Journal neocon's Journal: ``What is a Conservative?'' 6
The current thread on harvesting of embryos at UCSF has got me thinking again about an old pet peeve of mine -- the tendency of lefties to believe that `science' is `on their side', and, by extension, that no person who disagrees with them can possibly have reached his opinion rationally. This is very similar to the problem which Bernard Goldberg identifies in his book Bias, of media types not realizing that their reporting has a liberal slant to it because they consider their views to be `normal' and `what reasonable people think', so that anyone who disagrees with them is `extreme'.
In the embryo-harvesting debate, as with many `social' conservatism issues, this view manifests itself in claims by liberals that anyone who disagrees with them is doing so for religious reasons, not because they rationally disagree with the liberal's position. This claim is usually accompanied by words such as `Theocon' or `religious conservative' or `fundamentalist', which are intended, of course, as smears on the target's rationality.
So, here's a piece which I wrote after another go-round of this type of `debate by imputation of religious belief', another time on another list:
The Myth of the `Theocon'
What conservatives believe
It is a strange feature of modern political debate that conservative positions stemming from well-grounded, rational bases are often met with complaints that conservatives are `theocons' attempting to reason from the position that `my God told me so'.
As a reader of a wide range of conservative publications, including editorial magazines (National Review, The Weekly Standard), academic journals (City Journal, The Claremont Review of Books), and conservative-friendly hard news publications (The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal), I have seen a wide range of conservative positions. None of them are close enough to `my God said so' to make that a fair caricature, let alone description.
In contrast, here are some things that conservatives do believe:
That there is such a thing as objective moral truth
This seems an obvious proposition. If we do not depart from some axiomatic concept of the Good, we cannot derive one -- for by what criteria would we evaluate such ideas of the Good as we might arrive at?
In this sense, the radical subjectivism of the deconstruction theorists is at least a consistent theory (that there is no Good, and that all actions are morally equal), while being corrosive in effect, and incorrect in fact. But the soft relativism of most liberal academics is simply a self-contradiction, and leads to such absurdities as people whose stated goals are racial and sexual equality elevating some of the most oppressive and unequal societies on earth above their own.
That tradition and history are powerful forces in shaping people into moral, rational members of a just society
Moral systems are incredibly complex things, much as are economies. The vast majority of the world (with the exception of the college campuses) has long since realized that attempts to `design' an economic system are inherently less flexible and less capable than the natural evolution of the market, and as such are doomed to failure.
Conservatives believe that a similar type of `invisible hand' is at work in the evolution of traditions and cultures. The fact stands that the American culture has produced levels of life, liberty, and prosperity that are unprecedented in the world's history, and that the proud culture we have evolved here, based on ideas of human nature and human action which go back to the ancients, the enlightenment, and the American revolution is a powerful safeguard of these gains.
That attempts to create a `new morality' or a `new man' are thus not only futile but destructive
Such attempts date, in the modern world, to the French revolution, with it's elevation of `egalite' and `fraternite' to the level of `liberte', expressing a belief that men could be made to live up to a new ideal of human society. The history of such attempts, from the Jacobins' `new man' to the horrors of Soviet `Socialist Morality' is a history of terror and misery.
This is not an accident. Just as the command economies of the Soviets and their satellites failed to produce prosperity because they were attempts to dictate the direction of a system too complex to be thus directed, attempts to dictate what a society will consider moral or what traditions a culture will value can produce only misery.
That the conflation of ideas of what is moral and what should be legal has had a lasting, corrosive effect on our society
Thus, conservatives have, on the one hand, a strong belief in the moral concept of the Good, and a belief that there are things which are and are not right. But on the other hand, conservatives do not believe that these decisions should or even can be made by government, and thus that government has no useful purpose beyond the minimal structure necessary to promote the common defense, protect the people from crime, and stand in as a proxy for the people on the international stage.
This stands in sharp contrast to the liberal social project, where laws against tobacco smoking in your own home, using your cellphone while driving, spending your own money as you choose, or educating your own children in your own culture stand as a concerted attempt to use the law to make people do what is `right'.
The main result of such attempts has been the opposite -- in a system where people are told that what is wrong is illegal, people presume that what is legal is morally right -- a belief whose destructive consequences are visible in every index of our society's decay.
Excellent! (Score:2)
This "paintbrushing" of folks general beliefs based on one issue is by no means a monopoly of the Left. Well, maybe it is, since the folks on the Right that have accused me of being "liberal" really hold Leftist views themselves but merely deny them.
Examples: I am against capital punishment. A long list of reasons why, but the core issue is that I believe the state should not have that power to abuse. However, I am not against shooting a dangerous person in the street, or on your property, by the self-armed populace.;
I am against the draft. Not Milton Friedman's arguements against the draft. I am anti-slavery too, so forget about that option to "volunteer" for public service to avoid military service or prison.
I will not even bother with why I want all anti-trust legeslation repealed, but many a self annointed "conservative" supports anti-trust and are under the illusion that it is actually a conservative position!
However, the folks alluded to above are not conservatives ot of the Right in any shape form or fashion. They are, essentially, Leftists that vote Republican.
Thanks again for your journal entry!
Re:Excellent! (Score:1)
Thank you, thank you. :-)
While some of the issues you post have plenty of room for disagreement even among conservatives (death penalty comes immediately to mind), it is certainly true that there are plenty of RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) wandering the halls of the house and senate, and seeing their votes on, for example, the recent farm bill is a disappointment..
Re:Excellent! (Score:2)
BTW, conservatives will argue civilly about who is and is not conservative. Liberals will seek a fistfight,
Re:Excellent! (Score:1)
Re:Interesting. (Score:1)
I've always found it interesting that big-business apologists have managed to redefine (in the US, that is) "conservative" to mean something completely unrelated to conservation -- On the contrary, a Conservative is one seeking to conserve the ideas of liberty which were constructed at great cost in the American Revolution, ideas of liberty which are part of a cultural heritage dating back to the enlightenment, and with roots in ancient Greece, Rome, and Judeo-Christian theology.
Now, it is correct that there was a better term for this philosophy in earlier times -- `Liberal', as in `for liberty'. Of course, it is increasingly difficult to use the real meaning of this term as those who now call themselves `Liberal' are overwhelmingly in favor of a range of policies which are directly anti-liberty.
We can argue about the so-called `Clinton' economy if you like -- I find it hilarious that those who seek to blame Reagan for the mini-recession in the early nineties (hint: nine months ain't much of a `recession') are quick to turn around and claim that we can't possibly consider Clinton responsible for the current recession which began on his watch. Oh well, logic, as opposed to the type of vague insults visible in your post, would appear not to be a strong point of the current left.
Now, to turn your guns around, has it ever occured to you that perhaps the left's apparent need to resort to vague insults and vapid invective is a cover for the bankrupcy of their position in the wake of Communism's fall? Certainly if you have any rational justification for your rhetoric, it is not on display in your post.