Anyway, I wrote over at Greg's place yesterday about the liberal impulse:
[I]f the liberal impulse is “we can do better,” and the liberal danger is a hubris that trying to do better is always an unambiguously good idea, the threat to liberals is a cynicism that we really can’t do better. That trying to do something difficult is inherently something to be mocked. And the truth is that anti-liberal cynicism isn’t without some merit at times, and it certainly isn’t without some political appeal.So I'd want to extend that a bit, and to say that if the liberal impulse is "we can do better," then the conservative impulse is "don't make it worse." The conservative danger is allowing injustice to go unchallenged, and the threat to conservatives is the suspicion that caution and prudence are really masks for indifference.
Or something like that. The basic idea is that both of these impulses are valuable and necessary in any polity, and perhaps especially in democracies. And I guess I'd also say that both those impulses don't always map easily onto public policy positions that we associate with those who call themselves liberals and conservatives.
And the problem with American politics is that the "conservative" party post-Reagan really doesn't seem to possess the conservative impulse. The party of Paul Ryan, George W. Bush, and Newt Gingrich is a party of neither the conservative nor the liberal impulse, but a radical one. They are the party who not only embraces, as Ronald Reagan did, Thomas Paine's claim that "We have it in our power to begin the world anew," but that often doesn't seem to temper that grandiose attitude with any of Reagan's FDR-worshiping liberalism that ground their idealism in the real world (okay, Reagan's version of the real world, which caused all sorts of problems, but it was real to him at any rate and therefore imposed limits). Anyway, it leads them to absolutes, which everyone from Andrew Sullivan to Hannah Arendt could tell you aren't very healthy when it comes to politics.
Again, this is all sort of doodling; if you really want to know about ideology, you'll want to read Hans Noel. Just saying that it helps me sort things out when I think about it this way.
GW radically increased the power and activism of government. Is that what you mean?
ReplyDeleteActually, the Left today isn't "liberal", at least not classically so. The Left today is ... well... leftist. For the Left today, it's not "we can do better", it's "we can do more (and more and more and more)".
ReplyDeleteClassical liberalism, yes, would say that we can do better, which as non-leftists understand often means we should do less, but the contemporary Left rejects such thinking. It's all about the "more", for them.
That line in Romney's speech caught my ear, too. And I think you're right; it's a reflection of radicalism, not conservatism. Conservative has 'conserve' at it's root; and that's been lacking for many years.
ReplyDeleteLiberal impulse, and accounting for the results:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/
$22 trillion saved on health care due to the Clean Air Act; written by liberal Senator Ed Muskie, signed by conservative President Richard Nixon.
Yes, I think we should do more more more. But also, more regulatory review and roll-back of old, outdated, or ineffective. We can do better there, as well.
"the threat to conservatives is the suspicion that caution and prudence are really masks for indifference."
ReplyDeleteI would add; suspicion that it really masks self-interest.
In terms of economic policy, conservatives are the natural representatives of the owners and heirs. People who have a lot and are afraid of losing even a little of what they have.
Liberals, on the other hand, are the more natural representatives of the outsiders who want in, of the young, the ambitious, those who have little but are anxious to create more.
Ron Paul seems to have dominated youthful enthusiasm this time around:
Deletehttp://youtu.be/GuTXPWec_LU
In the Republican party. But not in the general electorate. And, are young Paul supporters conservative? Or a Libertarian variant?
DeleteIn the Republican party. But not in the general electorate. And, are young Paul supporters conservative? Or a Libertarian variant?
DeleteWell, one thing's for sure... they're not leftists.
DeleteEsmense, do you really see that kind of youth enthusiasm for Obama? I don't.
DeleteThe only thing that kept Ron Paul from becoming our next President were those pesky voters over 40 years old. ;) You can call him a libertarian, but I don't think you can call him a liberal (at least not in the contemporary sense of the word).
I own a small business that hires a lot of part time staff from local colleges. The first candidate that I ever saw any of my college age staff show enthusiasm for, and real excitement about, was Howard Dean. Why? Because he spoke out against the war. Obama also engendered excitement and support because he was seen as the anti-war candidate. This year, some of the old cynicism has returned, but there is still s lot of support for Obama and, not surprising in a state with a strong libertarian streak (Washington) some enthusiasm for Paul -- but that support, like past support for Dean and Obama, is mostly grounded in anti-war sentiment, and, also Paul's libertarian take on the War on Drugs. These aren't necessarily conservative issues. I haven't heard anyone express any enthusiasm for, or in fact interest in, Paul's ideas about the
DeleteFed.
