Conservatism

Great Debates
1

Lissener has asked for a thread on conservatism, so here it is.

Lissener has maintained that Conservatism is obviously flawed, full of holes, dishonest, selfish, and that he sees objective truth.

This is the place where he can demonstrate it.
My position is that Lissener’s stance if founded on ignorance and prejudice if not outright bigotry.

Because of this, I think it’s fair that the following two ground rules be followed. I would ask that those that do not approve of these groundrules start their own thread, but I beleive that they are very reasonable.

  1. I do not expect to be told what a conservative is, what I believe, or what I think.

  2. I expect that I will be quoted and that responses will derive from the actual words and ideas that I communicate rather than ideas and words that are attributed to me.

I will endeavor to return the favors that I ask, and I will not respond to the substance of false attributions other than to identify them as such.

I suspect that the best format would be for Lissener or any other person simply to ask me questions about conservatism. If it is what he says it is, and it does have obvious holes and flaws, it shouldn’t be too much difficulty to lead me to them.

I recognize in such a format that I must use good faith and not try to hide from questions but must address them fully.

In order to give some meat at the outset of this debate, I will briefly describe some of the more commonly agreed upon conservative principles.

Hopefully this will be a good starting point.

The fundamental operating principle of conservatism is that we live in an evolved society. It has become the way it is for reasons that should be respected, even and especially if they are not readily apparent.

We are optimists in that we beleive things are good in general, that we are advanced and evolving as a society. These advances and good things should be protected.

We are pessimists in that we do not beleive society will be improved by dramatic redesign or tampering. Society is more complicated than we can allow for in our attempts to design and alter it. The fine balance will be disturbed. Trying to redesign society through government activism is like trying to build a car with just some iron ore and a sledgehammer.

We are also pessismists in that we have a great overriding fear that pertains to tampering. This fear is called the law of unintended consequences.

The law of unintended consequences means that things are intrinsically and fundamentally interdependant and interrelated. If you tamper with one part of a system, you produce changes throughout the entire system.

If you ever tried to fix something that wasn’t working perfectly and then really fucked it up and broke it, you understand the law of unintended consequences.

I’ll give you another example. There is a lot of pricker bush on a corner of my property. This spring I went to a lot of effort to clear it out, and I succeeded.

The law of unintended consequences bit me in the ass though. That brush was seperating my property from my neighbors’ neglected field of blue thistles. The brush was a cover through which the blue thistles could not penetrate.

Though I seeded the land I cleared with grass seed this was as nothing to the blue thistles that choked it out and have spread and made significant inroads into my property.

In seeking to improve things by removing the brush I have made matters worse because I did not fully understand the relationships at work.

Such is the law of unintended consequences.

The housing projects of the 60s and the 70s might be another example of the law of unintended consequences excacerbating a problem they were meant to correct.

A conservative believes that the law of unintended consequences reveals itself with depressing regularity upon the works of the foolish and well-meaning.

Being well-meaning, or desiring improvements is not enough to justify a call of action. If one is going to act one has the responsibilty to be sure that the actions will be worthwhile and desirable. There is no excuse for the atrocities committed with good intentions.

Because of this the default position must always be to preserve and protect the status quo.

After all, we do not wish to make things worse.

Some may interpret this as an excuse, or lack of caring. Surely for some people this is all it is.

This is hardly an indictment against the principles of conservatism though.

Surely some people attend peace rallies for the fun of it and so they can hook up with hot activist chicks.

The fact that some people use their political stance as an excuse does not invalidate the stance. There are hypocrites everywhere.

Though preservation of what is good is a goal conservatives recognize the need for government and activism where necessary. The stress is on the “where necessary.”

We beleive that the government does not do a better job running people’s lives or taking care of them as a rule, than those people can do for themselves.

We believe in furthering the twin concepts of self-reliance and personal responsibility.

The government is a large blunt tool. It is a sledgehammer. It does not work for making fine adjustments.

By its very nature the government cannot give society anything it doesn’t already have.

