October 11, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:What does it mean to be a conservative?
I'm not one, really; I'm a kind of fuzzy soft-communitarianish libertarian. But let me take a hack at it anyway:
- Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for their actions.
- Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of result. Conservatives do not want to punish people for the crime of being successful.
- Conservatives believe in protecting the lives of the helpless, even when their lives inconvenience other people.
- Conservatives believe that the government should treat everyone equally, regardless of their race or gender.
- Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to express their faith, and their views on other controversial topics, even when those views make others uncomfortable.
- Conservatives believe that each individual is unique and special, and cannot be treated simply as a member of a group. Individuals are only available individually.
- Conservatives believe that well intentioned changes often have unintended consequences.
- Conservatives believe that people respond to incentives.
- Conservatives believe that America is a special nation, not perfect, but with a proud history. People who come to America should feel that that history is theirs, and celebrate their citizenship. They should not have loyalties to foreign powers.
- Conservatives believe that victims of crime are more worthy of our concern than the criminals who prey on them.
If you're a liberal, no doubt you're shaking your head. What a lot of loaded bullshit. This list amounts to saying "Conservatives are in favour of good things", with the resulting implication that liberals aren't.
And, if you're a regular blog reader, you've no doubt recognized that this list is written in response to Geoffrey Stone's recent op-ed on what liberals stand for.
The problem with both lists is that they are full of incredibly broad generalities, statements that are, as social scientists like to say, "True but not useful." Take #8 on his list: "Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties." Unlike conservatives, those freedom-hating, individual hating bastards. This is why in Kelo, conservative justices voted to let New London steal houses from powerless people to give to Pfizer, while liberal justices . . . ummmm . . . never mind.
Obviously, your agreement with this depends on how you define "individual liberties". If you think that getting born is an individual liberty, then conservatives win. If you think that having an abortion is an individual liberty, not so much.
Such lists are either a good-faith attempt to draw a broad tent that everyone agrees with . . . in which case they generally fail because they degenerate into useless platitudes that no one could possibly disagree with, and therefore do nothing at all to set you apart from your opponents. . . or they are a tendentious attempt to claim the moral high ground for your side through semantic chicanery. In which case they fail because no one is that stupid. No moderate-but-Republican-leaning voter is going to read Geoffrey Stone's list and say "ooh, I think people should care about civic issues--I must be a liberal!!!" (#2, Liberals believe "Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate.). Unfortunately, when it comes time to vote on an actual issue, they will also hear from your opponents, who will not oblige you by coming out against peoples' right to vote or otherwise participate in public debate.
Update A friend emails to point out another leetle issue with Mr Stone's list: some of it just ain't so. "Didn't you do a spit take when you saw Stone claim that liberals support "limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech". Indeed I did, and should have noted it: the last two items are, to my mind, not compatible; and as for supporting limits on partisan gerrymandering, liberals have done nothing of the sort. They have supported limits on partisan gerrymandering that benefits Republicans, while wholeheartedly supporting gerrymandering that benefits Democrats (see: California ballot initiative). This is hardly a noble blow for democratic process.
Posted by Jane Galt at October 11, 2006 12:33 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>Just curious, Jane: which item on this list would not be something libertarians believe in?
Posted by: Stuart on October 11, 2006 1:30 PMAnother brilliantly well-put post by Jane. I would also add how disturbingly frequent it is that people favor policy X, without even learning why anyone would oppose policy X, and/or simply accepting that the reason people oppose X is some stupid, caricatured reason. ("Those who don't know their opponents' arguments, don't really understand their own.")
Examples? We got examples.
-Many proponents of the minimum wage believe that its opponents want poorer workers to be paid less. This is implicit in claims such as "We support a higher minimum wage because workers should earn enough to feed their family." (The assumption being that if you don't want the policy, you must not workers to be able to earn enough to feed their families.)
-Many proponents of higher funding for public education believe that its opponents don't think education is important. This is implicit in such claims as "Recognizing the importance of education, we give it a high priority in funding." (The assumption being that if you don't want higher funding, you don't recognize education as being important.)
It's really like talking to a wall. Often, they'll break off the discussion by saying, "Well, I'll just have to disagree with you in that I just think education is important" no matter how many times you accept that premise. And explaining the distinction between "I value goal X" and "I believe policy Y achieves goal X" ... good luck on that one!
and Stuart: I think Jane's point was that you can phrase these beliefs to a high enough level of generality as to engulf everyone.
Posted by: Person on October 11, 2006 1:33 PMExactly, person. What points on the list wouldnt libertarians agree with? What points on the list would any reasonable human being not agree with? Are their liberals who proudly proclaim that they want to kill the helpless and punish the successful, and believe that people should not take responsibility for their actions? The devil is in the details.
Posted by: Jane Galt on October 11, 2006 1:38 PMActions and results speak louder than words. I see the actions and results of the liberals & democrats as being against all of these ideas, unlike many of the republican and conservative actions and results.
Many people don't understand that liberals and conservatives frequently have the same goals; they just differ in the means to reach those goals. Liberals think that government should help in many instances; conservatives see that the liberal policies don't work and think that private institutions or the people themselves should provide the help.
But no one's perfect and both institutionalized parties (to differentiate from individual beliefs) have a vested interest in the status quo and certainly would rather that a program not be tried than to have the program work and the other party get the credit.
