January 13, 2004
The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
A couple of days ago, Rip set forth a challenge to Russell and I to describe the differences between liberalism and conservatism. This is even more challenging for me than it might be otherwise, because while I am conservative on some issues, I disagree with mainstream conservatism on others. For the sake of the discussion, though, I'll do my best to extrapolate.
Russell presents as his thesis below that a principal difference between liberalism and conservatism is that liberalism identifies with the "other" more often. He then thoughtfully provides a counter-example in the abortion debate. Here are some more groups with which I believe liberalism as ontology not only demonstrates little empathy, but in some cases open hostility:
Whatever else one can say about liberalism, it isn't really about identifying with people who aren't like liberals. Unfortunately, feeling more empathy for those with whom we identify, and less for those with whom we don't, is not a conservative trait. It's a human trait.
Okay then, so what is liberalism about, in my view? What is it that liberalism thinks some minority groups, the environment, criminals, homosexuals, other nations, drug users, and the poor have in common?
Victimhood. To a liberal, they are all victims. Liberalism splits the world into pieces and looks for the external cause of the challenges each piece faces. The environment is the victim of Big Business and Big Oil. Criminals are victims of their upbringing, of an unfair system, and of religious zealots who would put them all to death. Homosexuals are victims of their own biology and of religious zealots who would oppress them. Other nations are victims of the United States and of neo-conservatives who would oppress them. Drug users are victims of strict drug laws and of religious zealots who would throw them in jail. Minorities--some of them, anyway--are victims of white men. Women that are pregnant but do not wish to be are victims of circumstance and/or of the men that made them pregnant. The poor are victims of their initial economic standing in life and of the rich, including Big Business.
This is the first of three differences I see between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism sees the individual--person, plant, and animal--as to a large degree powerless victims of fate or of an oppressor, who must be saved by the intervention of others--in particular, government. Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness. A good conservative wants to see each and every individual reach their highest potential, regardless of whether that person is white, black, rich, poor, virtuous, a criminal, straight, gay, American or not. They believe that nothing can elevate individuals higher than each person striving in freedom to be more, to be better, to be more successful. And they believe that in almost all ways, government not only works badly, but actively impedes the striving for individual greatness that provides the greatest opportunity for people, including the least fortunate among us, to elevate themselves. Conservatives see government as a necessary evil, really good at only one thing: the application of force. The job of government is to use force when needed to protect its citizens from the use of force by others. That means the military, for protection from hostile forces, and law enforcement for protection from criminals. And yet conservatives do believe that people need help from time to time. They believe that it is important to help those less fortunate then themselves, but think government as the wrong way to do it--not only ineffective, but also corrosive to the individual's own sense of responsibility for their own success.
A second difference between liberalism and conservatism is that both liberals and conservatives empathize with people, but liberals define their policy by reacting directly to that empathy, whereas conservatives tend to take, as Rip says, a more systems-oriented view of the world. That's where liberals get the idea that conservatism doesn't empathize. It does--but it also says there is a bigger picture that liberalism misses.
Conservatives empathize with the environment, for example, but perceive much of the "science" that says it is in grave jeopardy to be politically motivated. They don't believe the environment is in as much jeapordy as some--and liberalism--would have one believe. They believe that responsible stewardship of the environment need not require the harm to the economy--and, disproportionably, the poor--that would result from many liberal policies. And they believe that, in some cases, the liberal agenda would not in the end actually help the environment.
Conservatives--particularly devoutly Christians ones--empathize with criminals. They see all people as children of God and as sinners. But they believe that just as overindulgent parents raise spoiled children, so it is bad public policy to think that extending empathy to be "soft" on criminals is doing them or society a favor. They believe instead that doing so just creates more criminals.
Right or wrong, a good Christian conservative--which I am not, so I'm extrapolating, here--would say, "You are homosexual, and I empathize with you. It's totally okay to be homosexual. However, God says gay behavior is wrong, and you therefore ought not do it." Hence the expression, "hate the sin, love the sinner." Radio talk-show host Glenn Beck, who is both a religious conservative and a recovering alcoholic, draws this analogy. He says that he gives the benefit of the doubt to homosexuals who argue that sexual orientation is something you are born with, like hair or eye color. But, he says, he believes he was born an alcoholic. That's what he is. And, he says, that doesn't make it okay for him to drink, or absolve him from responsibility for his drinking. It means he has to overcome what he is to do what is right and to be who he should be. And he believes the same is true for homosexuals and homosexual behavior.