2

Duplicate post, but I won’t be able to check in again till tomorrow.
Needless to say, this is all strictly about the view from my treetop; YMM, of course, V.

I’m unable, for whatever emotionally immature reason, to divorce my political feelings completely from my personal feelings. I simply cannot fathom, for example, how James Carville and Mary Matalin could possibly make a marriage work.

I’ve been observing the world around me and drawing my own conclusions from that observation for forty years. The objective truth seems so very obvious to me that I am simply unable to understand how anyone can observe the same universe and be a conservative; it simply does not add up.

In addition, I have never been convinced by any conservative argument I have ever heard: each one seems more full of holes than the last one, and the holes are so freakin obvious, that the only way (my thinking goes) that someone can NOT see the holes is to REFUSE to see the holes, which of course is a form of dishonesty.

The nature of the world we live in, and the people who live in it, and the absolute necessity of our inextricably interwoven responsibility and mutual support seem to me like such crystal clear givens that I simply cannot see any honest way to ignore the truth of them.

Conservatives (so my thinking goes) have more motive to be dishonest: all their rationalizations and justifications are self motivated. You might call it a conflict of interest: the chief beneficiary of a conservative’s politics is himself. While a liberal’s energies seem, to my understanding, to be focused outward, on the community. A liberal’s philosophy is, “Work toward making the community a better place to live, and it follows necessarily that the individuals who make up that community will all mutually benefit from that happiness.” A conservative, to my mind, wants to skip the first step; “Screw the community, make ME fat and happy and—trust me on this—the rest will follow.”

This so patently does not work, as has been demonstrated (to me at any rate) time after time after time, that I cannot grasp that anyone could honestly buy it.

And yes, this is guilt by association, but O’Reilly’s a liar, Coulter’s a liar, Limbaugh’s a liar, George W.’s a liar, Gingrich is a liar, Reagan was a liar, and on and on and on. (And yes, Clinton lied about his personal life, but I’m talking about people who lie about wars and poverty and drugs and money and oil and genocide and on and on and on; I’ll take an adulterer over a demagogue any day.)

I don’t take those people as the cause for my beliefs, but as supporting documentation after the fact.

And no, Scylla, I am not being a bigot. We’ve gone over this before. If you define a group of people by an arbitrary characteristic like skin color, and then say they all share a common belief or behavior, that’s bigotry. But if you define a group by certain behavior or choice, and then address that behavior or choice, that is not bigotry. I am focusing on behaviors and choices, not arbitrary categorizations. And I am addressing the specific behaviors and choices by which I define that group, not categorizing by one behavior and then painting the whole group with a different brush.

And besides, you know perfectly well that generalization is not in and of itself evil; it’s just often misused (more often than not, probably), in the service of bigotry. Here are some contrasting generalizations, as an exercise.
[ul]Bigotry: Gay people are promiscuous.
Not bigotry: Gay people are attracted to members of their own gender.
Bigotry: Conservatives eat their children.
Not bigotry (but certainly an opinion and subject to debate): Conservatives subscribe to a belief system that causes more harm than good.
Bigotry: African Americans watch too much TV.
Not bigotry: African Americans tend to have a higher concentration of melanin in their skin than most people of European descent.
[/ul]To me, the difference in the examples above falls along the honest/dishonest divide: bigotry is a dishonest generalization.*

So, to summarize for now, I have never heard a conservative argument that has sounded convincing, but—here’s the rub—I’ve heard them from people who seem smart enough to know better, so I must conclude (you’d say erroneously; fine) that there is some dishonesty at play. And since the outcome of any philosophy put forth by a conservative will likely benefit himself more than anyone else, there’s always a motive for the dishonesty ready to hand.

addenda

*Please note that I am not equating non-bigoted with factual: an opinion can be non-bigoted if it addresses the specific behavior or choice under discussion, and doesn’t paint a wider swath than that. I will try to clarify later if necessary.

For what it’s worth, I feel that the conclusions reached above were reached through a process of (continuing) open-minded observation, and I think of myself as someone who is always willing to learn. I do not refuse to listen to conservative voices; I simply keep getting insulted and infuriated by them. But again, I expect my views to keep evolving as long as I remain conscious.