Posted by: Rex on October 11, 2006 1:47 PMJane,
Conservatives believe that well intentioned changes often have unintended consequences.
Conservatives believe that people respond to incentives.
These aren't exactly soul stirring are they? I think that very few people with political leanings strong enough to actually think of themselves as "conservative", "liberal", "libertarian", or whatever, would come up with such, uh, technocratic reasons to describe why they believe what they believe. People of all political leanings are way more interested in being right than in having everything work out well in the end.
I realize that the main point of your post was that lists of this type are intrinsically bogus --I don't think I can disagree with you, although I enjoy working myself into a lather of self-righteousness as much as the next guy.
Jane,
Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for their actions.
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of result.
Conservatives do not want to punish people for the crime of being successful.
Conservatives believe in protecting the lives of the helpless, even when their lives inconvenience other people.
Conservatives believe that the government should treat everyone equally, regardless of their race or gender.
Conservatives believe that people should be allowed to express their faith, and their views on other controversial topics, even when those views make others uncomfortable.
Conservatives believe that each individual is unique and special, and cannot be treated simply as a member of a group. Individuals are only available individually.
Conservatives believe that well intentioned changes often have unintended consequences.
Conservatives believe that people respond to incentives.
Conservatives believe that America is a special nation, not perfect, but with a proud history.
People who come to America should feel that that history is theirs, and celebrate their citizenship. They should not have loyalties to foreign powers.
Conservatives believe that victims of crime are more worthy of our concern than the criminals who prey on them.
You missed a few.
Conservatives believe in God.
Conservatives believe that life begins at conception (the instant the sperm enters the egg) and the termination of that life, for whatever reason, is murder.
Conservatives believe that educators should be accountable for what they are teaching.
Conservatives believe that TENURE for educators should be eliminated immediately.
Conservatives believe that marriage only consists of a Man and a Woman (who are not related by blood, who are both 18 or older, and who are currently not married to anyone else.) Any other lifelong union, isn't marriage.
Conservatives do NOT believe in No Fault divorce.
Conservatives believe firmly that the family (mother, father, and their offspring) is the bedrock unit, the foundation of civilization.
Conservatives believe in the profit motive.
Conservatives do NOT believe in the Seniority system for employment and compensation.
Conservatives believe that there should be a fixed percentage of income that can be taxed, where that percentage never changes and government must operate within those boundaries.
Conservatives believe the landlord has more rights than the tenant.
Conservatives believe that using illegal drugs is NOT a victimless crime, since the drug user is destroying not only himself, but also all those around him who loves him. They are victims.
Conservatives believe that the world is a dangerous place and that children are naughty (by nature.) If children do not have strict parents to teach them right from wrong (and to be careful in this dangerous world) they are more likely to grow up to be irresponsible and in trobule with the law for the remainder of their life. That is the parent's fault if that happens because they didn't take responsiblity for raising their children properly.
Conservatives believe that female teachers that sleep with teenaged male students does NOT necessarily make the male student a victim, while male teachers that sleep with teenaged female students (or teenaged male students) are preditors and criminals (who should be incarcerated) and the student most certainly IS a victim.
Conservatives believe that women tradtionally earned less money than men over the years since her paychecks were supplimental income for the household while the father's checks paid for the majority of the expenses.
There is so much more Jane, I could go on and on but you can't possibly encapsulate Conservatism.
Posted by: Paul on October 11, 2006 1:49 PMI wonder if these sorts of proclamations are good at one thing: exploiting a confirmation bias to increase label identification.
In other words, your moderate-right Republican won't be persuaded by Stone's list, but might read yours, see himself, and feel affirmed that the 'conservative' label that he identifies with is rightly applied. It's not that he is being "stupid", but rather since the assertions aren't making a challenge to his worldview, they are not viewed terribly critically.
It's not a matter of persuading the other side, but reinforcing the loyalty of your own.
Posted by: Brad L on October 11, 2006 1:55 PMConservatives believe that traditional social constructs contain deep wisdom about what works and what doesn't work over the long term in ordering the affairs of mankind.
Most libertarians would agree with the proposition that the market is smarter than any one person, no matter how smart or well-educated that person may be. Conservatism is similar in that conservatives believe the inherited cultural wisdom of past generations is an asset we are prone to under-value, particularly when we are intoxicated by our own perspicacity.
Posted by: Michael Couvillion on October 11, 2006 2:17 PMPaul,
Do you work for DNC? Perusing your list _might_ persuade one to vote Dem...
Posted by: ...Max... on October 11, 2006 2:18 PMConservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of result.
"Equality of opportunity" is one of those catchphrases that sound nice until it's examined. People usually think it means "free schooling of equal, and high, quality, available to all", or "impermissibility of employment rejection based on arbitrary personal criteria (race, religion, etc)".
But! Is the child born to a poor family going to have the same opportunities that a child born to a rich family will have? What about someone who's lazy and irresponsible vs. someone who's responsible and self-disciplined?
The Constitution was all about "equality under the law for all citizens". You make or find your own economic or educational opportunities, and you have a right to pursue them, but no right to expect that they'll be the same as everyone else's.
Posted by: Jason Bontrager on October 11, 2006 2:22 PMDo you work for DNC? Perusing your list _might_ persuade one to vote Dem...
