate money, there can be little doubt that money wil be concentrated. If the rich get richer, it seems inevitable that everyone else will get poorer. The only way that won't happen is if there is an unprecedented and continuous expansion of the American economy. Such a result is unlikely, or at least an irresponsible assumption on which to base national policy, but it is the underlying assumption to support the tax, social security and other fiscal policies of the current administration.
