why i could never be a conservative
May. 1st, 2013 02:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stormsewerI really shouldn't be taking the time to do this right now, but I just read an article that struck me. It's called "Why I Could Never Be a Liberal" by Matt Lewis. I was really interested to read it, hoping to find a reasoned defense of views I don't necessarily hold. I was disappointed. WARNING/APOLOGY: This is about to get political.
He starts by talking about how he's loudly attempted to get the Republican party to support immigration reform, because, given the writing on the wall, the party is clearly in trouble if they don't. So far so good. But then he goes into the reasons he could never be a liberal, and here's where the head-scratching starts. He starts off with this:
"Melissa Harris-Perry, for instance, recently revealed a terrifying tenet of the Left, which says our children belong to the collective, not to parents or families."
WTF? This is so stupid I feel like it doesn't even deserve responding to, but since many on the right apparently believe stuff like this, I guess I need to. There is no such "tenet" of the American left. The actual quote Lewis reinterpreted this way says "we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities." Note it does not say that children DON'T belong to their families, for starters, and if we turn down our paranoia for a moment it is obvious that what this means is that families belong to a broader society and that society thus has an interest in how children turn out. This is obvious, right? Is this really controversial? Admittedly the quote was poorly phrased for purposes of evading right-wing paranoia, but no one is saying we should take everyone's children away and raise them in gulags or whatever, okay? The American Left would not exist if they were.
He points to people on the American left bemoaning the death of Hugo Chavez. First off, I agree that anyone who favors Chavez is crazy, but secondly I promise you that it is a pretty small minority of self-styled American liberals that like that guy. As for cheering the death of Margaret Thatcher... Sure, a fair number did that. Cheering the death of a major opponent may be in bad taste, but it's behavior hardly unique to the left. The situation with Jay-Z and Beyonce visiting Cuba is one I don't know enough to comment on, but I'm unclear why visiting it should be such a terrible thing. Cuba being opened up to outside influence could easily be seen as a good thing. All in all I have to give a big shrug in response to these arguments. Here is one that gets closer to the real issue:
"I am repelled by the Left's worldview, which implicitly argues that morality is subjective."
Yeah, actually, I would be willing to argue that explicitly. Even if there is a God up there laying down definite morality from on high, it is obvious that in practice there are widely varying interpretations of what that morality is, depending on who or what you think is qualified to speak for God. To say that morality is not subjective is basically to say, then, that whatever YOU think is moral is objective truth, and is not open to discussion. This kind of thinking has stood in the way of breaking free of monarchy, ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, and many other things I for one am quite happy we succeeded in doing. There can be no progress if we aren't open to the idea that our understanding of morality is fallible and should be subject to revision as necessary. But conservatives, pretty much by definition, have never been particularly interested in progress.
"When there are no moral absolutes, we make policy decisions based on efficiency instead of compassion. Or we make decisions based on our own individualistic needs, not on what is right or good. Historically, this worldview has led to all sorts of horrific outcomes."
Pardon my French, but LOL. Making decisions based on efficiency instead of compassion? Based on our own individualistic needs rather than on what is right or good? These are charges much less frequently leveled against "bleeding heart" liberals than at conservative politicians looking to cut services for the less-fortunate and make things easier for corporations, which essentially by law must place more importance on turning a profit than on any other concern. Objectivists say that making decisions based on our own individual needs, on what is efficient for ourselves rather than compassionate for others, IS what is right and good. Now tell me, which of the two parties in this country, the conservative or the liberal, can claim the most adherents of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy as members?
Here's what abandoning moral absolutes really leads to: discussion. You have to talk about it, decide together what your goals as a society are, then actually observe the evidence concerning what works to help you get there, change your views according to the evidence, and continue to iterate as new evidence comes to light. Is that so bad?
"The alleged horrific murders committed by abortionist Kermit Gosnell serve as a prime example. The lack of coverage by the liberal-leaning mainstream media, coupled with the absurd argument that Gosnell's alleged crimes happened because abortion isn't available enough, only go to demonstrate that the hard Left is out of touch with American values — even as American values have shifted."
