Michael Totten is one of the more thoughtful people in the blogosphere, and he has been doing some thinking. The result is an article called "Builders and Defenders," and it's well worth your time:
"Liberals think of themselves as more worldly than conservatives. This is true in some ways, but not so in others. It seems (to me) that liberals are more likely to travel, and are more likely to visit Third World countries in particular. (If you meet an American traveler in, say, Guatemala, odds are strongly against that person being a Republican.) Liberals are more likely to listen to "world music," and are more likely to watch foreign films. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to study the negative consequences of American foreign policy. But that’s about it. If you want to find a person who knows the history of pre-war Nazi Germany, the Middle East during the Cold War, or the partition of India and Pakistan, you’re better off looking to the right than to the left.Michael's realization sparks a very interesting set of thoughts along the lines of "Liberals as Builders, Conservatives as Defenders." It's worth thinking about his thesis - and the commentary it spawned, which he links.I am astonished and dismayed to discover this. I'm a life-long liberal and I devour history like food. Not until after September 11 did I learn I'm a minority on the left."
Totten's logic also suggests an important addendum, which may explain something that still puzzles him: why does the Right have a tendency to see Leftists as traitors?
Before we go there, I need to offer a couple more excerpts from Michael's article:
"Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They haven't studied the rise of the Nazis. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler.Provocative. Now add the money paragraph:Far-right conservatives have the opposite problem. They understand Lenin perfectly well. It's the Democrats they don't understand. A hyper awareness of threats leads to hallucinations of banshees in the bushes. Joseph McCarthy had a deep understanding of Communism. And he did find some Communist spies. But he saw the tentacles of Communism everywhere, whether there were adequate grounds for it or not."
"One of the most common criticisms of liberals lately is that Israel is held to a Middle East double-standard. Every Arab state is guilty of far worse than anything Israel has ever inflicted on Palestinians. I’ve made this criticism many times myself, but there is a defense of the left here. Liberals, as I’ve said, are builders. And Israel is inside the sphere of liberal influence. The Arab regime in Sudan enslaves black Christians. This indeed is odious. But it’s far beyond the ability of liberals to affect. A protest against Sudan would be utterly useless. The regime wouldn’t listen, and everyone knows it. So what looks like hypocrisy and a liberal double-standard is partly a result of perfectly rational priorities." (emphasis mine)
"Rational" Cuts Both Ways...
For argument's sake, let's grant this proposition for a moment.
Now, take that behaviour over time and filter it as seen through the worldview of a Defender. They don't see it as just hypocrisy. They see it as liberals being on the other side, with the dictators, consistently. After all, they attack the enemies of our enemies, and spare not a word for our enemies' victims. That certainly looks like hostility, and over time it seems to produce more hostility in its practitioners. It clearly has no relation to principle, so what could it be? Now add real leftists, many of whom (hello, A.N.S.W.E.R.) are in fact on the other side and do in fact wish to destroy the civilization conservatives defend. Stir by having liberals see no enemies on the left, and so associate themselves with such people often. The recent anti-war demonstrations organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. are a good example. Again, take that behaviour over time and filter it as seen through the worldview of a Defender orientation.
If liberal hypocrisy is partly a result of "perfectly rational priorities," then one must grant that so are conservative beliefs which hold many on the Left as de facto shills for hostile powers and/or enemies of civilization. And of course, the one belief set feeds the other - both ways. Liberal hypocrisy feeds conservative perceptions of treason, which aren't always wrong. Conservative reactions feed liberal belief in persecution and the need for solidarity, which aren't always wrong.
How do we get off this train?
Breaking the Cycle: The Left
Slept on this. A famous leftist may have the answer. In "Can There Be A Decent Left?" Michael Walzer says: "I have a modest agenda: put decency first, and then we will see." Let's follow that thread for a bit, on both sides of the political aisle.