I sometimes wonder–half seriously–when I’m gonna hit the age when I turn conservative. I almost take it as cliche that surely some day that will happen (young heart, old head, etc.), so I feel that to some extent I’m open to changing my conclusions. So far, though, I haven’t come across a convincing conservative voice.

And as far as Scylla’s claim above that I claim a unique perspective on objective truth, that’s not at all what I meant. I understand that the views I express above are opinions and not objective; please note, Scylla, how many times I note this within the text.

I’m going on my 15th hour at work, so I’m not certain I’ll get back to this tonight, but if everyone remains civil I’ll stick with it as long as it moves forward.

3

Yes, I saw that post in the other thread.

That is why I asked you not to tell me what conservatism is, or what conservatives think. That is why I asked you not to lecture me with opinions.

Frankly I am not interested in your opinion, the story of your life, your perspective, or your evolving viewpoints… I beieve your view from the treetops is prejudiced, and worthless, and that you are ignorant on this topic.

I am interested in what you can demonstrate concerning the obvious holes in conservative philosophy. I am interested in you demonstrating it’s fundamental selfishness and dishonesty.

That you believe that these opinions have been generated by you in openness and in good faith does not recommend them. It simply means to me that you have done a poor job.

So, I’ll repeat. I am really not interested in your opinions. I am interested in you demonstrating the objective truth that you claim to posess.

That is what this debate is about.

4

Dude, if this is a challenge for me to change your mind, I never signed on for that, and frankly I’m not interested. If the only way you’ll acknowledge my right to draw my own opinions from my own observations is if I can get you to admit to being wrong, then I’ll check out here.

If you want to discuss your views, and my views, and compare them, and discuss certain esoteric little points to the point of absurdity, I’m all for it. But if you’re setting up this game so that you’re declared the automatic winner unless you admit defeat, then I’m not interested in participating.

5

This looks suspiciously like the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. If you wish to defend conservatism, then I think that you must defend what conservatism is commonly considered to be, not simply what you have decided “true” conservatism is.

Also, the Law of Unintended Consequences, while a valid cautionary principle, seems to be abused as a magical trump card. When all else fails, and one cannot find anything wrong with a proposal, there’s always the charge “but there may be an unintended consequence we don’t know about yet”. Actually, this is not confined to conservatives; liberals have taken up opposition to genetic engineering largely on the basis that there may be dangers we don’t know about, rather than on any definite danger. When one is presented with with real suffering, it is somewhat callous to say “but I don’t want to stick my neck out helping you”.

The principle of unintended consequences tells us that we should consider dangers, both known and theoretical, carefully, and we should have a back up plan in case something goes wrong. If one simply wishes to advance the idea that the default position should be government inaction, then this Law isn’t really needed; if a government action is proposed and someone asks “Why should we do this?”, “Why not?” isn’t much of a response. But that’s not all Conservatism is; after all liberalism does not consist of simply taking the default position that change is good or advocating change for the sake of change. Both sides recognize the importance of thinking through the consequences of one’s actions, so your invocation does not ring true as the motivation for the Conservative position, but rather as a rationalization of a position already arrived at.

However, now on seeing lissener’s response in preview, I have objections to his position as well. First of all, if I found that every single argument by as varied and encompassing a group as “conservatives” to be full of holes, and that everyone who disagrees with me is a liar, I might start to wonder if perhaps I was dismissing opposing points of view without giving them a fair hearing. I find it amazing that someone could disagree with conservatives on every single point. After all, there are conservative arguments for going to war against Iraq, and there are conservative arguments against it; does lissener think both are full of holes?

That’s an odd claim, considering the similarities between the words “liberalism” and “liberty”. Much of what liberalism stands for is minority groups demanding that the majority accomodate them; gays work to advance their interests, blacks theirs, women theirs. You do know what NAACP stands for, don’t you (hint: it doesn’t stand for “National Association for the Advancement of the Communtiy of People”)? I’m not critizicing them; everyone has the right to look out for their own interests. But when liberals work for their own interests, they’re called heroes, when conservatives do so they’re called selfish.