I'm not familiar with these alleged crimes, but even if that is because of a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep me ignorant, surely you must admit that there has been no shortage of anti-abortionists killing people, accompanied by claims that such crimes only happened because abortion was overly available. I'd daresay that's the more common case, in fact. Lewis is again pointing out motes in the opponent's eye. Contrary to what true-believers on both sides would like to think, being a psychopath does not limit your choice of political affiliations.
That last line there is pretty funny, as well: "The hard Left is out of touch with American values — even as American values have shifted."
Yes, American values have shifted, but it ain't toward the right. Look at trends in church attendance, attitudes towards gay marriage, or the racial makeup of the country. Which party, exactly, is more out of touch with those trends?
Though it came first, I'll discuss this quote last because it sums up his argument:
"In the unlikely event either side were to obtain carte blanche authority — the Left scares me more than the Right."
Conservatives do scare easily, and certainly this one's attitudes as presented here seem to be based primarily on fear of what the other side might be thinking (rather than what they actually ARE thinking). My guess is that this relates to the question of "moral absolutes," since people who believe in them often can't seem to conceive of anything resembling morality without them. By that thinking, those who don't believe in moral absolutes must be amoral, and it is then quasi-reasonable to assume all kinds of crazy things about what they secretly think and desire.
But I have to think conservatives are often worried about the wrong things. The fact is, when groups in power go far enough to the extreme right or extreme left, they tend to meet around the other side. And where they meet is in saying "there is only one right way, and that is our way, and anyone who thinks differently must therefore be re-educated or liquidated." This is the kind of thinking we need to worry about, whether it comes in the guise of the USSR or the Taliban. It's not limited to left or right politics. In theory, at least, the right focuses on keeping the government from gaining the power to make such statements, and the left focuses on keeping corporations and religious institutions from gaining such power. In that respect both sides are doing valuable work for us.
But I think it's the American right that is more likely to appeal to authority and speak in absolutes, and that's why I personally would worry more about them gaining (or attempting to gain) absolute authority than the American left. I think the likes of George W. Bush and Rick Santorum would transform into the Christian Taliban much faster than the likes of Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich would transform into Stalin. That might just be my left-wing paranoia, but I think one thing we should all agree on is that no one should get absolute authority, regardless of what their ideas are, and no one should get off the hook for trying to strip us of our ability to keep them on it.
He starts by talking about how he's loudly attempted to get the Republican party to support immigration reform, because, given the writing on the wall, the party is clearly in trouble if they don't. So far so good. But then he goes into the reasons he could never be a liberal, and here's where the head-scratching starts. He starts off with this:
"Melissa Harris-Perry, for instance, recently revealed a terrifying tenet of the Left, which says our children belong to the collective, not to parents or families."
WTF? This is so stupid I feel like it doesn't even deserve responding to, but since many on the right apparently believe stuff like this, I guess I need to. There is no such "tenet" of the American left. The actual quote Lewis reinterpreted this way says "we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities." Note it does not say that children DON'T belong to their families, for starters, and if we turn down our paranoia for a moment it is obvious that what this means is that families belong to a broader society and that society thus has an interest in how children turn out. This is obvious, right? Is this really controversial? Admittedly the quote was poorly phrased for purposes of evading right-wing paranoia, but no one is saying we should take everyone's children away and raise them in gulags or whatever, okay? The American Left would not exist if they were.
He points to people on the American left bemoaning the death of Hugo Chavez. First off, I agree that anyone who favors Chavez is crazy, but secondly I promise you that it is a pretty small minority of self-styled American liberals that like that guy. As for cheering the death of Margaret Thatcher... Sure, a fair number did that. Cheering the death of a major opponent may be in bad taste, but it's behavior hardly unique to the left. The situation with Jay-Z and Beyonce visiting Cuba is one I don't know enough to comment on, but I'm unclear why visiting it should be such a terrible thing. Cuba being opened up to outside influence could easily be seen as a good thing. All in all I have to give a big shrug in response to these arguments. Here is one that gets closer to the real issue:
"I am repelled by the Left's worldview, which implicitly argues that morality is subjective."