On the Liberal side, step one may be to refuse to board the train in the first place. Take Michael's example of Sudan. Key western oil firms help support that government through their activities, and in a globalized world these connections almost always exist. Consider also the effect demonstrations in Western countries (and conversely, the lack of same) have on the morale and hope of oppressed people. We have lots of data from the Soviet bloc and now Iraq that says it matters, and that real resentment is created when they see silence or complicity concerning their torturers and jailers. Put that together, and it's clear that demonstrations would indeed matter in almost any case you'd name. Liberal "rational priorities" start to sound like what they really are: a transparent excuse, not a rational or moral position.
Accept also that, as Walzer puts it:
"What was necessary after September 11, and what is necessary now, is an engagement with our fellow citizens that recognizes the fellowship. We can be as critical as we like, but these are people whose fate we share; we are responsible for their safety as they are for ours, and our politics has to reflect that mutual responsibility. When they are attacked, so are we;"
One thing a consistent approach to demonstrations and pressure would do (besides isolating the extremists), is clearly show committed liberals to be fundamentally on the same team as the rest of their society. This is not trivial or a waste of time. It's the very foundations of everything you want to build, and essential to a grown-up political movement.
Unnfrair to single us out, you say? Dislike the implicit presumption? Get over it. Conservatives face this same imperative in the economic sphere. For similar reasons. This is your albatross, and like the Right your movement acquired it the old-fashioned way - they behaved themselves into it.
Finally, in a sometimes over-the-top article, Caerdroia makes a good point: ideas need to be found that satisfy some of the same urges and tendencies as the destructive memes currently inhabiting the Left, but that lead in constructive directions instead. This is easier for people of the Left to do - but if you don't try, there are ex-leftist neoconservatives out there happy to give it a shot in your absence. The Right has remade itself almost entirely over the last 30 years, using a similar process. Why not you too?
...And the Right
Now, to my own allies on the Right. The key word here is responsibility. Just as liberal hypocrisy may involve logical steps but be fundamentally wrong and lead to worse things, conservative defender instincts can lead them equally far astray and alienate them from the society they wish to protect.
I believe that significant segments of the Left do in fact hate America and western civilization, and not only wish for but actively work toward their destruction. I've seen too much evidence to believe otherwise. Still, if our troops can show the level of decency, discipline under fire and precision targeting they did in Iraq, we can do the same. Don't be too quick to break things... this is home, and we'll just have to fix them later. (All: OO-RAH!)
There are people on the other side worth talking to or even working with. Many of them, in fact, and Michael Totten is a good example. Responsibility means not targeting them, deliberately or through carelessness. It means weeding out the ones who don't fit that mold, quickly, and not wasting time on one-on-one firefights unless doing so makes a larger point for a larger audience. It means fighting hard, but clean. It means the presumption of decency open to dismissal, rather than the reverse.
Do I think of the Left as traitors and enemies looking for an opportunity? I confess, there are moments - most recently, amidst the shockingly gloomy lib-left reaction that followed the fall of Saddam's statue in central Baghdad. Still, feelings aren't an argument or an excuse; that's the other side's shtick. Even if you're right, you still have to engage the arguments. So engage only when it serves a purpose, engage the arguments first, stay there unless evidence is very strong, and keep any accusations very specific.
The modern Left will give us enough examples of real hate, and real treason. Save your ammo for those few serious engagements; it will matter more there, and your responsibility and decency avoids situations that will alienate people we'll want as friends or at least neutrals later. Not to mention the benefits of not saying stupid things you'll want to take back later (but cannot unsay).
Our opponents may or may not be impressed, but the people watching will be - and they're the ones that matter long term.
Conclusion & Updates
Both builders and defenders have their own "Icarus complexes" to deal with, inherent to their nature. Giving into those traps or justifying them traps us all. If we wish to go free, all we require is the courage to choose a different road, and the faith that others will join us.
Another example of 'bipolar disorder'. There is far more to the world that 'liberal' and 'conservative'... and don't get me started on the issue that there is nothing 'liberal' about the people in the USA who use that word.