No, I don't work for the DNC.
But if looking at my list was going to persuade you to vote Dem, then you were going to vote Dem anyways. Conservatism is an "ism" for older folks. We've been around and we see the world for what it is. Ideals run second fiddle to reality.
Posted by: Paul on October 11, 2006 2:32 PMConservatives believe that traditional social constructs contain deep wisdom about what works and what doesn't work over the long term in ordering the affairs of mankind.
I think the response to this would be that any wisdom gleaned about traditional social constructs should be explainable in terms other than tradition.
Put another way, tradition can be understood as a supporting argument, but not a primary one. When the only defense of a practice is that it is traditional, the practice deserves scrutiny.
If we were talking about gay marriage, doesn't this also illustrate that these ideals (mantras?) may contradict? Nobody can make me get a divorce besides my wife or me.
Isn't the whole "weakening of marriage as an institution" argument essentially saying that individuals are not solely responsible for the outcomes of their marriages (contradicting the principle that people take responsibility for their actions?)
Posted by: Brad L on October 11, 2006 2:38 PMWhat about someone who's lazy and irresponsible vs. someone who's responsible and self-disciplined?
(shrugs shoulders)
We ("we" = Conservative Republicans) can't get to lazy people. There is no room for lazy and irresponsible people in our party and in our company. We don't even want them around being completely honest. They bring nothing to the table and the responsible hard working people wind up supporting them. The slackers would be better served to vote Democrat.
Posted by: Paul on October 11, 2006 2:41 PM#4 is the only one which a liberal may directly contradict, if one points out that "affirmative action" necessarily contradicts it.
Paul's list has a few items which a conservative can disagree with:
Conservatives believe in God.
Conservatives believe that life begins at conception (the instant the sperm enters the egg) and the termination of that life, for whatever reason, is murder.
Conservatives believe that there should be a fixed percentage of income that can be taxed, where that percentage never changes and government must operate within those boundaries.
Conservatives believe the landlord has more rights than the tenant.
Conservatives believe that using illegal drugs is NOT a victimless crime, since the drug user is destroying not only himself, but also all those around him who loves him. They are victims.
Conservatives believe that female teachers that sleep with teenaged male students does NOT necessarily make the male student a victim, while male teachers that sleep with teenaged female students (or teenaged male students) are preditors and criminals (who should be incarcerated) and the student most certainly IS a victim.
Conservatives believe that women tradtionally earned less money than men over the years since her paychecks were supplimental income for the household while the father's checks paid for the majority of the expenses.
It's entirely possible to arrive at conservative political positions by believing that cultural wisdom is real without believing in God.
As a conservative, I'd far prefer to see the percentage of income taxed be monotonically decreasing, rather than fixed. On the other hand, if there's a large war, I'd rather taxes go up than we be unable to fight said war.
Real conservatives believe that a landlord and a tenant have equal rights to enter into a contract of tenancy, and have equal obligations to abide by the terms of that contract.
Some conservatives believe that people have the right to self-destruction, but that the irresponsible behavior that accompanies the use of drugs to accomplish that is often something which deserves legal sanction.
Conservatives believe that use of a position of authority to obtain sex from someone placed in one's care and under one's power is criminal, regardless of the sex of the people involved.
Real conservatives know that the last statement is historically false.
Posted by: Anthony on October 11, 2006 2:43 PMSorry about the formatting - I was trying to blockquote Paul's statements before replying to them.
Posted by: Anthony on October 11, 2006 2:56 PM""Conservatives believe that traditional social constructs contain deep wisdom about what works and what doesn't work over the long term in ordering the affairs of mankind.""
"I think the response to this would be that any wisdom gleaned about traditional social constructs should be explainable in terms other than tradition."
Maybe. I invite you to try. Personally, I've never seen it done in a convincing way. Understanding the complex web of incentives that make traditional social constructs work (or not) is beyond any system of analysis I'm familiar with.
"Put another way, tradition can be understood as a supporting argument, but not a primary one. When the only defense of a practice is that it is traditional, the practice deserves scrutiny."
Understand - I'm not a conservative. I was answering Jane's question. I do share with conservatives a respect for the lessons of the past, however. History, to my mind, is at least as valid a candidate for a 'primary argument' as anything else is. And nothing is beyond scrutiny. I've never met anyone claiming to be a conservative who claimed otherwise.
"If we were talking about gay marriage, doesn't this also illustrate that these ideals (mantras?) may contradict? Nobody can make me get a divorce besides my wife or me."
Whatever you are trying to say here I'm not getting.
"Isn't the whole "weakening of marriage as an institution" argument essentially saying that individuals are not solely responsible for the outcomes of their marriages (contradicting the principle that people take responsibility for their actions?)"
There are an endless number of conservative commentators out there who can do a better job discussing the conservative case for and against allowing same-sex couples to marry than I can.
Posted by: Michael Couvillion on October 11, 2006 3:01 PM"I think the response to this would be that any wisdom gleaned about traditional social constructs should be explainable in terms other than tradition."
Maybe. I invite you to try. Personally, I've never seen it done in a convincing way.
To take a pedestrian example, it is awfully easy to make a case for why murder is wrong without ever saying "because it is against tradition." Admittedly, the more complex the situation, the harder this becomes, but for every example of "X" that is wrong, there should be an explainable underlying principle behind it.
