The poles of American politics

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I've been collecting attempts to describe the core differences between liberal and conservative thinking. Here's my attempt to name it as succinctly as possible without misrepresenting either pole.

---

Liberals and conservatives have different conceptions of what constitutes a good society.

For conservatives, a just society ensures that people who are moral and responsible prosper, while people who are immoral and irresponsible do not prosper, suffering consequences for their actions. A good social order delivers rewards for virtue and punishments for vice.

Further, conservatives generally take it that the obvious, natural, traditional form of society produces this kind of justice, if imperfectly. This is what conservatives seek to conserve: the just social order of their moral intuition.

For liberals, a just society provides for people's needs and allows personal freedom, and this depends upon equity. Liberal conceptions of personal freedom include both negative liberty (freedom from constraints) and positive liberty (resources which enable one to act). A good social order is one in which everyone is free and equal.

Further, liberals generally take it that there is no “natural” form of society; any social order is a deliberate artifice, created by people making choices about what values they want society to express.

To liberals, the conservative dream is wrong because its system of rewards and punishments is really the cultivation of inequality, and conservatives' naturalization of their vision of the correct social order is a rationalization of their preferences.

To conservatives, the liberal dream is wrong because its cultivation of supposed equality rewards vice and fails to recognize virtue, which makes liberals' attempts to engineer society doomed to result in catastrophe because they corrupt society's correct and natural form.

---

A conservative friend sharpened the point about “the obvious, natural, traditional form of society” in a discussion on Facebook:

Conservatives do understand the artifice of constructed civilization — we argue for Natural Law but not the State of Nature

Nicely put. To conservatives the correct social order is natural but not effortless — without devotion to the correct social order, conservatives believe we devolve into barbarism.

---

Being deeply lefty in my political intuitions, I'm particularly interested to hear if our conservatives feel properly represented by this capsule description.

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure liberals want serial killers to not have consequences. I'm not sure conservatives don't want there to be reasonable equity of opportunity -- as long as "opportunity" is not understood reductively as "circumstance."

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

What does it mean for a serial killer to have consequences? Would you consider a bagel with cream cheese to be a cereal killer?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure liberals want serial killers to not have consequences

I don't see that “freedom from any consequences” is integral to liberalism as I've described it. Liberals can still favor consequences for crimes as instrumental to creating a free and equal society. That is, liberals do not see consequences as an expression of justice in themselves; rather, they measure those consequences as just to the degree that they support a social order which produces freedom and equality.

reasonable equity of opportunity

I don't see that as in conflict with my description of conservatism at all. “Equality of opportunity” is a way of saying that people should be rewarded for the virtues of talent and effort.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure conservatives don't want there to be reasonable equity of opportunity -- as long as "opportunity" is not understood reductively as "circumstance."

If anything, I'd argue a base, simplistic belief differential would be "conservatives prefer 'equality of opportunity' while liberals prefer 'equality of outcome.'" Yes, there are flaws and nuances within that need to be addressed in a more detailed discussion, but, on a basic level...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I always get the impression that conservatives seek to conserve despotism. Perhaps that is because their "morals" come across to me as demeaning and degrading. For example, they see homosexuality as a vice, but they see hating homosexuality as a virtue.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I disagree with almost everything you have written here.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think, when you start diving into the "what do conservatives want to conserve" argument (which, frankly, doesn't seem resonant in 2013 any more than "liberal" promoting the individual does), you kind of lose me. Your sources on this information seem extremely weak and heavily skewed (from the looks of things, your only inarguably conservative voice is John C. Wright, who is primarily a science-fiction author), and thus does not really demonstrate what conservatives think, but rather what people who aren't conservatives think conservatives think, which is rather silly to base this on.