Moreover, one of the hallmarks of conservatism has been putting the community above the individual. Conservatism is mainly about what the individual owes society, while liberalism is about what society owes the individual. Your explanation for why conservatives “rationalize” is itself a rationalization; you’ve decided that liberalism is better than conservatives, so you make up sweeping generalities with little basis in reality to justify that. You stopped just short of saying the reason conservatives lie so much is because they’re just plain meanie-heads.

6

This is of course an excellent point, but I will not be able to address it tonight. I’m trying desperately to finish what I’m working on in time to catch the last bus home so I don’t have to pay $25 for a cab. I’ll re-engage in the morning.

7

Ah…what?!? That doesn’t quite jive with lots of conservative/liberal divides on issues. Why are liberals the ones who seem to be concerned about what sort of environmental protections we owe to our children, grandchildren, and society at large whereas conservatives are more concerned about preserving the rights of people to drive (and do) whatever the hell they want cheaply and with minimal government interference (effectively subsidized I would argue…but we’ll leave that for another day), environmental concerns be damned. [Yes, I know this is a bit of an oversimplification, but you get the drift.]

Also, what about the conservative appeal to tax cuts?

It seems to me that in many areas liberalism more than conservatism talks about what the individual owes society.

8

I would argue that conservatives tend to apply this law somewhat selectively. I.e., they don’t generally seem to be nearly so concerned with the unintended consequences of anything having to do with markets, corporate economic power, and the like. It is the consequences of government action…and just certain government action (e.g., not the government actions like the laws allowing corporations to exist in the first place and giving them their legal rights but just those that regulate them).

9

This is a formula for inertia. If change is to be avoided simply because humans cannot see all ends, your evolved society stagnates. Society did not evolve because conservatives played it safe; society evolved because liberals took risks. Risk is good.

Good things? Which good things? Good according to Scylla? Scylla’s friends? This is so subjective as to be meaningless. Everybody wants advances and “good things”; the devil is in whose definition of good we adopt for our common vision for society.

This fear of the future and lack of confidence in our ability to effect positive change at least as well as our fathers did is downright depressing, Scylla. To say government has never originated positive social change is an untruth.

Again with the fear of taking risks. There is no progress without risk; to achieve greatly, we much risk greatly.

Again, so much subjective justifying. What is worthwhile and desirable to Scylla may not have the interests of society at large at heart. Are you willing to accept what I say is 'worthwhile and desirable"?

Take a risk Scylla; have some confidence in what we can do as a society. Government need not be this evil, inefficient, beast you make it out to be. It can be as great as we choose to make it. But first we have to dare to be great. And that means taking risks that we might be wrong.

I agree; will you abide by what I say is necessary? Just more subjective platitudes.

Define the responsibilities you think government has to protecting the powerless from the powerful in your evolved society. Or are you a social Darwinist, with the strong exploiting the weak with impunity? I really can’t tell.

I hear this often from conservatives, then I see that it only applies to individuals and not to corporate entities that use their power and wealth to influence government for advantage and consideration, and to shield them from responsibility. Do you hold corporations to the same standard of self-reliance and responsibility as you do individuals?

You have a very limited and uninspiring vision of what a government of the people can accomplish. Pardon me if I do not share it.

10

Just to try to build a little rather than just tear down…I think what the two things I criticized were perhaps trying to get at was something more like this:

Liberals tend to believe more in society as a collective enterprise where there are more needs that must be fulfilled, and more problems that must be corrected, by appealing to government…i.e., something outside of the capitalistic market system that we have set up.

Conservatives (well the ones toward the libertarian rather than religious conservative end), on the other hand, believe that government’s role is more limited. In particular, they believe that once government sets up this capitalistic market system, then that system must be left to its own devices to a much greater degree.

