Dan:
I’m working my way down in order. I’ll get there.
Every social liberal cause can be argued to be correcting past governmental errors, as there has been governmental entanglement in virtually every facet of life in some way in the past. Simply put, your statements are far closer to libertarianism than to conservatism. Conservatism is biased in favour of the status quo, whatever that status quo may be. It favours retaining societal structure as it is, on the grounds that it’s working reasonably well and it’s unwise to fix what ain’t broke. That does not necessarily entail support of slavery in 1860 America, as the bias is not absolute (though I might add that as of yet Scylla has given us no hint as to how we are to determine when change is needed.) However, it does make Polycarp’s original examples exactly on point. You simply cannot go about picking and choosing which parts of the status quo you like based on whether there are governmental entanglements in them and still call yourself a conservatism. You may oppose recent innovations, wishing to return to earlier, more ingrained patterns, but that is about it.
Frankly, I think that the LUC is largely a canard. There are unintended consequences to inaction just as there are to action. This is a basic consequence of our inability to predict the future with any great degree of accuracy. An unintended consequence of attempting to preserve the social structure of late 18th century France was the Reign of Terror. An unintended consequence of attempting to preserve the institution of slavery in the American South in the 19th century was the American Civil War. An unintended consequence of attempting to preserve the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire was the 30 Years War.
My own view is somewhat simpler. When faced with a decision which must be made at a social level, we should do our level best to understand all the evidence regarding the likely outcomes of all courses of action, including doing nothing at all, and take the one which looks to produce the best results. The status quo will receive a very slight bias in this system, as we (usually) have better evidence on the likely results of staying with it as opposed to going with alternatives. However, even this will not always be the case, as the status quo might have developed instabilities (as in 18th century France), or the alternatives might have been given extensive trials in other parts of the world (as, for example, would be the case with socialized medicine - not trying to debate that issue, just commenting that its consequences are as well known as those of retaining a private system are).
On preview, I see that Scylla has acknowledged that the LUC cuts both ways, but I don’t see how bias in favour of the status quo follows as a result of it if this is true.
Sorry; I meant that I’ve never heard an argument that has convinced me to adopt the core philosophy of conservatism, not that no conservative has ever opened his mouth without belching out a lie. I still feel that the overall fabric of conservatism is a bankrupt view on life in a society, and I have never yet been convinced to change that general view; I have never heard a conservative argument, in other words, that has made me “see the light” and suddenly see the wisdom of conservatism. To my mind, despite the occasional point of agreement, it does not hold together in any kind of realistic way.
**
Sounds fair. I’ll do my best to return your good faith.
You say that conservatives default to preserving the status quo, don’t want to make major changes unless there’s a very strong reason for it. You say that conservatives are big on promoting personal responsibility. Could you tell me whether you consider the following positions to be conservative – and if so, how they jibe with protecting and preserving the status quo?
**-Opposition to requiring GM foods to undergo scientific testing prior to entering production.
[/quote]
**
Ummmm. I don’t know anything about that issue. I am under the impression that General Mills makes grains, cereal, and whatnot, basic stuff that we’ve been consuming for thousands of years. I would think it’s been pretty thoroughly tested. But, I dunno. I’m not familiar with the issue.
Conservatives tend to be more anti-abortion than non conservatives. Social conservatives have strong religious beleifs about the sanctity of human life, and a live fetus is a live human being representing a status quo that should be protected and preserved.
This is a fairly conservative position. The question is what status quo are we trying to preserve? An SDI system it is argued, better preserves our safety than the current treaties. We are not trying to preserve treaties, but cities.
Sure. The more comfortable the safety net, the more people will rely on it. The more people relying on it, the less people holding it up and the heavier it is. Too many people, too heavy and it collapses. Conservatives also would argue that social programs have a strong tendency to directly backfire and are prime examples of the LUC. The housing projects of the 60s and 70s can’t be described as anything but a horrible catastrophe that created even more of the suffering it was supposed to alleviate.
We’re not against the Principle of social programs. We just want ones that work.
I’m not familiar with the issue.
Yup. 'Prolly a lot of conservatives would do this.
I can only explain this with the “Spock defense.” Spock is a conservative. Unfortunately sometimes he turns into a psychotic religious nut.
It’s a sickness really, to be pitied not looked on with contempt. Kind of like when otherwise rational liberals start hugging trees and crying with joy upon seeing a free range chicken.
What can I say?
I don’t really identify that with conservative. It’s kind of too stupid for me to have much of a position on.
Sure. Independance from foriegn resources, relying on ourselves.