Now, if the only basis for saying whether something should be legal or illegal (or, I suppose, sanctioned) is how effective it is at producing a desired result, then you are right: you need an outcome-based system of analysis.
"If we were talking about gay marriage, doesn't this also illustrate that these ideals (mantras?) may contradict? Nobody can make me get a divorce besides my wife or me."
Whatever you are trying to say here I'm not getting.
...
There are an endless number of conservative commentators out there who can do a better job discussing the conservative case for and against allowing same-sex couples to marry than I can.
I was trying to illustrate that these 'rules' can seem awfully agreeable out of context, but that they can be contradictory when put into practical terms. I wasn't actually looking to kick-start a marriage debate. No thread-jacking intended.
Posted by: Brad L on October 11, 2006 3:17 PMI think the problem for both is in the unintented consequences. One of the concequenses of aid for dependent children rules was that unemployed men left the household so the family could get welfare. One of the consequenses of welfare reform was to increase the abortion rate, especially for black women. One of the consequences of women entering the workforce is that men feel less need to stay around and support their childern, so we get more single mothers. The more women feel they might be left on their own to raise children the fewer children they will have. The fertility rate for white middle class women in this country is at european levels (about 1.7) and falling.
Posted by: joan on October 11, 2006 3:30 PMJBD, his commenters, and in fact most liberals/leftists/whatever do deny that people respond to incentives and also proudly announce that they want to punish success. "Tax the rich!" is a frequently applauded and well used battle cry of even TNR, never mind TAP, MJ, or The Nation.
The abortion debate is funny, as I dearly love to watch "science loving, reality-based" folks try to explain how life doesn't begin at conception or how abortion isn't a traumatic event. Now I think that on balance abortion should be legal up until the second trimester (or beyond for the physical safety of the mother), but respect and understand the pro-life side. The pro-choice side... not so much, especially since they are so ignorant of everything when it's talk of "chemicals" or the start of life, but oh so "knowledgeable" when discussing evolution or stem cell research.
One question: why do people who only eat organic food, fear "unnatural" chemicals, are against GMOs, afraid of powerlines, etc. support with blood curdling screams stem cell research? They send money to folks who bomb animal research labs but believe that destroying embryos as research or medical therapies is a nearly religious sacrament!
Liberalism: intellectual smugness for people who could only get arts degrees and have nothing to be smug about!
Posted by: hey on October 11, 2006 4:00 PMYou're being far to charitable to Mr. Stone in comparing your list to his. Stone's is just a litany of platitudes, but yours contains several points that genuinely differentiate the right from the left, albeit in a way that puts a positive spin on conservative tenets.
Posted by: Brandon Berg on October 11, 2006 4:11 PMIf you're a liberal, no doubt you're shaking your head. What a lot of loaded bullshit. This list amounts to saying "Conservatives are in favour of good things", with the resulting implication that liberals aren't.
Actually no, unlike Professor Stone’s list of what “liberals” supposedly stand for (which was rightfully met with guffaws and the sound of a thousand readers reaching for a Kleenex to wipe assorted diet beverages from their computer screens), you were actually very factual and presented a fair overview of what it is that most “conservatives” actually do believe. You didn’t sugar-coat things, you didn’t stack the deck with “good things” being “conservative” nor imply that “bad things” were “liberal,” and (which I usually take as a sign of intellectual honesty) you specifically acknowledged that there were tradeoffs in what “conservatives” believe.
Well done.
Posted by: Thorley Winston on October 11, 2006 4:18 PMI'd suggest these last two comments are examples of the confirmation bias I described earlier.
Believe it or not, TW and BB, most liberals I know (and I am including myself) would actually agree with all or most of these statements as presented. They would not agree with their opposites. After all, who could make the arguments:
People should not take responsibility for their actions
-or-
People do not respond to incentives
-or-
Well intentioned changes never have unintended consequences
-or-
Victims of crime are less worthy of our concern than the criminals who prey on them
?
These are strawmen, borne of caricatures of liberal thought.
In much the same way, Stone's assertion "Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate." is ridiculous in opposite. I have yet to hear of a conservative who says that individuals should not participate in public discourse.
Posted by: Brad L on October 11, 2006 5:25 PMI have yet to hear of a conservative who says that individuals should not participate in public discourse.
Depends on what topic. I remember being chastised for debating whether the USA be in Iraq. Lowers morale and all. And no, this was not disagreement of position (although there was that too), but a feeling that the topic should not be broached because it put troops at risk. (This was a ways back.)
And if that public discourse should involve expression of outrage by burning a flag? :-).
Of course, to be fair, as a Liberal I'm not in favour of public discourse on various topics. For example, I don't see any advantage to public discourse about race or sex based mental differences. The best outcome of such is staus quo, the worst is denial of opportunity for the capable.
Posted by: Tom West on October 11, 2006 6:05 PMI know Paul is kind of out there but I can't resist.
the termination of that life, for whatever reason, is murder.
Seriously?
Either this is trivially true or false.
Trivally true if murder is simply by definition the taking of a life.
False, if murder has any prejorative sense whatsoever. Is killing someone who is actively trying to rape and kill you murder?