So no, I don't think you're representing the right properly at all, and I think that, if there was an attempt to do so, inquiry from actual conservatives (both conservative thinkers and conservative believers) would have been a better start than cribbing significantly from people like George Lakoff. Read The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell before even attempting to go any further with this. Not only will it give you a modern conservative thought perspective about conservatism, but it also provides a solid "this is what conservatives believe liberals think" in a more academic way.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I'll grant that the literal meanings of both “conservative” and “liberal” are less than illuminating.

I invite you to offer me your own ~100 word description of conservatism.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

In the US at least, and to a lesser extent here, I see the (small L) liberals (progressives) as being conservative (wanting to make minor changes to current system) and conservatives as reactionaries (wanting to make massive changes to undo the last 40 years of progressivism).

But the words mean something different; there, they're pejoratives mostly and here our conservatives are called Liberals :P Although, at least our left party still calls themselves socialists.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"So no, I don't think you're representing the right properly at all"

You move between 'the right' and 'conservative' a few times in this thread, which I'm not sure is helpful.

I think the problem is 'The Left' and 'The Right' are useful as description of political groupings in practice, but there are two issues: (1) The nature of that distinction varies by nation and (2) the distinction is usually at least somewhat incoherent.

For instance, The Republican Party seems to be like our Conservative Party, in that it's socially conservative but economically neo-liberal. This liberal component was absent in the earlier One-Nation Conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-nation_conservatism), which was before Margaret Thatcher changed the direction of the party around to a free market neo-liberal approach to economics.

Our Labour Party used to be Socialist, but Blair changed the direction of the party to adopt Thatcherite Neo-Liberalism (a shift to the right) but with greater importance placed on social justice (but not from a liberal perspective - blair felt that civil rights were a hindrance to law and order... he wanted to make working class people's lives better rather than being primarily concerned with protecting their rights). The Liberal Democrats meanwhile are more typically liberal in all areas (very liberal on civil issues, with a significant amount of economic liberal ideology in regards to the market).

Meanwhile, the US Democrat Party seem to exist on the left-ish side of our Conservative party, with the US not really having any equivalent to Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

My apologies for the unsolicited (and somewhat amateurish) attempt to compare and contrast US and UK politics, however, if you try to imagine me trying to describe the above in terms of 'right' and 'left' then perhaps you'll appreciate why I don't think they're useful words for describing political ideology. :o)

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Pleasantville has been in rotation on my cable channels and for some reason, this post reminds me of that film's message. The conservative utopia where everything is black and white and the status quo keeping everyone and everything in a place where nothing unexpected can happen. Which is fine if it's working for everyone but as the story shows, that structure becomes a constraint.

I really enjoyed this post and your turn of phrase, thank you.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I agree with the broad strokes, but there are a few things that I would like to add...

You can not pursue both "excellence" and "equality" as goals as they are often mutually exclusive. Strictly speaking, "no one left behind" requires that "no one gets ahead".

Additionally, if one accepts the liberal thesis that "that there is no “natural” form of society", we must draw one of three logical conclusions...

1) Maximizing the presence of our genes and memes in subsequent generations is the only thing that matters. The genetic war of all against will reward those who can make common cause with those who are similar to them to conquer and/or out-breed those who are not. In other words, Nazis have the right idea.

2) This is all pointless and we are all just monkeys pulling levers for pellets of food so bring on the pellets sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.

3) The joke is on us. If there are such things as truth, justice, and decency, they do not come from man and any belief to the contrary is a sign of delusion.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

This is a heartening reply, which suggests that I've captured something about the two schools, since you've jumped directly to a conservative critique of liberalism.

To which point, I would say that the liberal contention that “there is no ‘natural’ form of society” tells us that the society we build is an expression of the values we choose, and so we should build our society and choose its underlying values with care and attention.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

You can not pursue both "excellence" and "equality" as goals as they are often mutually exclusive

And yet, as you indicate here, not always.

Strictly speaking, "no one left behind" requires that "no one gets ahead".