Liberals, as currently running around, tend to want to hurt Conservatives by their building, with deliberately integrated actions designed to inflict damage to their opponents. They relish harming others on their way to a goal.
MommaBear... see my further thoughts now that I've slept on the question. Michael Totten is a liberal. So is Armed Liberal here. So are others I could name. JDAMs, please, not mass firebombing.
Liberals believe in symbolism over substance. That's why they wanted the UN to handle things in Iraq. Continued inspections and what we now know was a fraudulent oil-for-food program. Both symbolic.
Conservatives believe in action. That's why we support stopping Sadaam with force.
If there was a rapist in the neighborhood liberals would want to make a tougher law against rape, while conservatives would want to catch him and put him away.
Liberals wanted the UN involved (SC permission) so as to give the invasion a certain degree of international legitimacy because on the surface it does look like an unprovoked attack by a massive power on a weak power. I sometimes believe that liberals almost pathologically associate with the weaker foe in some mistaken belief that the "little guy" is honorable. In reality, the weaker power could be a budding homocidal maniac.
Your assertion that "conservatives believe in action" is nonsense. I seem to remember quite a few conservatives opposing Clinton in Kosovo.
"If there was a rapist in the neighborhood liberals would want to make a tougher law against rape, while conservatives would want to catch him and put him away."
I'm a liberal. But I'd prefer hitting the rapist with a bat, then sticking him in jail. Please don't generalize about people you don't know.
I also take issue with the idea that liberals are builders and conservatives are defenders. In the civil liberties arena, I see liberals as being both builders and defenders (against encroachments by big business and the government). Yes, there are definitely some voices on the Right opposing the Patriot Act, etc. but what I more often see is figures like Santorum who opposes the separation of Church and State, the right to privacy, the right to bugger another man. The most vocal opposition to the Patriot Act seems, from what I've seen, to have originated on the left. Conservatives all too often seem to take the side of big business (and the wealthy) even if it means restricting civil liberties (or pushing policies/tax cuts that hurt the poor). I've always found it odd that the ACLU has such a liberal reputation. In reality, every American should be a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Mr. Totten makes some good points, and some weak ones. His explanation of the left's focus on Israel in the Middle East is weak. While it's true that protests are unlikely to move the vile government of the Sudan to change, the United States and United Nations certainly have some degree of authority that can be brought to bear against the Sudan. I see few, if any, leftists working for this. Why then Israel?
I think he's missed the huge streak of anti-Americanism running through the modern left like a cancer, that prevents them from seeing evil beyond their own borders, or those of close US allies like Israel. Reflexive, and sometimes unconcious, anti-Americanism is the 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the left's parlor, and it must be addressed and dealt with before left-right relations can return to a position of mutual trust and respect.
One thing I noticed about Michael Totten's article (which was, by the way, really excellent), is how he introduces his point. It exposes a difference between individualists on the left and individualists on the right.
Those on the right tend to start out an idea that they know will be controversial to others on the right with something like: Chew on this: [insert point]
Those on the left tend to start out an idea that they know will be controversial to others on the left with something like: I am a leftist. Here are my credentials: [insert credentials]. I'm going to make a point that will shock you, but hear me out because I too am on the left: [insert point]. I am a leftist, too. Really!
I wonder why this is? Certainly the levels of intolerance for dissent can't be that much different on the right and on the left?
an interesting observation, i tend to view conservatives as pragmatic and liberals as romantic. i love history and look at it as a building block for the future and understand that liberals look at the here and now and dream of what could be.
my problem is that a lot of liberals (neo-conservatives) and have become conservatives, whereas alot of liberals of have become apologists for thugs. i believe i understand the neo-conservative movement (which has added depth and breadth to conservative thought as well as limiting the neo-isolationist) but i struggle with the liberal movement to the left (started in the 20s and 30s).
someone please tell me how one can support the rights of the individual but then not support educational vouchers.
I agree with Perry. As for most of the other comments (Timmy excluded), I see the dittoheads are out.