Also, if those were the seriously the litmus test of conservatives the GOP would be going down in flames next month
Posted by: Karl Smith on October 11, 2006 6:15 PMYou and Stone seem to define conservatism and liberalism as a set of positions on issues.
In my view, conservatism and liberalism are bigger than just a set of positions.
Aren't they philosophies that are supposed to make assumptions about the big things such as human nature, the universe, society, democracy, law, justice, and government, etc.?
What leads and/or motivates many liberals today to support gun control, legalized abortion, higher taxes for the wealthy and corporations and what leads and/or motivates many conservatives in taking generally opposite positions?
"Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties."
Conservatives believe courts have a special responsibility to protect the individual liberties that the Constitution protects.
It is a common fallacy that courts are supposed to protect "liberty" or protect "them minority from majority oppression". They have both functions--within the limits described by the Constitution, not as a generalizable function.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw on October 11, 2006 6:36 PMAnthony already took a swing at Paul, but as a libertarian-leaning theoconservative, here's my take:
Conservatives believe in God.
I do, but not all conservatives. There is a cynical brand of conservatism that is agnostic in inclination.
Conservatives believe that life begins at conception (the instant the sperm enters the egg) and the termination of that life, for whatever reason, is murder.
I frankly don't know where to say life begins. And there are large numbers of conservatives who feel abortion to save a mother's life can be justified. It is probably correct, though, to say that most conservatives would err on the side of restricting abortion.
Conservatives believe that educators should be accountable for what they are teaching.
This is so vague that Jane could have included it in her list. What form of accountability?
Conservatives believe that TENURE for educators should be eliminated immediately.
I personally agree, but there are plenty of conservatives who see tenure as a check on other forms of power.
Conservatives believe that marriage only consists of a Man and a Woman (who are not related by blood, who are both 18 or older, and who are currently not married to anyone else.) Any other lifelong union, isn't marriage.
Man and woman: Probably true.
Monogamy: Mostly true.
Both 18 or older: Laughable. 18 as the age of consent is a fairly modern and arbitrary concept. Personally, I got married when I was 29 and my bride was 24, and would be appalled if my kids get married before age 21; but it's hardly a bedrock conservative principle.
Conservatives do NOT believe in No Fault divorce.
Probably true.
Conservatives believe firmly that the family (mother, father, and their offspring) is the bedrock unit, the foundation of civilization.
Almost certainly true; I think the "little platoons" are mentioned in Russel Kirk's list.
Conservatives believe in the profit motive.
I wouldn't put it this way. Informed conservatives, at least, agree with Milton Friedman that it is the profit and loss incentives that keep an economy humming.
Conservatives do NOT believe in the Seniority system for employment and compensation.
First I'd heard. And, on reflection, I can't agree. Job security is another incentive employers can offer to attract labor. Nothing wrong with that. Though, if you're under 40, you might think so.
Conservatives believe that there should be a fixed percentage of income that can be taxed, where that percentage never changes and government must operate within those boundaries.
This idea reflects conservative attitudes, but it's hardly a universally accepted idea. I don't think I agree with it. Small taxes, yes. A fixed percentage, no.
Conservatives believe the landlord has more rights than the tenant.
It beats me what this is supposed to mean.
Conservatives believe that using illegal drugs is NOT a victimless crime, since the drug user is destroying not only himself, but also all those around him who loves him. They are victims.
A murky reflection of a true attitude: Vices have external costs, including external costs to the moral climate of the community. Though not a universal attitude amongst conservatives.
Conservatives believe that the world is a dangerous place and that children are naughty (by nature.) If children do not have strict parents to teach them right from wrong (and to be careful in this dangerous world) they are more likely to grow up to be irresponsible and in trobule with the law for the remainder of their life. That is the parent's fault if that happens because they didn't take responsiblity for raising their children properly.
All but the last sentence, with which I do not agree, probablyl reflects widely held conservative attitudes. Though "strict" is in the eyes of the beholder.
Conservatives believe that female teachers that sleep with teenaged male students does NOT necessarily make the male student a victim, while male teachers that sleep with teenaged female students (or teenaged male students) are preditors and criminals (who should be incarcerated) and the student most certainly IS a victim.
I think most conservatives support current statutory rape laws. All these kids are victims.
Though we can always quibble over what the age of consent should be.
Conservatives believe that women tradtionally earned less money than men over the years since her paychecks were supplimental income for the household while the father's checks paid for the majority of the expenses.
This conservative thinks women traditionally earned less money because that's what the market would bear.
...Oh. And I predict Anthony will respond with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
"Conservatives believe in God" might be true in a statistical sense; i.e., a greater percentage of conservatives than of liberals believe in God. Same with Paul's other added items. I don't think any of them work as universal litmus tests of conservatism.
I think that Paul is listing what RELIGIOUS conservatives believe. I personally find very little on his list that I agree with, whereas I am in 100% agreement with Megan's list.
Posted by: Rex on October 11, 2006 8:09 PMWhat points on the list would any reasonable human being not agree with?
Well, anyone pro-choice fails #3, anyone who supports affirmative action fails #4 and #6, anyone who blames crime on poverty/education/etc rather than on the moral failing of the criminals themselves fails #1, anyone who believes higher taxes will not discourage people from working fails #8... the list goes on and on.