Yeah, actually, I would be willing to argue that explicitly. Even if there is a God up there laying down definite morality from on high, it is obvious that in practice there are widely varying interpretations of what that morality is, depending on who or what you think is qualified to speak for God. To say that morality is not subjective is basically to say, then, that whatever YOU think is moral is objective truth, and is not open to discussion. This kind of thinking has stood in the way of breaking free of monarchy, ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, and many other things I for one am quite happy we succeeded in doing. There can be no progress if we aren't open to the idea that our understanding of morality is fallible and should be subject to revision as necessary. But conservatives, pretty much by definition, have never been particularly interested in progress.
"When there are no moral absolutes, we make policy decisions based on efficiency instead of compassion. Or we make decisions based on our own individualistic needs, not on what is right or good. Historically, this worldview has led to all sorts of horrific outcomes."
Pardon my French, but LOL. Making decisions based on efficiency instead of compassion? Based on our own individualistic needs rather than on what is right or good? These are charges much less frequently leveled against "bleeding heart" liberals than at conservative politicians looking to cut services for the less-fortunate and make things easier for corporations, which essentially by law must place more importance on turning a profit than on any other concern. Objectivists say that making decisions based on our own individual needs, on what is efficient for ourselves rather than compassionate for others, IS what is right and good. Now tell me, which of the two parties in this country, the conservative or the liberal, can claim the most adherents of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy as members?
Here's what abandoning moral absolutes really leads to: discussion. You have to talk about it, decide together what your goals as a society are, then actually observe the evidence concerning what works to help you get there, change your views according to the evidence, and continue to iterate as new evidence comes to light. Is that so bad?
"The alleged horrific murders committed by abortionist Kermit Gosnell serve as a prime example. The lack of coverage by the liberal-leaning mainstream media, coupled with the absurd argument that Gosnell's alleged crimes happened because abortion isn't available enough, only go to demonstrate that the hard Left is out of touch with American values — even as American values have shifted."
I'm not familiar with these alleged crimes, but even if that is because of a vast left-wing conspiracy to keep me ignorant, surely you must admit that there has been no shortage of anti-abortionists killing people, accompanied by claims that such crimes only happened because abortion was overly available. I'd daresay that's the more common case, in fact. Lewis is again pointing out motes in the opponent's eye. Contrary to what true-believers on both sides would like to think, being a psychopath does not limit your choice of political affiliations.
That last line there is pretty funny, as well: "The hard Left is out of touch with American values — even as American values have shifted."
Yes, American values have shifted, but it ain't toward the right. Look at trends in church attendance, attitudes towards gay marriage, or the racial makeup of the country. Which party, exactly, is more out of touch with those trends?
Though it came first, I'll discuss this quote last because it sums up his argument:
"In the unlikely event either side were to obtain carte blanche authority — the Left scares me more than the Right."
Conservatives do scare easily, and certainly this one's attitudes as presented here seem to be based primarily on fear of what the other side might be thinking (rather than what they actually ARE thinking). My guess is that this relates to the question of "moral absolutes," since people who believe in them often can't seem to conceive of anything resembling morality without them. By that thinking, those who don't believe in moral absolutes must be amoral, and it is then quasi-reasonable to assume all kinds of crazy things about what they secretly think and desire.
But I have to think conservatives are often worried about the wrong things. The fact is, when groups in power go far enough to the extreme right or extreme left, they tend to meet around the other side. And where they meet is in saying "there is only one right way, and that is our way, and anyone who thinks differently must therefore be re-educated or liquidated." This is the kind of thinking we need to worry about, whether it comes in the guise of the USSR or the Taliban. It's not limited to left or right politics. In theory, at least, the right focuses on keeping the government from gaining the power to make such statements, and the left focuses on keeping corporations and religious institutions from gaining such power. In that respect both sides are doing valuable work for us.
But I think it's the American right that is more likely to appeal to authority and speak in absolutes, and that's why I personally would worry more about them gaining (or attempting to gain) absolute authority than the American left. I think the likes of George W. Bush and Rick Santorum would transform into the Christian Taliban much faster than the likes of Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich would transform into Stalin. That might just be my left-wing paranoia, but I think one thing we should all agree on is that no one should get absolute authority, regardless of what their ideas are, and no one should get off the hook for trying to strip us of our ability to keep them on it.