The terms "liberal" or "conservative" are meaningless, only useful for caricature and polemics.
What are "conservatives" trying to conserve? Cultural or economic freedom? The environment?
Are "liberals" always in favor of giving economic and cultural freedom?
Well, Klaatu, I always thought that "liberal" and "conservative" referred to interpretations of the constitution, but that's just me speaking.
Left-right is a simplification, but it's an awfully handy one.
SparcVark:
Klaatu has a point: I agree that "liberal" and "conservative" can be handy simplifications, but I believe they also lead to disagreements over differences which don't exist.
Whenever I discuss a political topic with someone, I really want to know whether that person believes in individual accountability.
1) If not, we just won't ever agree. This group seems to me to spend lots of time trying to justify divorcing actions from their natural consequences. I will probably never believe that Americans should pay for universal health care when the top six causes of death in the US are lifestyle-elective. It's pointless for me to argue with people who don't believe in the economic principle of internalizing externalities.
2) If so, then any disagreements we have generally revolve around whether or not the American form of democratic capitalism approximates a meritocracy, and what adjustments are needed to get it there. A surprising number of "liberals" seem to agree in principle with a system that rewards the diligent and spanks the lazy, but they don't think our system does this fairly enough. And this can be a fair criticism.
But if I immediately generalize an unflattering characteristic to all liberals (I'm not saying you have, but labels in general lend themselves to this), I lose my chance to reason with the ones who can be reasoned with, and finding common ground.
No, SpacVark, as a lawyer I can tell you that "liberal' and "conservative" are useless even as terms of constitutional interpretation.
There are "conservative" judicial activists, and "liberal" strict constructionists, and there are many who switch back and forth as it suits them.
You're right, Klaatu. I guess that "conservative" and "liberal" have spun off from their original meaning. Anyhow, I just use them as shorthand - when I use them. I prefer "left" and "right" personally, but even those are awfully elastic divisions. Are totalitarian communists "far left" for believing in income redistribution or "far right" for supporting martial law and strict surveillance of private behavior?
Maybe I oversimplify, but I do it to try to avoid constructing group definitions from whole cloth each time I try to break political philosophies into groups. I am awfully lazy.
That said, I don't accuse the left of anti-Americanism to score points, and it's not a blanket accusation. I just think it's a troubling flaw that is creeping into a lot of reasoning. I see it in people who are far smarter and wiser than I am, who I respect greatly. It's a tendency to blame international situations on the United States first, and only grudgingly look at scenarios in which Demon America is not at fault. Some of these people are quite patriotic in their own way, it's just that I hear things like "maybe Stalin wouldn't have come to power had the US not had troops in Russia in 1918" and acting as though the only possible reason for a Sandinista electoral defeat in Nicaragua was American bribery.
All ideas wither and rot without criticism, and those who believe in an idea are reluctant to criticise it. In a sense, even though I'm a "conservative", I - in a sense - rely on "liberal" folks to alert me to dangers in the TIA and Patriot act. And this is why I'm worried about irrationality on the left, not because I want to show off how right I am.
Klaatu, to qualify as a "strict constructionist", one must be willing to honor the text of the entire Constitution, and to the extent of one's understanding, the intent of its framers. You will find relatively few on the Right who obsess over violations of the "non-establishment" clause of the First Amendment (they tend to prefer the "free exercise" clause), and practically none on the Left who respect the Second or Tenth Amendments.
IMO, there are practically no truly "strict constructionists", but you will find more people who come close, on the Right than the Left. While there are exceptions to every rule, the Right usually directs its unconstitutionalities at problems which threaten the peace and order of the community — the "rights" of criminal suspects, enemy aliens in time of war, etc. The Left tends to trample the rights of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms suitable for the protection of themselves, their families, and their communities. The Left is also prone to advocate the wholesale federal usurpation of responsibilities reserved to the states.
Personally, I expect government to stay out of my face and pocketbook, and to kick the bejeezus out of persons, organizations (foreign or domestic) or nations who threaten the security of our nation.