Posted by: Dan on October 11, 2006 9:24 PMI consider myself a conservative/libertarian. I rarely if ever vote Democrat; but Paul's list of crap makes my stomach heave. I can be a conservative without believing that God is the ultimate answer to secular issues. All I can say to the Paul's of this world is "Hie thee to a Baptist church and speak amongst yourselves." Your input to the public discourse, while acceptable and worth hearing, is offputting to a large part of the populace.
Posted by: J.R. on October 11, 2006 11:18 PMYour input to the public discourse, while acceptable and worth hearing, is offputting to a large part of the populace.
Actually, only a small percentage of the population doesn't believe in God, and it is predominantly liberal.
I happen to be a non-liberal atheist myself, but we ARE rare.
Posted by: Dan on October 12, 2006 1:36 AMThe difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives trust people and distrust government; liberals trust government and distrust people.
Your list reflects this definition as does Geofrey Stone's. His list is a list of ways the government can be used to force people to live together in peace and harmony; and also prescriptions on how those who rule us ought to behave.
THE LIBERAL DILEMMA arises from the fact that liberals believe government must constantly force people to be good when they really want to be bad, and the fact that these same people run the goverment. In other words how to have effective government when you don't trust the people who run it.
Posted by: sol vason on October 12, 2006 2:02 AMOf course, to be fair, as a Liberal I'm not in favour of public discourse on various topics. For example, I don't see any advantage to public discourse about race or sex based mental differences. The best outcome of such is staus quo, the worst is denial of opportunity for the capable.
Wrong -- the best outcome is rapid identification of likely-affected candidates, increased study of the condition generally, and follow-up treatments that can advantage the affected parties directly, or else their offspring through early preventive treatment.
Although any controversial discussion might necessarily tread a fine line to bigotry if race or gender distinctions are involved, if there IS a meaningful difference, there is no advantage in walling one's self off in a rhetorical mime's box. Information that isn't shared is usually information someone else discovers, and that party might use their first-to-market advantage for evil ends.
Second, there is a parallel risk that a refusal to study and discuss might actually succeed, leading to fewer amelioration discoveries. That is an odd outcome to prefer, because many differences along ethnic or gender lines ARE real. For example, it is well known that blacks are especially prone to sickle-cell anemia; East Asians and Native Americans characteristically have one/both of two variations on the dehydrogenase enzymes, adversely affecting their alchohol metabolization; males are more likely to have hemophelia; etc.
How would any of these groups benefit from the available treatments and/or preventive knowledge if well-meaning persons decided that profile-based risk identification was not worth addressing, merely because some escapee from the fruits & nuts bin might wear a sheet-hat for a few days on account of it?
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 12, 2006 2:46 AMFrom my POV the list seems facile. Which items of the list would not be true if "liberal" or "mainstream" or "independent"?
I didn't notice where it said "Conservatives believe that the state should be run by a sophisticated security apparatus." or "Conservatives believe that religion, though resistant to reason, should form a bedrock for our national dialogue."
Those would be true differentiators.
Posted by: Renaissance on October 12, 2006 8:08 AMWell, anyone pro-choice fails #3, anyone who supports affirmative action fails #4 and #6, anyone who blames crime on poverty/education/etc rather than on the moral failing of the criminals themselves fails #1, anyone who believes higher taxes will not discourage people from working fails #8... the list goes on and on.
Ok, how a liberal might still agree with these:
anyone pro-choice fails #3. Not really, unless you don't accept that there can even be disagreement about when human life begins. Again, not trying to thread-jack, but not everyone starts with the same assumptions that you are here.
anyone who supports affirmative action fails #4 and #6
To #4, most people that support affirmative action do so because they believe that everyone is not being treated equally, but should be. I'm not entirely sure how #6 even applies, since most affirmative action still requires the selection of individuals.
anyone who blames crime on poverty/education/etc rather than on the moral failing of the criminals themselves fails #1
When Ken shoots Steve, few liberals argue that Ken should not be tried and sent to jail. On a moral and legal level, Ken is responsible for his own actions, and so we can agree with #1.
However, it is also irresponsible not to notice that there are macro social effects. For example, increasing the profit motive in drugs will likely increase violent drug crimes. That is not an excuse for personal behavior, but fair game for social policy. This is, um, because people respond to incentives. Less incentive, fewer Kens shooting Steves.
anyone who believes higher taxes will not discourage people from working fails #8
I suspect that most people that support a progressive income tax are aware of the disincentive, but consider it something to be balanced against some other good. Put another way, few argue that communism, the ultimate remover of incentive, actually works.
The original statements are very general, and most people will bring their own assumptions into them, which is why everyone will think they agree. You may think that a liberal will fail to agree with them, because of your ideas of what the statements imply. But they will not.
Posted by: Brad L on October 12, 2006 8:40 AMBut affirmative action does NOT treat people equally; it's legalized discrimination for a "good" purpose. The original AA was the notion that if you had two equally qualified candidates, and one was a minority, you hired the minority. That didn't work, because there were not (and still aren't) a sufficient quantity of equally qualified minorities. AA now means many things to many people. In the legal sense, as being defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, AA means that (1) if you can show evidence of past discrimination in a particular setting, then (2) you can use reverse discrimination.
Posted by: Rex on October 12, 2006 9:38 AMThese lists look mostly bogus to me, but I think that's because "conservative" and "liberal" are very loose, broad groupings. In the US, they're tied to the two-party system. In reality, there are many intellectually distinct, and pretty consistent, threads of thought within both groups.