Sometimes. This one’s pretty complex. If we don’t think they work or they do more harm than good. Yes.
Sometimes it’s a scumbag clearing the way for corporate supporters though and screwing people, and then it stinks.
I think this may be more an old person thing than a conservative thing. You know, nostalgia.
I just hate being brutally mischaracterized. I probably wouldn’t ahve any problems with good faith efforts, so go for it, Pinko. 
You’ve expressed this opinion a bunch of times. As I’ve said several times simply repeating your opinions is neither constructive no illuminating.
I asked you for specific examples of conservatisms ineherent dishonesty, and illogic.
You promised them if I ansered your yes/no question.
I answered it.
How about you get down to specific brass tacks, stop opining and start applying reason.
Surely you understand that naked opinion is worthless within the scope of this forum.
Scylla, while I agree that you posted some defenses of the positions i listed, I don’t really understand how you reach them guided primarily by the LUC; in all cases where you suggested preserving the status quo via holding the position, I think you could make an equally strong argument that the opposite position preserves the status quo.
For example, the status quo right now is that we have had for decades missile treaties with Russia/USSR that successfully prevented nuclear strikes. The status quo is that what we have, works. Many conservatives argue for abandoning what historically works in favor of an untested policy which may or may not work, and which is likely to weaken our international standing. While there are strong arguments for doing so, I don’t think those strong arguments are really predicated on preserving the status quo.
Ultimately, it sounds to me like you’re saying the conservative position is, “Use good judgement, and only fix things that need fixing.” I’d argue that’s not a position peculiar to conservatives, any more than, “Treat people with respect” is a position unique to liberals.
Sara Diamond, in her excellent book The Road to Dominion, outlines what she sees as the basics of American Conservatism. IIRC, here’s her suggestions; at any rate, here’s what I’ll offer as alternative principles for American Conservatism:
-Strongly anti-communist. This is less true than it was twenty years ago, but it’s still a philosophical underpinning of the movement.
-Support for a very strong US military. Definitely still a feature.
-Support for a Biblically-predicated morality, enforced through the law.
-Support for the idea that business, not government, provides the best solutions to society’s problems.
Obviously, not all conservatives hold all these principles; I’d say most of the prominent conservatives on these boards don’t subscribe to the enforced Biblical morality principle. However, I think it’s fair to say that these four principles are the four poles holding up the Republican Big Tent (to mangle a metaphor), and that most folks in the US who identify as conservatives hold to at least three of those four principles. You won’t find too many communist atheist Republicans, for example, or pacifist atheists Republicans, or United Nations NGO representative Republicans.
And if you look at the various positions I asked you about in my first post, all of them can be accounted for by these four principles.
Daniel
I dunno, Daniel. I think that’s an interesting perspective, and not an inaccurate description of Republican views. But if I may propose some modifications to better describe what I see as the conservative view…
[ul][li]“Strongly anti-communist” might be better phrased as “pro free-market.”[/li][li]Support for a strong US military seems to me to be a position in and of itself, and not a guiding principle.[/li][li]Support for a legally enforced Biblical morality is a hallmark of the Religious Right, not of the right as a whole. It’s just that the Religious Right has a strong enough voice that conservative politicians too often wind up pandering to them,[/li][li]I’d change the last thought to “government does not provide the best solution to society’s problems,” and leave unspecified what the best solution is, as I think there’d be some disagreement among conservatives here.[/li][/ul]
Dan:
That’s a good post, and I don’t have much disagreement with your description.
The only thing I’ll say is that you are getting ahead of me.
The LUC and the default stance of the preservation of the status quo along with the twin concepts of personal responsibility and self-reliance, along with the viewing of government as a necessary evil to be minimized would tend to drive one to support the four principles you rightly attribute towards conservatives in general.
If you want me to I can discuss in detail how that would work but I think it’s pretty self-evident.
Over the course of a brilliant career, Scylla, this is among the most precious things you’ve ever said here.
Opinions have no place in a debate? A debate about politics? A debate about speculative politics, i.e., opinions on what philosophy best addresses needs in an ideal world? A debate sparked by the expression of a political opinion?
I guess I was wrong about this thread’s belonging in the Pit; apparently in belongs in GQ.
Just because you go about redefining the “scope of this forum” doesn’t mean your redefinition is valid.
gr8guy, I’ll take some of your modifications and leave others. But I’ll definitely steal the nifty formatting :).