Esmense,
DeleteThe young activists I’ve met have been mostly very close to Paul on the issues. Here in Massachusetts, Paul’s army of young true believers took most of the delegate slots won by Romney. Our last candidate for governor lost to an 18 year old, who is perfectly capable of talking your ear off about monetary policy. And frankly, he has more political tact than Elizabeth Warren (watch at 4:45): http://youtu.be/H-HDkXaTIvE It’s these activists, not passive Democratic voters, who are the Congressmen and leaders of the future.
The remarkable thing about Paul’s campaign is that his supporters have twice now held together long AFTER defeat. Ten thousand saw Paul speak outside of the Tampa Convention -- over 100,000 have already sat through his hour+ speech on youtube. Howard Dean’s following disappeared the moment he vanished from the nightly news.
Of course Obama got elected with a lot of youth support in 2008 -- but as we’ve seen, hasn’t done things very differently than the guy before him. By contrast, Ron Paul has lost, but left behind a true “Liberty Movement.” Only time will tell if it goes anywhere from here.
I'm having trouble mapping your description of conservatism onto gender roles. It's a pretty obvious statement that conservatives approve of traditional gender roles, including marriage being confined to mating up men and women for the purposes of procreation, and women bearing sole responsibility for household management and child-rearing while men work long hours to support the family.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a "don't make it worse" mentality, it's a "shut up and do the role assigned to you" mentality. IMHO, at least.
Well, two things. One is that I wouldn't assume a full overlap between what I'm calling the conservative impulse and the people who call themselves conservatives.
DeleteThe other is that I do in fact hear some say that equality in gender roles might be a worthwhile goal, but we're moving too fast; or that a push for equality risks upsetting the delicate balance that society has built up over time. It's important IMO to realize that those can be absolutely sincere positions. They're not simply "shut up and do the role assigned to you."
Which is not to say they're necessarily correct, or even valuable; that's not my call to make here. That's a different question. And, yes, even if absolutely sincere those positions are going to sound like "shut up and do the role assigned to you" to those who believe there's injustice involved (and of course it's possible that some will take that position insincerely, too).
I guess what I would defend is the impulse. But that doesn't mean that I think people should always act on those impulses, and it certainly doesn't mean that I think one or the other "should" (in a democratic sense) prevail.
I think we disagree on the nature of the impulse. One could argue that in a group, a hierarchical organizational structure allows the group more certainty of accomplishment. The question is how tasks or positions are assigned. The conservative impulse hankers after traditional certainty: girls do X, boys do Y, sons of the wealthy do Z, sons of poor men do whatever. Your classification defines you.
DeleteBut in most modern societies, the Conservative mentality is not "don't break it," it's "you broke it." And most of this is justified. The reason you call Ryan, Gingrich, etc, radicals is because you see your side's past radicalism as a fait accompli. Note by the way that the exact same allegations are made against right-wing parties throughout the developed world - "You're not really conservatives, you're radicals!" Conservatives, however, being the "don't break it" types, want to roll back these policies now they've obviously failed. But returning to the status quo ante is not radicalism.
ReplyDeleteTrying to change the relationship between the federal government and other governmental systems is almost the definition of radical. Why? Because the current model has been in place for 79 years. That is, longer than the lifespan of the average American. Furthermore, the modern GOP doesn't want to go back to what our government looks liked in 1931, just look at Ryan's proposals about increasing military spending versus the size of the American military back then. What the GOP is trying to do is create something new in the guise of a made up never was history. They want lavish federal programs for some groups (like mortgage tax deductions, federal aide for interstate highways, Michele Bachmann's farm subsidies, Medicare for current seniors) and ending programs for other groups (food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare for future Seniors). If you're right the "conservative" view about how elections should be conducted, that is the 19th Century system, would be one with no voter rolls, no ID's etc. people just show up on election day and get to vote without any hassle or formal rules. But the GOP is pushing for more governmental regulation to make it harder to vote. Why? Well because they want to use the power of the state to shape an electoral system to prevent people who disagree with them from voting. That's radical.