For example, everyone knows that conservatives look at crime and see a failure of personal responsibility rather than the result of a bad environment. That must be why conservatives talk about abstinence education. And why they supported welfare reform with arguments about a culture of dependency and high illegitimacy rates. Noted bleeding-heart liberals like Charles Murray worry about the impact of absent dads on poor people, while lefties like Bill Bennet worry about the impact of a morally bankrupt culture on children growing up.
Eveyone knows that liberals look at crime and see a failure of society, needing better education and rehabilitation rather than punishment. That's why liberals so strongly oppose punishing corporate criminals like Michael Milken or Ken Lay. That's why nobody on the left wants to lock up people for gay bashing.
Posted by: albatross on October 12, 2006 10:17 AMI consider myself a conservative/libertarian. I rarely if ever vote Democrat; but Paul's list of crap makes my stomach heave.
Don't let it.
If I upset you, that is not my problem. I'm not changing. Get over it.
Your input to the public discourse, while acceptable and worth hearing...
Fancy that. I feel so fortunate that you allow someone such as myself share my horrible opinions.
...is offputting to a large part of the populace.
You can't say that. You can only say that it is offputting to you. Don't presume that you speak for a large part of the populace.
Posted by: Paul on October 12, 2006 12:22 PM"anyone pro-choice fails #3." Not really, unless you don't accept that there can even be disagreement about when human life begins.
Anyone who disputes that a fetus is *alive* is simply ignorant. The point of disagreement is over whether it is a life that counts as human. Point #3, however, refers to "the lives of the helpless" -- which a fetus is, human or not. But in any case, the mainstream liberal position is that a mother retains the right to abort a fetus right up to the point of delivery, which is past the point at which any credible case can be made that the fetus isn't human yet.
"anyone who supports affirmative action fails #4 and #6" To #4, most people that support affirmative action do so because they believe that everyone is not being treated equally, but should be.
Affirmative action is treating people differently based purely on their race or ethnicity. It is therefore completely impossible for anyone who supports it to believe that people should be treated the same regardless of their race or ethnicity.
I'm not entirely sure how #6 even applies, since most affirmative action still requires the selection of individuals.
Because it treats all people of a given race as identical.
When Ken shoots Steve, few liberals argue that Ken should not be tried and sent to jail.
No, but if Ken was black we'd definitely hear a lot of talk about how racism and poverty are to blame and little to no talk about Ken's moral failing. Take, for example, the fact that blacks are around six times as likely to commit murder as whites. How many liberals blame this on immorality rather than cultural such as racism or poverty? Few indeed. How often do we hear that abstinence-only sex education "causes" pregnancy -- as if the actual pregnancies weren't really being caused by stupid kids having sex after being told not to? Etc, etc.
"anyone who believes higher taxes will not discourage people from working fails #8"
I suspect that most people that support a progressive income tax are aware of the disincentive
If they are aware of it then they spend a lot of their time lying, because very few admit that it is true. Pretty much every proposed Democratic tax increase, for example, assumes that people will keep earning the same incomes they did before the increase.
Posted by: Dan on October 12, 2006 7:20 PMAs a liberal, I'd say i agree with this list, insofar as the formulation is "conservatives believe thus and such". This does seem to be an accurate list of what conservatives believe, and rather clearly demonstrates what to mind mind are obvious mistakes of categorym, misunderstandings of what liberals would like to accomplish, and misunderstandings of the way society works, and the way people work. And since these lists are meant to clarify the difference between our agendas, brava.
Posted by: yoyo on October 12, 2006 11:47 PMI wasn't trying to get into a point-by-point debate, just demonstrate that many people may agree with the statements as presented, but not agree with policy outcomes you prefer. But I got tempted into a few responses.
Point #3, however, refers to "the lives of the helpless" -- which a fetus is, human or not.
I think it's fair that most people will bring the assumption of "human" to third statement, and not think it means bacteria, trees, or kittens. Although, by your formulation, it would be surprising that more conservatives are not conservationists or PETA members.
in any case, the mainstream liberal position is that a mother retains the right to abort a fetus right up to the point of delivery
This is a canard. My ever-dimming memory tells me that most people do not, in fact, support late term abortion, so I took a 5-second Google and found this:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html
Note the table: at 6+ months, 86% think pregnancy should be illegal (3% undecided). The remaining 11% hardly qualifies as mainstream (more people than that believe in aliens), no matter how narrowly you cast a liberal tent (and assuming that no percentage of that are people that are extremists of another stripe).
It is therefore completely impossible for anyone who supports it to believe that people should be treated the same regardless of their race or ethnicity.
I'm not the best advocate for this position, as it is one I don't hold. But AA is meant as a corrective, not an ideal case. When discrimination is bad enough, AA actually moves us closer to "equal treatment" even if it is less than ideal. There are a number of assumptions that go into this (such as that 'soft qualifications' are difficult to quantify, that there are untapped candidates that meet at least a threshold of qualification, etc). It's a lesser-of-evils position, rooted in the idea that unchecked discrimination is worse than AA (with the bonus assumption that other legal remedies fail).
Because it treats all people of a given race as identical.