Strictly speaking, that is nonsense. "Not as far ahead as you might be able to if you leave chest deep piles of the poor in your wake" is not the same as "no one gets ahead".

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Or alternately if we accept that there is no natural form of society, we can simply admit that our systems, while unnatural, are no less real and get on with our lives and not worry about airy-fairy questions that don't pay the bills and keep the tables and larders full. Each of the three options you create is flawed and to be a bit more impolitic, a strawman made purely for personal convenience and lacking any remote relevance to real life for that overwhelming majority which couldn't give a tinker's damn for ontology and the nature of ethics and just wants to watch American Idol and fap to porn.

make sure you keep the politics from the philosophy and recognize the 3rd Element.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I like this post because it causes me to ask questions.
Don't you think that the reality is that politically, the corporatocracy outnumber the philosophical conservatives and liberals?

Do you agree that L&R is just a ROLE played by career politicians, and the politicians are just playing to their voters/audience?

Obviously, none of what you indicate has bearing on what liberal and conservative policies are actually enacted by liberal and conservative politicians. All discourse is labeled 'liberal or conservative' generally by the opposition, and in a negative manner.

'Liberal' Obama could embrace some of the most conservative causes, (wait..he DID with health care reform) and 'conservative' politicians fight it tooth and nail. Once one looks beyond finger pointing rhetoric, one will realize whatever 'has' to be passed into law, will be passed. And those popular causes of us regular guys? Bloody well convenient to have someone to point a finger of blame to, isn't it? All hail the duopoly!

So what about the independent, which represents 40% or so of the voting mindset? How do you define us?

My personal problem with labeling myself 'a conservative' is the subjective definition of what is 'moral' (grass, gambling, gayness, etc). Then the clergy are calling the shots, the definition gets swung too far to the right. When business calls the shots, competition is demonized and legislated out of existence.

My problem with labeling myself liberal is I embrace many causes true liberals do not (gun ownership, rights deterioration, the nanny state, necessary evils such as illegal drugs, taxes, war, etc).

Example: what is the issue of prohibition, conservative or liberal and why?

Thanks again!

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

As you've hinted, I'm reaching from something a bit deeper than the specific policy coalitions represented by the Democrats and Republicans in the US.

And ultimately, most of us have at least some of both the liberal and the conservative impulse — indeed, one of my favorite observations about American politics is that Americans are politically incoherent (http://miniver.blogspot.com/2012/02/understanding-american-politics.html#incoherence), often favoring conservative rhetoric and liberal policy.

[weswilson]

I've found the Haidt Ted Talk to encapsulate a lot of the issues I see between liberals and conservatives.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I find Haidt pretty convincing.

Since seeing his talk, it's made me appreciate how much of the lefty propaganda I grew up on trained me to recognize loyalty, authority, and sanctity as misleading moral impulses.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I think the difference is that liberals like to scream and whine, while conservatives like to whine and scream.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Nailed it!!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think that the recommended status for this post is justly deserved, but I reject the idea that there are only two poles and only two versions of a just social order.

For example I hold that society is an inherently artificial, deliberately constructed construct, without clear--cut, universal standards of right and wrong, and that society is ultimately held together by various degrees of force either openly displayed or clandestinely concealed. I would argue that the idea of the natural society is a deliberately and willfully fostered lie just like all other forms of identity/ideology, and that the concept of natural in the context of civilization is a meaningless buzzword without any inherent reality behind it. Likewise I would argue that the more liberal and progressive and outright Leftist movements fail because their tendencies are to replace ideology for pragmatic power politics, and in the process while they can accomplish results their accomplishments are a mile wide and an inch deep, though backed by rhetoric that is stirring and based on the ideals that humanity should aspire toward.