[ul][li]“Pro-free-market” is a good way to put it now; however, at least until the late '80s, an almost single-minded devotion to fighting communism was a hallmark of the conservative movement. This was so important as a guiding principle that I (and Diamond) thought it deserved a separate point. For understanding conservatism in the US, I think historically it should keep its phrasing; for understanding current conservatism, I think your phrasing is fine.[/li][li] I’m not sure why you think that support for a strong military is a position and not a principle. I’d say that conservatives more than liberals have believed that military might is a prerequisite for conducting foreign relations. Not that conservatives get in more wars, but that conservatives emphasize military buildup more. Liberals tend to emphasize multilateral institutions like the United Nations more.[/li][li]Absolutely the Biblical Morality thing stays in. Not all conservatives in the US are evangelicals, but then, neither are all conservatives pro-free-market. You can find plenty of Christians who are opposed to homosexuality, abortion, extramarital sex, etc., but who strongly support welfare programs, economic protectionism, etc. Patrick Buchanan, for example, is certainly a conservative in the United States, even though he’s not a big believer in free markets.[/li][li]I think your change to the last point is fine.[/li][/ul]
Again: I’d say that someone qualifies as a US conservative if they subscribe to at least three of the principles (pro-free-market, pro-military-might, pro-Bible, and anti-government). You can find conservatives who strenuously disagree with each of the four points, but I’m not sure where you’d find someone who disagrees with more than one of the four points who would be considered conservative.
On the other hand, I think you can find plenty of people who are cautious and prudent and loathe to accept change who appear liberal, and plenty of people who advocate dramatic, untested changes who appear conservative. For that reason, I’m not convinced Scylla’s definition accurately reflects how the word “Conservative” is used to describe American politics.
Daniel
“Naked opinion” Lissener. You have to back up opinion with reason.
You’ve made your opinion clear. Now it is up to you to back it up, or not.
The naked opinion by itself is worthless.
If I just say “Gay people molest children,” and offer that as a simple opinion, it is not valid or worthwhile. Saying it is an opinion is not a defense, nor does it back it up.
You have failed to mover your opinions into the scope of reason despite repeated requests.
This reinforces my opinion, which I have backed up, that your assertions are founded on ignorance and prejudice.
To continue meaningully, you will now need to make a rational argument.
Actually, please do discuss it in detail. Lemme see if I’m understanding you: you’re suggesting conservatism is founded on three separate (but intertwined) principles, right?
[ul]
[li]If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and if it’s here now, it probably ain’t broke.[/li][li]Take responsibility for your own actions, and don’t demand help from other people.[/li][li]The only thing that sucks worse than government is no government.[/li][/ul]
Is that accurate?
I can definitely see how the last point maps to the last principle I described, and how the second position maps to the pro-free-market one. However, I don’t see how any of the principles map to:
[ul][li]Our military needs to be really big. (sure, it’s big now – but prior to Reagan’s buildup in the early '80s, it was much smaller, and the default position would have been to leave it at its size then. Furthermore, this position contradicts the “keep government small” position)[/li][li]We should model our personal and sexual morality after the Bible, and the laws of the land should reflect this. (Indeed, I think this runs counter to all three of the principles you described. The religious right wants to radically change current laws on sexual morality, wants to remove people’s responsibility for their own sexual decisions, and wants to expand the role of government in this sphere).[/ul][/li]
Nevertheless, the pro-military camp and the religious right camp form two of the biggest camps inside the Republican tent. I think they must be accounted for when discussing American conservatism.
Furthermore, I think you need to add two things to your three principles. First, how do you define “broke” in the first principle? Without such a definition, it’s a completely uncontroversial position, one which anyone of any political persuasion would unhesitatingly agree to. Second, in the third principle, how does one decide whether a given governmental program is worth enacting? If the principle simply says that you shouldn’t have a governmental program unless it’s necessary, I think again you have an uncontroversial position; it’s just that liberals and conservatives define “necessary” differently (whereas a liberal might say that SDI is unnecessary, a conservative would disagree).
In short: yes, please elaborate :).
Daniel
Well, this basically sounds to me like the Doctrine of Market Infallibility which reads:
(1) The Market is infallible.
(2) If the market fails, see point (1).
Actually, to be fair, your point (2) seems to be something more along the lines of “If the market fails, hope that the individuals involved realize the error of their ways and correct it themselves” (which, by the way, would not tend to work if it were really a failure of the market as an institution rather than the failure of individuals).
Color me unimpressed by this reasoning.
And your point is what? That only your generalizations are valid? That demonizing people across the opinion gap is fine and/or productive? That your characterization of conservatives as being motivated by self-interest as opposed to the altruistic liberals holds the slightest bit of water?
I strongly agree with this. It seems that Scylla’s application of the LUC to those instances were entirely made as ex post facto justification.