I think this is a more accurate representation than the unintended consequences thing, which I think conservatives do indeed use to apply to having limited government intervention in the market, but which they don’t seem to apply with nearly the same zeal to consider the problems of the capitalistic market system that has been set up. (Somewhere in here one also has to work in the fact that conservatives show less concern about the idea that the economic power gained through markets can be used by people to then work the government to their advantage…and thus create a kind of feedback system that concentrates economic and political power in the same hands. In fact, quite a few conservatives seem to subscribe to the somewhat counterintuitive [in my opinion] notion that government power has effectively come to be used mainly against the most economically powerful and in favor of the most economically disadvantaged…although the more compassionate flavor of this tends to argue that it is really just serving its own bureaucracy and doing the disadvantaged, as well as the wealthy, a disservice.)

I also think it is more accurate than any claims about conservatives concentrating on what people owe society and liberals concentrating on what society owes people.

11

I’m glad that you at least recognize the cliche for what it is. I know idealists in their 70s who are outspoken democrats, while I- a pragmatist since earliest childhood- have voted almost exclusively republican, since becoming old enough to vote (and since that’s only been since 1995, I’m still fairly young). I tend to wonder if people who change parties actually shift their beliefs or fall victim to apathy, no longer really caring who is elected.

You may find to your utter amazement that a conservative voice may well eventually speak to you if you keep an open mind; while I’ve yet to wish one to be in the white house or the senate, I tend to vote for dems for governor for some reason, perhaps the lure of their tantalizing claims for education reform…but I mean really open-minded, not the type of open-minded that people accuse others who disagree with them of not being. It’s more time consuming than voting a straight-ticket, but it’s worth it if that stray politician from another party actually agrees with you on the issues. I suppose you’ll have to realize that lying is the domain of all politicians, (or did we get things like national health care and I missed it? I know NH hasn’t fixed the property tax/school funding crisis despite it being the promise of dems and pubbies in this state alike since the early 90s) not something republicans have cornered the market on, first however.

12

Good thread - something that’s definately been needed for a while. Food for thought - maybe someone of the liberal persuasion can weigh in with their own thread along the same lines.

There’s a few things I want to cover - mostly questions and clarifications.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “evolved”. I’m assuming you mean a society that has a history of some sorts given what you’re stated in your second sentence. If I’m wrong in my assumption, please correct me.

Hmmm…I’m a bit confused. I’m stuck on “we are advanced and evolving as a society”. Which is conflicting (to me)in your use of evolved in the previous paragraph. May I assume that you are stating that not only is society evolved (i.e has a history), but is continuing to evolve?

I’m also stuck on the “these advances and good things should be protected.” I’m not quite getting what you are referring to with the word “advances”. Does it mean recognizing that society is an evolving entity? Or something else?

OK - I think I understand your position here. A key term is “dramatic”, right? Would it be safe to assume that conservatives would be comfortable with “slow” or “undramatic” change within society (I make this assumption based on my reading of your definition of society as an evolving entity)?

Another key term is “government activism”. Would conservatives be opposed to all government activism, or just those that effect dramatic changes within society? A clarification here would be helpful.

Again, I need clarification here. Are you referring to “one” on an individual level, a group level, or a societal level?

Again, it would help here to elaborate/clarify a bit, particularly with respect to “preserve and protect the status quo?” My understanding of “status quo” would preclude one from recognizing the evolving nature of society. It might help if you restate “preserve and protect the status quo” in the context of society as an evolving entity. Note: I think you have, but I want to be sure I’m not misunderstanding you.

OK - this helps a bit with some of my previous comments. I think a sticking point might be is “where necessary”. An elaboration would be helpful.

Hmmm…Ok, now I’m confused. Above you stated that conservatives recognize the need for government and activism where necessary. Here you state that the government does not work for making fine adjustments. So, are conservatives for or against government activism where necessary? To me, “where necessary” would work with “making fine adjustments”. Again, clarification would be most helpful.

13

You’ve made some pretty extreme statements. You have said conservatives are either stupid or liars and that conservatism has holes in it that are obvious to you with your view of objective reality.

You need to either back away from this bigoted view and apologize, or you need to prove it.