Riyadh delenda est!
"Please don't generalize about people you don't know." — linden
If the Right is prone to generalize about liberals, it's because we learned it from your lot. In my 40-odd years, I've discussed a variety of issues with both people on both the Left and Right, and when it comes to sheer obnoxiousness, the Left wins, hands down. When it comes to churlishness in debate, James Carville, Al Sharpton, Chuck Schumer, etc. make Limbaugh look like the "lovable little fuzzball", he claims to be.
The cold, hard, fact of political life in America is that the Democratic Party is a coalition dominated by groups who either want to live off the public treasury (bureaucrats and welfare clients) or who want the government to support their efforts at extorting a living out of others (trial lawyers and union types). If they don't win, they don't eat, and when they're losing, they can get really nasty.
The Republicans have their pressure groups too, but they have also attracted a lot of people who just want government to leave them alone.
Riyadh delenda est!
Cato - being left alone or not would expain some of the red-and-blue map of the last election.
I recently visited my uncle, who lives out west. His 2 next door neighbors are his sons - both of whom live a mile in either direction. In contrast, I can knock on my neighbors front door while standing in my home. Urban areas - "my neighbors can be really annoying, and the law needs to control them" - vote for Democrats. Non-urban - "it's none of your business what I'm doing" - vote Republican.
Gun control -
1) The police are 25 miles away. Of course I've got a gun (well, several, actually).
2) There was a shooting next door (really). Those crooks shouldn't have a gun.
Another factor is that anyone who lives off the government generally votes for Democrats, and that's much more common in cities. This isn't just - or even primarily - about welfare. My last job was at a research institute, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about what the effect of a Republican administration might have upon grant funding. Unions, too - big government = big contracts = big unions.
It's a rather complex topic.
The notion that Conservatives, as a class, are more historically informed than Liberals is absurd on its face.
The average Conservative has just as little concept of how Hitler rose to power in Weimar Germany as the average Liberal -- and neither of them see the much more close parallels to Fascist Spain and Italy or wartime Athens. Educated people, in general, are a tiny minority in this country. Liberals call Conservatives Nazis because Hitler's regime is a shorthand for the kind of brutal suppression of dissent (and minorities, and gays, for that matter) that Conservatives would like to inflict on this country. Conservatives call Liberals traitors, because that's what Conservatives have always done; the cries have gotten louder lately because of fundamentalist millenialism.
I mean, yes, it's nice to look into the Conservative psyche and grasp that decisions aren't made on anything resembling a rational basis; this gives us insight into what Liberals can do to nonrationally defeat them. But the basic dynamic was established in 1945 and hasn't changed since then.
Liberals in general seem to be far more idealistic on every issue than conservatives, hence the insistence that inspectors were the solution to the problem of Saddam even after 12 years of noncompliance. Frequently they appear to be quite out of touch with reality because of this, and have their priorities(i.e. pleasing the UN over human life) and math skills(Iraq body counts varying over war/no war scenarios) badly screwed up.
I think it's important to realize that one may be "liberal" on one topic and "conservative" on others at the same time. Labelling a person in a blanket statement as being purebred from either side would probably be very accurate.
One's political leanings may be radically different between issues of religion, gender equality, military, economy, welfare, etc etc. I, for example, fully supported the war in Iraq, while at the same time I also support homosexual rights and separation of church and state while at the same time opposing affirmative action.
It's perfectly possible to be all over the spectrum for different issues.
David, you're quite right that there are a lot more "consumers" of government funds than just welfare clients, and many of them perform useful services. I also agree that being left alone sells better outside the major metropolitan areas. But my point that if Dems don't win, they don't eat, is still valid, and explains much of the nastiness on the part of the Left.
The Right tends to work outside the government sector, and most of them are a little more laid back about most issues (gun control and abortion being the main exceptions).
Riyadh delenda est!
The liberal/conservative debate is greatly complicated by the fact a great deal has happened since the terms were last revised - which, I'd argue, happened shortly after WWII.