Most conservatives would make a similar argument with respect to drug use. Rush Limbaugh says that things he did while addicted to prescription pain medication were wrong.
Finally, as far as money is concerned, conservatives think there are many things that need to get done--and say, "Okay, so go do them. What are you waiting for?" Conservatism believes there is truth to Milton Freidman's statement that "When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it", and that this is not true when spending someone else's money.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe they know better than those people whose money it is how that money should be spent, and believe people can not be trusted to spend their own money on the things the liberal believes are important. And yet the liberals can not afford to do all the things they want to do. So rather than earn the money they need, or budget or save up so they can afford the things they think should be done, they say, "The rich have the money, so... we'll take it by force, and spend it how we see fit, because we know best." Conservatives are generous with their own money, while liberals are generous with someone other people's money.
Notice, by the way, the important distinction here between "conservatives and liberals" and "Democrats and Republicans". Taking money to which they are not entitled and spending it as they wish is a trait shared by both of our major political parties, unfortunately. But as far as the two political philosophies we've been discussing are concerned, it is conservatism that argues against it.
Posted by David Gaw in Current Affairs & Politics at January 13, 2004 07:29 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://cuzwesaidso.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/169
Comments
Well, for the record, your counter-examples aren't counter-examples:
Every single one of these (even the Republicans) is a group that, in some way, conforms to the traditional notion of America. David, you're making my point for me.
I don't lack empathy for these people. I just have more empathy for the "others" who have, in my opinion, more desperate or ignored needs.
More later...
Posted by: Russell Lutz at January 13, 2004 10:55 AM
> Well, for the record, your counter-examples
> aren't counter-examples:
For the record, yeah, they really are. At least, they are if your point is, as I understood it to be, that conservatives empathize with people more like themselves, whereas liberals empathize more with people unlike themselves. Cuz it just ain't so.
> The majority of the country is religious.
> There is little "otherness" represented there.
There sure is--if you're liberal. According to a November poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 63 percent of people who attend services more than once a week vote Republican, while 37 percent of regular attendees vote Democratic. Conversely, 62 percent of those who attend a religious service only once a year or not at all vote Democrat, while 38 of these voters align themselves with the Republicans. While there is not exact alignment between liberals and Democrats and conservatives and Republicans, I think the basic alignment is understood by everyone reading this, no?
> True, most people aren't wealthy, but they'd
> like to be.
Yes, but liberals don't believe they *will* be. For an example, pick up Michael Moore's very popular latest book to read where he explains how conservatives are lying to you when they say that you, too, can be rich. There is little empathy. There is much covetousness.
> White people -- particularly white men, and
> even more particularly conservative white
> men -- Okay, so technically, white men are a
> minority. But they still control a majority
> of the capital and power in this nation.
Not really the issue at hand. The question at hand was, "does liberalism empathize with them--strive to see things from their perspective." And the answer is no. You could argue, and many would, that this is appropriate. But it is a counter-example nonetheless.
> Please point to another minority that has
> done a better job assimiliating into the
> mainstream of this country.
Again, not the point. Your observation is an excellent reason why it would be in the best interest of liberalism (and, frankly most of mainstream American culture) to seek to empathize with and understand the Asian community, and how it lives. But it doesn't.
> Republicans -- Okay. You got me there.
Yes.
> Alleged white-collar criminals (heard any
> liberals defending Enron executives
> recently?) -- Exactly which civil rights have
> been trampled on for these poor, deserving
> wretches? Show me a white-collar criminal
> who was beaten by the police, and I'll
> empathize with him.
Yet again not the point I was making. You said liberals empathize with criminals. My point was you don't empathize with all of them. And since
you specify future conditions under which you would start to empathize, you seem to concede the point.