Conservatism in its modern form errs in ideologically and dogmatically rejecting change in any fashion while having nothing more to offer than stagnation, liberalism fails by eschewing basic politicking for ideological rhetoric-mongering without any depth behind the rhetoric, and aided by the dogmatic inflexibility of conservatism. To me both US liberals and US conservatives are also all solidly on the Right and the idea that the USA has a genuine Left is the deeper issue, as even a relative political scale does not conceal that the bulk of political premises between the movements and the parties are the same, not distinct. I would also note that what liberals mislabel progress is a tendency to shifting taboos and greater concealment that the reality of government and society is a monopoly on force, not genuine progress in any real sense of the term, and would consider progress to be the altar on which hundreds of millions were slain in the last 500 years. By the same token I think that conservatives of the present would rather serve under the Crusader armies than deal with the 21st Century. To repeat an older phrase of mine, liberals perpetually refight the 1960s and refuse to admit that civil rights have become much more nuanced and complex than the days when they were openly denied and openly opposed with terrorism. Conservatism deals in a perpetual mockery of the 1940s that rejects the fundamental underpinnings of the era while keeping the priggish xenophobia and advocacy of black and white, bloodthirsty solutions to political problems intact. Neither have yet to fundamentally realize that 1991 happened, let alone that it's 2013 now.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I reject the idea that there are only two poles and only two versions of a just social order

Oh, absolutely!

There are many loci of political thought comparable to these. But liberalism and conservatism are the two main political strains of the modern world, so for that reason they deserve special attention.

To me both US liberals and US conservatives are also all solidly on the Right and the idea that the USA has a genuine Left is the deeper issue ... the bulk of political premises between the movements and the parties are the same, not distinct

Indeed. The range of discourse in the US is very peculiar. But that's well beyond the scope of what I was attempting with this post ....

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Texas conservatives threaten to secede - or get their guns loaded - if they see liberals getting any voice at all.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Texas should secede. I'd love to see them look after that border without the US Army.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

When you deal with broad labels like this, everyone who identifies with it just invokes No True Scotsman for anything out of the standard deviation, or even a lot of things within it as well. Even if the label is statistically accurate for 80% of those who identify with it, you have those 20% who will say it means something else.

Ultimately, instead of focusing on completely meaningless labels, individual issues should be discussed. Instead of what makes someone liberal or conservative, focus on whether someone supports gay marriage at the federal level, state level, what types of funding/cuts they support, how they value opportunity vs privilege and what society does about it, etc. Even this is too vague, you have to go deeper and define what it means to have opportunity, what it means to have privilege, what the state ought to do and why, etc.

Of course, this would require critical thinking, which is hard and then you can't rationalize by using those handy labels.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

If some liberals or conservatives say that I've misrepresented what they believe, that's significant evidence that they are right that I've misrepresented them, but it's not conclusive evidence.

completely meaningless labels

I disagree. “Liberal” and “conservative” are messy categories, to be sure, where there's good cause to dispute their meaning, but that does not make them meaningless. They are very meaningful indeed.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler

I fear that any sweeping statement about broad swaths of politically minded people will be....vague at best and partly wrong most of the time and totally wrong some of the time.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

The question I always ask is, who's traditional society? Who's morals?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Indeed. That's why conservatives leave the natural/obvious/traditional nature of their preferred order unexamined — there's no answer to that question to be had.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

The most basic difference between the two is that conservatives want a world where the elite imposes its values on the majority, by systematic means of capital concentration in corporate entities and social repression in a militarized police state. The liberals want a world where everyone is responsible for everyone else, through means of wealth re-distribution, social services and collective work in an enforced equality.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Your unkind characterization of conservatism is what I was trying to avoid here.

The conservative impulse comes from a place of sincerely wanting a certain vision of a just society. It's an entirely comprehensible vision whose appeal I can understand.

It's just, in my opinion, a badly wrong way of thinking about justice, because leads to an actual social order which is exactly what you describe. (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The other difference is that liberals tend to think emotionally and conservatives tend to think non-emotionally.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

you mean difference between women and men AMIRITE?? :D :D :D

hahaha high five!!!1