Andrew sullivan suggested that there were a group of Americans hawkish on foreign policy but appalled by the religious right's social conservative agenda. He suggested these folks be referrred to as "eagles" to distinguish them from hawks or doves. The bird didn't fly.
The religious right in the US and, to a lesser degree Canada, has hijacked the social agenda of traditionally conservative parties. Similarily, the identity politicians of the interest group left have all but eliminated liberal, civil discourse by dint of pushing for politically correct rhetoric and outcome.
In both instances these are profoundly radical and marginal positions; but in the States, where the nation is divided right down the middle, mainstream politicians have no choice but to pander to the noisy fringes of their support.
What is emerging in Canada, and, I think in the States, is a profound generational cleavage between the wrinklies on the far left and the far right and the sub-40's who like their pot, porn and partners without too much hassle from the State.
At the moment these are lazy libertarians; but the growing backlash against the inanities of the War on Drugs, the futility of net censorship and widespread acceptence of, as the fundamentalists would have it, "unmarried lifestyles" may get these people more actively involved in politics.
It may not, however, get them involved in mainline party politics. There is not the same sense of attachment to political parties that there was in the last century. And there is a general disgust for the carryings on of politicians of left, right or centerist inclination.
The liberal/conservative dicotomy is just as likely to collapse under the weight of its fringes as to carry on governing. And from the rubble assorted, loose, alliances of the willing will likely begin to set agendas which reflect the real world of the new century rather than the forgotten world of the old one.
The decency question is paramount. I'm surprised no other commenter has addressed it.
"Decent" comes from the old Latin word decens, which means fitting or appropriate. What's appropriate is always contextual. However, context doesn't tell all; it doesn't address fundamental moral questions about right and wrong -- and here we come to the real cleavage issue that divides Left from Right.
The Left tends to maintain that there are no absolutes in morality, while the Right maintains the opposite. Which is why I generally identify with the Right: without a moral foundation, it's impossible to know when to act against, which is the only thing government can ever do, by its very nature.
The underlying impulse for the Left's position is comprehensible. It's an overreaction to traditional moral strictures, mostly about sex, that were based upon religious premises. But if ever there were a case of tossing out the baby with the bathwater, this is it.
On the other side of the aisle, Rightists have largely effaced the borders between those things that are wrong in principle, such as murder, and those things that are bad for you, such as intoxication. This, of course, feeds Leftists' distaste for them and fear of their political intentions.
Can we settle the question of "what is politically decent?" in any general setting?
I think it's possible, but difficult. It will require a return to shared premises about moral fundamentals: the acceptable uses of force. It will require an agreement that those moral strictures are permanently superior to all other political goals. And it will require recognition that ours is a universe in which ends and means cannot be distinguished from one another.
"Decent" people, in the colloquial sense, want the best for one another, and will exert some effort on others' behalf out of pure fellow-feeling. But they would also be horrified and remorseful if, out of good intentions, they were to do one another actual harm. A true League Of The Decent would be most watchful of its own failures, because failure is the universe's way of telling you that you don't know enough to achieve your goals. It would admit its mistakes openly, make restitution for them, and strain mightily to avoid repeating them. It would never promote its intentions above its achievements.
How do we get there from our current, fractious, nearly unendurable political impasse?
Get a few liberals and a few conservatives into a big room. Provide comfy chairs, lots of decaf and some first-rate jelly doughnuts. Then get them talking about their failures, and what they learned from them. Don't allow anyone to talk about a political achievement until he's first described the failure that taught him what he needed to know to achieve it. And don't allow anyone to characterize the passage of a law, or a court decision, or any other pure operation of government power as an "achievement"; achievements and failures are to be determined solely from changes in people's health, wealth, and security.
Inasmuch as the human race's principal product is mistakes, the restoration of political humility, whether in the above fashion or any other, is prerequisite to curing our other political ills. And there's a funny thing about humility: it's appropriate to any and every context. It's always decent.