Unless candidates are being picked out of a hat, this simply isn't so. Any employer or admission is still looking for the best candidates of a group.
How often do we hear that abstinence-only sex education "causes" pregnancy -- as if the actual pregnancies weren't really being caused by stupid kids having sex after being told not to?
The opposite is to deny that some programs have unintended consequences, and that people do not respond to incentives. Are you claiming that the aggregate outcome of a policy should simply not be considered? In other words, if teenage pregnancies rise significantly during abstinence-only education, who cares? (This assumes, of course, that one goal of abstinence-based policy is to reduce pregnancies in general).
If you are saying that liberals think that aggregate outcomes are worth our attention and inform our policies, then I am guilty as charged. However, none of that has to do with what I think of Ken the shooter, Gretchen the pregnant girl, or Phil, who got her pregnant.
If they are aware of it then they spend a lot of their time lying, because very few admit that it is true. Pretty much every proposed Democratic tax increase, for example, assumes that people will keep earning the same incomes they did before the increase.
Yes, I think it is fair to say that most politicians are somewhat disingenous with budgets, and reach for the numbers that put their policies in the best possible light. I don't think this affliction affects just one side of the aisle, though. I wonder though, do we have any idea what the actual income elasticity is?
I don't think we need to continue to debate particular policies to show the point: we all bring a fair number of assumptions with us when we read these statements, which are so general that anyone may agree with them whether you think they should or not.
Cheers.
Posted by: Brad L on October 13, 2006 11:22 AMWell said, and some good discussion amongst the people who got the point of the article.
Good game to those who seemed to get it, but then found it time to pretend they know what liberalism is, based on a list of what it supposedly isn't.
Signed,
Dirty Idealistic Liberal-Libertarian
Conservatives who obsess about these things generally accept Russell Kirk's six canons of conservatism:
(1) Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.
(2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
(3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes. The only true equality is moral equality; all other attempts at levelling lead to despair, if enforced by positive legislation.
(4) Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic levelling is not economic progress. Separate property from private possession and liberty is erased.
(5) Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters and calculators.' Man must put a control upon his will and his appetite, for conservatives know man to be governed more by emotion than by reason. Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man's anarchic impulse.
(6) Recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress. Society must alter, for slow change is the means of its conservation, like the human body's perpetual renewal; but Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of Providential social forces.
Posted by: David Cohen on October 13, 2006 7:26 PMJane's list is big tent, and Paul's list went way small-tent in its specificity. That's OK if you want to live in a small tent.
BTW, re Paul and Kent on marriage: "Conservatives believe that marriage only consists of a Man and a Woman (who are not related by blood, who are both 18 or older, and who are currently not married to anyone else.) Any other lifelong union, isn't marriage.
Man and woman: Probably true.
Monogamy: Mostly true.
Both 18 or older: Laughable. 18 as the age of consent is a fairly modern and arbitrary concept. Personally, I got married when I was 29 and my bride was 24, and would be appalled if my kids get married before age 21; but it's hardly a bedrock conservative principle."
The age of consent varies by state but for fornication, er, sexual activity, it's generally 16 in most states, and in those same states can be as low as 14 or even 12 within the context of marriage. It ain't statutory if you get married first. Wuv, twoo wuv.
Re: "Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate."
As evidenced by shutting down conservative speakers with whom they disagree, as evidenced most recently at Columbia. (Did you notice on the film footage...someone *hit* the cameraman?)
So, really, their behavior shows their real belief: "Liberals believe that only liberals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate."
*harumph*
Posted by: kentuckyliz on October 14, 2006 11:10 PMThis is the most poisonous rhetorical trick ever.
Believe it or not, TW and BB, most liberals I know (and I am including myself) would actually agree with all or most of these statements as presented. They would not agree with their opposites
Taking any criticism of A as being behind the polar opposite of A. If you are not for unchecked domestinc spying you love osama. Childish technique.
Posted by: bago on October 15, 2006 11:12 AMThis is the most poisonous rhetorical trick ever.
[Believe it or not, TW and BB, most liberals I know (and I am including myself) would actually agree with all or most of these statements as presented. They would not agree with their opposites]
Taking any criticism of A as being behind the polar opposite of A. If you are not for unchecked domestinc spying you love osama. Childish technique.
The opposites are formulated without any policy or agenda assumptions. If you are against unchecked domestic spying, it should be fair to say that you are for checks on domestic spying, shouldn't it? Is that really so controversial?
The problem is that if you:
a) speak in very broad generalities -and-
b) draw those generalities as a difference between groups
...then you really are implying that those other groups believe something incompatible, not something "mostly compatible but addressed in a different way."
For example, if I were to say that one difference between Libs and Cons is that "Liberals value their civil liberties" (which is really at the level of generality of the original statements), it implies that a conservative would disagree with this statement. Well, what would that disagreement be?
It might be fair to say that conservatives value them too, but not at peril of national security. If this is the case, though, a conservative would still easily agree with the general statement "I value civil liberties." They just don't agree with the conclusions that I (liberal) would assume from such a broad statement.
I am a little surprised that this is characterized as poisonous rhetoric (let alone childish). It just seems plain to me.
Cheers
Posted by: Brad L on October 16, 2006 9:42 AMLooks like David Cohen beat me to it, but Russell Kirk made at least a couple of these lists for conservatives years ago. Here is another:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html