> Every single one of these (even the
> Republicans) is a group that, in some way,
> conforms to the traditional notion of
> America.
Exactly. And that are outside the liberal notion of America--or at least the liberal sphere within America. And liberals do not empathize with them "as much". Which was my point: liberals, just like conservatives, empathize most strongly with people with whom they perceive as being like them, and less with those that hold opposing philosophical views.
> David, you're making my point for me.
Only not.
> I don't lack empathy for these people. I
> just have more empathy for the "others" who
> have, in my opinion, more desperate or
> ignored needs.
Yes. The victims, as I said.
Empathy is nice. Whenever you're ready to move beyond that, to actually help the desperate and meet their needs, the road of conservatism will be waiting for you.
Posted by: David Gaw at January 13, 2004 11:46 AM
David, you appear to be making the point that Liberals, in some sense, are discriminating against religious people, Asians, white men, wealthy people and white collar criminals. (I’d love to see your evidence for any of this, but I don’t want to veer too far off the point.)
I, on the other hand, implied that Conservatives, in some sense, discriminate against members of nations which aren’t democratic, criminals, gays, drug users, and the flora and fauna of the environment.
If we accept both of these hypotheses as true, how does my original point not make sense? How can you say that a Liberal isn’t looking out for people who are more different from themselves?
Take you me. I’m a white, moderately affluent, religious man. True, I’m not an Asian, and I have been convicted of no embezzlement charges. Therefore I fit into three of your five example areas.
You, on the other hand, are not -- at least in my experience -- a member of the Socialist Party of France, a murderer, a homosexual, a crack head, or a gopher.
So, given the groups you championed, and the groups I championed, which of us is more interested in people like us, and which is more interested in people unlike us?
Posted by: Russell Lutz at January 13, 2004 12:36 PM
Seriously you are giving conservatives way too much credit and not even thinking about the liberal side of things. What research did you go into at all about liberals? "Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness." So your saying liberals do not see people as powerful or valuable. Not all liberals are the same, as not all conservatives are the same either. But from my own experience, conservatives refuse to see things from someone else's point of view or even consider someone else's ideas. I wonder why? Most conservatives I have met have parents that are well-off and they just mimic everything they have heard from their parents without ever looking into issues and other political views for themselves!!!
Posted by: Holly at March 22, 2004 09:46 PM
I think the basic issue is that "conservatives" tend to focus on authoritarian, right-wing solutions to problems (ie. dept of homeland security, war on drugs, etc) while "liberals" tend to focus on authoritarian, left-wing solutions (socialized medicine, welfare, socialized education, etc). Nobody in the public eye is actually focusing on nonauthoritarian solutions to problems.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Posted by: Rip Rowan at March 23, 2004 08:07 AM
Seriously you are giving conservatives way too much credit and not even thinking about the liberal side of things.
That's probably a fair criticism. While I would call myself a libertarian, my sympathies do lie more with conservatism than with liberalism.
Not all liberals are the same, as not all conservatives are the same either.Again, a valid point. As is often the case, both good and comes from slapping a label on something, in this case a political world-view.
The good here is it helps simplify our discussion by grouping characteristics of two differing perspectives. The bad is it leaves the door open to over-simplification. Also, it would probably have been more accurate for us to speak of "liberalism" and "conservatism" than "liberals" and "conservatives", since we're more trying to differentiate the tenets of different philosophical perspectives than what any specific individuals believe.
"Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness." So your saying liberals do not see people as powerful or valuable.I'm more saying that I think liberalism believes more of the power and value of people--primarily economic power--lies with people acting collectively, and the government should be more interventionist; conservatism believes more of that power and value of people lies with people acting as individuals, and that government should be more removed.
In truth, both liberalism and conservatism favor intrusion of the government in some capacity into the lives of the citizenry--liberalism in economic matters, conservatives in social matters. It's the libertarians that favor individual liberty in both areas.
But from my own experience, conservatives refuse to see things from someone else's point of view or even consider someone else's ideas.My experience is that there are people all over the political spectrum, both conservative and liberal, that refuse to see things from someone else's point of view, or consider someone else's ideas.
Posted by: David Gaw at March 23, 2004 08:50 AM