And yes, it is bigotry. You are ascribing characteristics to a group that the group does not have.

I am not interested in having an esoteric argument about your own personal bigotries, or how long you’ve been working.

Prove your point, bigot.

14

I assumed you’d opened this thread this side of the Pit because you were interested in a mature discussion, sans gratuitous name calling.

I also assumed you opened it here because you wanted to debate the issue.

It’s obvious I was wrong on both counts; you have a prescripted “apology” all ready for me to rubber stamp, which I must in addition sign as “Bigot.” These dictated terms are childish, and I’m really not interested.

I’ll try to remain open to discussing my political views more frequently in relevant threads, but this is obviously not a thread that’s going anywhere constructive.

15

A couple of quick points:

lissener, IMHO all generalizations are wrong. People are unique individuals, motivated by their personal feelings, thoughts, desires, fears, etc.

Conservatism provides a handy tool for bigots and for True Believers, and many a politician of conservative views (or who claims to espouse conservative views to win elections) services those two core constituencies.

I have seen conservatives who hold their views out of an honest commitment to much the same principles as you and I – that American freedom is precious and requires defending. They merely see the attack as coming from a different direction than we do. (And IMHO both they and we are right – to take the interesection of government and religion, a pet topic of mine, for every thread or website I’ve seen here or elsewhere expecting us to legislate God’s Law into social mandates, I’ve seen an equally intemperate thread or website calling for freeing us poor benighted theists from our fairy tales by abolishing religion by fiat.)

Scylla, I respect the law of unforeseen consequences. But MHO is that there are some faults so blatant that most consequences of making the change would be lesser evils. The abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage (and women’s liberation in the strict sense – freeing them to make the same life choices that men can) are two past radical changes that were worth the consequences that were unforeseen but did result. (And I’ll bet any Black poster who sees this thread would agree that the black civil rights struggle as it played out 1867-1968, complete with diehard segregationists, is infinitely preferable to another hundred years of slavery.)

I would note that there is also, in the proverbial phrase, no limit to how softly you can swing a big hammer. Government is capable of careful tweakings as well as massive adjustments, when used carefully.

Finally, many liberals take issue with the unbridled use of self-reliance and personal accountability, simply because human greed and human fallibility make it impossible for many people to be completely self-accountable. I can run through a shopping list of examples where circumstances make it impossible for an individual to deal with the world completely on his/her own if you insist.

And if you instend this thread to be anything constructive, may I suggest we ship that term “bigot” over to the Pit where it can play happily with some of its fellow pejoratives, and deal honestly with differing points of view resulting in different conclusions?

16

Polycarp, not to pick huge nits but:

But the point is that we don’t know what could happen. I agree with you that the risk is worth taking, however, in some cases.

17

Lissener:

I have given you the benefit of the doubt. You have made some serious and IMO indefensible allegations. They are hurtful and false. They are clearly bigoted generalizations.

I am more than happy to back up my charge of bigotry against you.

This is the time when you need to either back up your arguments or back away from them.

You have said we are dishonest. You haven’t said how.

You have said we are selfish. You haven’t said how.

You have said the philosophy is full of holes and obviously flawed when compared to your clear view of objective reality.

But you haven’t said how.

You have not defended or explained any of your statements.

You have offered nothing rational or reasonable to back up what you’ve said.

Your statements to date on the subject are indistinguishable from the most blatant and obvious bigotry.

You have offered no support for your unkind and false misgeneralizations.

You might as well have said black people have tails, or Gay people are child molesters.

18

:smiley:

19

By this reasoning, Jesse Jackson is a conservative. Your “thinking” is flawed.

20

The two examples you give are the government taking action to correct past mistakes by the government. We had slavery in this country because it was encoded in the law. Women could not vote because it was encoded in the law. Actually, one might argue that the conditions created by the orignal laws are examples of unintended consequences.

I won’t claim that the “law” of unintended consequences is always correct or that it is, in fact, some natural “law”, but I think your examples miss the point. When people talk about this law, they are talking about government action meddling in the afairs of free men and women.