Delete" But the GOP is pushing for more governmental regulation to make it harder to vote. Why? Well because they want to use the power of the state to shape an electoral system to prevent people who disagree with them from voting. That's radical."
Delete.
How is it that they enact laws that are somehow smart enough to know who has which political philosophy? And how would these laws, enacted blindly and across the masses, result in vote prevention of folks who "disagree"?
Those are some really smart laws, if what you say is true. I need to hire those lawmakers. They are some really bright folks.
But seriously, I'd like you to explain your reasoning behind calling electoral vote integrity laws "radical". This just seems the typical leftist fantasy and hysterical semantics. But perhaps you can explain this "radical" business.
Anon @ 5:35: electoral history is not on your side here. There's been a long history of manipulating election law to keep certain groups of people from voting.
DeleteThe history of people voting illegally? Not so much evidence there at all.
Voter fraud (which you would protect with 'vote integrity' laws):
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
Voter Suppression:
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/ballot_security_and_voter_suppression/
You're not making your point. And lefty whining that laws somehow are smart bombs and are targeted to attack discrete political philosophies are just your fantasy. You have to make your case. You haven't. And in particular, you have to make your case that this is all somehow "radical". Be precise and be specific, please.
DeleteNow on the other hand, a lefty congressional candidate, just the other day, had to leave the 2012 race because she had been nailed voting in both Florida and Maryland. That's an actual lefty politician... meaning if we use proportional statistical methods there are about 700,000 other people in this country doing what she did, breaking the law. If we catch another congressional candidate, that'd be 1,400,000 doing it... and so on.
That's in addition to all the other voter fraud on the record. You ignore that evidence, but it's there, obviously.
Voter integrity is coming, make no mistake. It's gonna be like welfare reform, it's gonna be rammed up the Left's keister, and 16 years from now, you lefties will be doing what I spotted one of you lefties in here last week doing, describing welfare reform in 1996 as "Everybody agreed on this bipartisan in 1996".
No they didn't. You lefties shrieked hysterically about welfare reform, in much the same way you're shrieking hysterically about vote integrity today. But it's coming, make no mistake. It's only you far leftists who oppose this, groundlessly I might add.
blaming hippies instead of George Bush? I don't know, seems a bit dated.
DeleteAnd incidentally the quote "We have it in our power to begin the world anew" is deeply ambiguous. I believe Paine meant it in the sense of discarding what has gone before. But I believe Reagan meant it in the sense of starting back at our own beginnings. The former is a radical impulse, the latter a deeply conservative one.
ReplyDeleteThe Reagan administration was rhetorically effective because it consciously and elegantly played upon these multiple meanings.
DeleteGood doodle.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting argument, though I think "we can make it better" v. "don't make it worse" is not the best comparison, as it begs the relevant question: "What's the opposite of a progressive? Someone who hates progress, or change...oh, you mean a conservative, of course!"
ReplyDeleteSome time ago this forum framed the distinction as individual (conservative) vs. collective (liberal) interests. That frame works better for me, fwiw. In fact, it seems to me the individual v. collective frame might make a lot of hot-button issues easier to talk about - a great example is the future of social security.
Ask a liberal about conservative disquiet at SS and you'll likely get an aghast reply such as "I can't believe those assholes want to let old folks starve in the street!" That's a great collectivist argument. On the individualist side, there's the inconvenient truth that for a 40-year-old, SS is an atrocious investment, as that 40 yo will almost certainly not get their money back (in real terms), a humble bar a 401K alternative would easily clear.
Indeed, from a strictly individualistic perspective, there's something extraordinary about the state compelling one class of people (middle-aged workers) to invest at a negative real rate of return, in order to pay out the 6-7 X real growth for another class of investors (the elderly).
This is a real problem for SS, and one that will only get worse as demographics continue to move in the wrong direction. Collectively, we don't want the elderly to starve. But individually, SS is an exceptionally bad investment for the middle-aged and younger.
Its a shame we don't talk about SS (along with several other issues) in this collective v. individual framework. We tend to take sides on either side of that Maginot Line, lobbing verbal artillery at the other. But both sides have really good points and pressing concerns.