I agree entirely with this.
I suppose I missed your point. My thinking was that conservatives have traditionally wanted a strong military for a reason, and that reason (which you’ve probably described pretty well) is the principle involved. However, see my final comments.
Hmm… would you consider a libertarian to be conservative, then? To my mind, the first and last principles pretty much define American conservativism, and the middle two are things that many conservatives, but not all, would agree with. The three things you summed up a bit later pretty much hit the nail on the head, I think.
I guess I’m suggesting that people who think “military=good” and/or “Bible thumping=good” show considerable overlap with what I think of as conservatives, but that these views aren’t necessarily be derived from what I see as conservative principles.
I think conservatism in the US also correlates with a “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution.
This is one of the reasons why many conservatives support government spending on defense, but want to abolish the Dept. of Education (to choose one of your examples). The role of the federal government in providing for a common defense is clearly enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution says nothing about funding education.
Conservatives value education at least as much as liberals. In some instances, we would prefer education over other forms of social welfare spending.
But along with our view of the Constitution lies a strong preference for limited government, and, if government needs to fulfill some necessary function, it should be fulfilled at as low a level as possible. Thus we support education vouchers rather than the Dept. of Education, based on a belief that parents are better positioned to make decisions than federal bureaucrats.
You may disagree with the concept of vouchers, and certainly some do. But it is not a position motivated by greed or selfishness.
Another trend in conservative thought is the preference for individual rights over group rights. This is a motivation in the case of vouchers, but also drives a lot of our thinking on affirmative action and other race-related issues.
I would say that the core conservative principles are:
[ul][li]Individual rights[/li][li]Personal responsibility[/li][li]Limited government[/li][li]Free markets[/ul] [/li]
I would disagree that Bible-based morality is a core principle in American conservative thought. This is a somewhat recent phenomenon, corresponding with the rise in the Religious Right and the Moral Majority around 1980.
You asked:
It is decided by individuals. And first choice for who is responsible for fixing what is “broke” is the individual, not the government. Because in a free-market environment, including a free market of ideas, the self-correcting nature of the market will filter out the unintended consequences, and encourage the good consequences. Or attempts at fixing a problem will fail, and be discarded. Try to cancel even a failed government program, and you will see how the conservative preference for limits on government corresponds to our belief in the free market.
Regards,
Shodan
And your argument sounds to me like The Doctrine of Invented Strawmen, which reads:
- I have no response to what you said;
- Here’s what I wish you’d said.
I never said or implied that the market is infallible. The point I was making was that individuals can make correct decisions without laws guiding them, and when people make wrong decisions, it’s silly to blame it on the absence of a law.
Obviously, you’re taking the conservative “tentposts” to their illogical extremes. Conservatives don’t stretch the LUC so far that they don’t favor any government regulation. Those people are called anarchists.
Color me confused by your response.
gr8guy, I don’t consider most Libertarians to be conservative, not in the US meaning of both terms. Indeed, most US libertarians also reject the label.
However, some Libertarians believe that a large military can be supported by Libertarian principles; I’d be happy to lump those Libs in with conservatives, whether or not they were happy about it.
Daniel
I disagree with the first and third paragraph, and want to make a point about the second one.
Second paragraph: just to be clear, I at least will specifically deny that most conservatism is motivated primarily by greed or selfishness. (Ayn Rand is an exception, but she admits as much herself, if I remember what I read of her some 15 years ago).
First paragraph: a strict constructionist view of the Constitutions is only in evidence in conservative circles when it supports their viewpoint. Where in the Constitution, for example, is the federal government allowed to override California’s initiative process to keep marijuana illegal? And the lack of strict constructionism on the part of the Supreme Court conservatives in late 2000 is well-known.
Third paragraph: it is very often liberals and not conservatives who speak out in favor of individual rights. In 1988, did the liberal or the conservative presidential candidate equate the ACLU with Communism? Which party is better known for protecting people from unreasonable searches and seizures, for protecting the right to burn a flag, for preventing state-sponsored religion? While arguably conservatives sponsor other individual rights to a greater degree (the right to public religious expression using public resources, the right to gun ownership, etc.), I think this is at best an overgeneralization and at worst totally inaccurate.
Finally, when you say that Biblical morality is a relatively new thread in religious conservative thought, I am dumbfounded. Before the 1980s, were conservatives not generally opposed to homosexuality, sex before marriage, and abortion, based on religious principles? Or are you saying that liberals shared similar views before the 1980s?
Sure, the religious right gained power during the 1980s; but I think they’ve always been a wing of the conservative party.
Daniel