And neither is going away any time soon.
CSH,
DeleteThe problem with your analysis is that SSI is not an investment; it's an insurance policy. For a very good, instructive comparative look at what one would have to earn based on multiple factors, may I suggest you take a look at this from Dale Coberly at Angry Bear: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/03/social-security-return-on-investment.html
nanute, thanks for the argument and link, at first I'd agree that the SSI part of soc. sec. is often a good deal, and also that I may have overcooked some of my rhetoric.
DeleteI didn't follow the math too closely in the link, but I built my own spreadsheet quickly and found that, for a high earner, making the max SS salary (~$100 K), investing the employee's - and the employer's - share in a 401 K at historic market rates of return, that employee replaces about 1/2 of their final salary (growing forever with inflation). Back of the envelope, that feels slightly worse than SS, but not, as your link suggests, terrible.
Couple key differences that really reflect the collectivist v. individualist issue: first, if I croak early in the 401 K scenario, I can pass that money to my heirs or the dog pound or wherever I want. Its certainly true that inheritance tends to be an incredibly flimsy way to transfer wealth (net of a few cases like the Rockefellers, wealth doesn't tend to survive across generations), but from an individualist's perspective, the effectiveness of inheritance shouldn't matter. Because ss is a pay-as-you-go system, the individual is entirely at the mercy of the state and has no survivor's rights to their contributions.
Second, even if the 401K v. SS is more or less a wash now, its only going to get worse as the program succeeds, as the elderly live longer and healthier lives. The people on the receiving end of the middle-aged worker's mediocre investment are getting a great rate of return; because SS really was an insurance policy for their generation, as many of them would be expected not to make much use of it.
In an era where average life expectancy is rapidly steaming past 80, SS is increasingly an "insurance policy" on a par with other insurance policies such as: "waking up in the morning", or "not jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge".
editing note: the end of the second paragraph should have read that the private alternative felt slightly better than soc. sec, but soc. sec. was not terrible.
DeleteCHS,
DeleteSorry for the long delay in responding. I tried to reply on several occasions yesterday,and couldn't come up with a decent answer to your reply. I happen to think that SSI is a decent safety net for those members of society that don't make enough income to afford additional retirement savings. I think it is in all of society's best interest to contribute and preserve the program. What is going on in Washington right now, is an attempt to get rid of the safety net. A large amount of the surplus was borrowed, and now the Ryan/Romney and Tea Party crowd basically want to welch on paying back the money. I'm old enough to remember when Reagan promised to save SSI and raised the level of contributions to make the system stable for the long term. Now the very same people that think Reagan's a saint, want to spit on his grave by undoing the program. Again, making comparisons of SSI (insurance), to investment/retirement savings misses the point. They are two different animals and trying to argue that you'd be better off with saving for your retirement without being forced to by the government is a libertarian argument that says we owe nothing to one another as members of the "collective" society. If you'd like to continue the debate: tony.daniel@hotmail.com
The distinction you've outlined here is much the way Barry Goldwater thought of the two parties just at the time when they were coalescing around separate ideological visions: That the nation needed the liberal impulse for improvement alongside the conservative impulse for preservation, which in balance would lead to a measured march of progress. He was a personally a deeply committed conservative but with the belief that his mission and movement was only half of a healthy democracy.
ReplyDeleteActually, Goldwater was a deeply committed liberal-conservative.
DeleteNot sure what you're correcting. Care to elaborate?
DeleteYou don't know what the liberal-conservative strain is, and particularly Barry Goldwater's station in it?
DeleteI guess I could elaborate, but likely best if you go off and educate yourself a bit first, for the discussion to have value.
I understand the term and how it applies to Goldwater. What I don't understand is how mentioning it serves to revise, correct, or otherwise amend my statement.
DeleteWhat I described was how Goldwater thought of politics and his place in it. He used terms like "conservative" and "liberal" and understood them to be opposites (even though he had some appreciation for how the meaning of those terms has shifted over time). And he understood those terms (in his time and his political efforts) to represent competing impulses in favor of experimentation (liberal) and restraint (conservative).
What does recognizing Goldwater as a liberal-conservative have to do with his historical understanding of politics or how it relates to the original post?