Michael Medved Drills Into the Core of Conservatism
Jacob Sullum | March 15, 2007, 12:08am
As a libertarian who used to work at National Review and who counts conservatives among my friends and political allies, I have long searched for the unifying thread that ties together the seemingly disparate positions typically advocated by people on "the right." Why does opposition to gun control tend to go hand in hand with support for drug control (National Review's editors being an honorable exception on that score)? What does banning flag burning have in common with repealing restrictions on political ads? Why does pro-life on abortion and assisted suicide become pro-death on capital punishment? How does support for freedom of contract jibe with opposition to gay marriage? What do lower taxes have to do with prohibiting cloning? How is support for free markets reconciled with bans on migrant labor and online gambling?
Now Michael Medved, who complains that "most of the common efforts to define the fundamentals of conservative thinking fall short in their explanatory power," has made it all clear to me: The "core of conservatism," he says, is "distinctions and consequences," to which other political persuasions are oblivious or indifferent. "Conservatives feel impelled to make clear distinctions between right and wrong," Medved avers. "We reject all notions of moral relativism." Not only that, he says, but conservatives want society to "encourage the good and discourage the bad." They always ask, "Will a given policy or initiative help society to encourage good behavior and discourage destructiveness?" Everyone else, I guess, wants to know how to discourage good behavior and encourage destructiveness.
I'm not a conservative, so by definition I'm not very good with distinctions, but that seems like a pretty clear one to me. Still, it does not go very far in "resolv[ing] some of the apparent conservative contradictions," as Medved promises to do.
"It's impossible to say that conservatives want 'small government' above all," he concedes, "when most of us want expanded governmental efforts to crack down on terrorists, crooks and illegal immigrants. Yes, we generally favor 'less regulation,' but we also want more restrictions on abortion, pornography and desecration of the flag." Is there some theory about the proper role of government underlying those policy preferences? Medved never really says, beyond the idea that the government should foster good things and crack down on bad things.
One of those good things is capitalism, except when it isn't (emphasis added):
We favor free markets and small government not for their own sake but because the profit system represents the best possible means to encourage wholesome, constructive choices. The only way to make money in a free marketplace is to benefit and bless other people: to provide them with a product or a service they choose to buy. You enrich yourself and enhance your own power by providing your neighbors with what they want.
As long as it's not drugs. Or gangster rap. Or pornography. Or lap dances. Or abortion. Or an opportunity to bet on football. Presumably Medved-style conservatives see no benefit or blessing in these activities because they are not wholesome or constructive. (Does that mean no one makes money by providing them?) Yet many left-liberals are willing to tolerate such transactions, even while seeking to ban the sale of handguns, trans fats, harp seal fur, or drinks in smoky bars. Is this because they do not draw distinctions or care about consequences? Or is it because they draw different distinctions and care about different consequences?
Likewise, Medved asserts that "liberals want us to continue to pour foreign aid into the most dysfunctional nations on earth." Like Iraq? No, not like Iraq, because Saddam was evil! The rulers of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia "aren't all that good," Medved concedes, but they're our friends. So much for eschewing moral relativism and making clear distinctions between right and wrong.
Instead of elucidating the differences in values and principles that distinguish modern American conservatism, Medved settles for smugly assuming his own moral and intellectual superiority. The "core of conservatism," it seems, is a dark, mushy mess.
Andy | March 15, 2007, 9:48am | #
This is one of the most frustrating things about arguing with people who are "liberal" or "conservative" - rather than someone who embraces a real system of values, or decision-making matrix. Most of the time, when arguing with someone of a "party" persuasion, they'll get frustrated and assert that my position is "unrealistic." Inevitably, I'll try to point out that my system is far more realistic than theirs.
In a representative system, an elected representative has to make thousands of decisions a year, the vast majority of which will never come up on the campaign trail. When your position essentially comes down to "I do what I think is right in each individual situation" you have no position in a representative government, unless you are going to Washington yourself. Otherwise, you're just trying to elect someone who lines up with you on one or two big issues, then hoping for the best. Then, of course, you're shocked when, for example, most Democrats turn out not to be anti-war, because nobody thought to ask them about that 10 years ago.
In short, that sort of political decision making essentially comes down to "the world would be better if I ran it." A nice sentiment, but nothing one can do anything with. I honestly think most people would be a lot better off if they took the time to figure out how they want to make their decisions.
Of course, in my opinion, the best way of dealing with this whole train of logic is to point out:
"So, essentially, you're saying that you're capable of making the correct decisions when you're given a choice."
"Yes"
"But no one else is? Or at the very least, they're better off when you make them for them?"
Really, the only people I can admire are the people who are willing to just concede that, yes, they think they know best.
rob | March 15, 2007, 9:50am | #
"A conservative habit that goes back through Reagan's snuggly relationship with Saddam and terrorists throughout Latin America, on through Nixon and Kissinger, back through the United Fruit coups in Hondorus and Guatemala. Some morality." - joe
joe's channeling Chomsky again, folks. It's likely to be a rough few weeks on HNR...
"And let's not forget the greatest advance of decency in America during the 20th century, the Civil Rights Movement. Where were the conservatives? Oh, right, trying to shut down the whole thing in order to save lunch counter owners from having to treat black people like human beings. Agree or not, that's not putting clear definitions of morality first." - joe
Charge being led by who? Oh, yeah, Southern Democrats - yet another flank of the party joe consistently shills for.
"The right seeks to maintain and expand existing relationships of power." - joe
So does the left. Only a guy who refuses to open his eyes could fail to see that both sides suck.
"Why does opposition to gun control tend to go hand in hand with support for drug control?"
For conservatives, this is definitely a problem. I love the fact that libertarians have no cognitive dissonance on this point.
"What does banning flag burning have in common with repealing restrictions on political ads?"
Nothing.
"Why does pro-life on abortion and assisted suicide become pro-death on capital punishment?"
Again, it's easy to not have cognitive dissonance on this, because I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide. ON the face these things seem to be in conflict you say? Nope. They all are in support of individual rights and against gov't power. (Though I think it makes sense to be pro-life and pro-death penalty - both stem from a desire to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. I just don't think the gov't should have the power of life and death over its citizens. There's no way to free someone who's been unjustly executed.)
"How does support for freedom of contract jibe with opposition to gay marriage?"
It doesn't. One is an issue based on conservative views about the economy and one is based on their views about society. In their world, the two operate on different priniciples.
"What do lower taxes have to do with prohibiting cloning?"
I can't even see how these to things could be linked, frankly, or even contradictory.
"How is support for free markets reconciled with bans on migrant labor and online gambling?"
It can't be. See society vs. economy argument above.
The problem with both "conservative Republicans" and "liberal Democrats" is that neither are based on PRINCIPLE. They're both just ad hoc collections of conflicting knee-jerk positions that each party hopes will bring more rubes into their tent than the other guy's tent. The only underlying motivator for the positions on either side is a desire to garner political power.
joe | March 15, 2007, 9:51am | #
thoreau,
"joe, let's take your paradigm of existing power relationships and run with it a bit: How long would a system of regulation or redistribution or whatever have to be in place before you'd consider it an existing relationship of power?"
Exactly seven years, four months, six days, fourteen hours and thirty-six minutes. Happy?
But seriously...
First of all, I meant to write "traditional relations of power," or "established relations of power, "not "existing." Obviously, conservatives reject to existing relations of power in many places.
Second, let's keep in mind that there are mutually exclusive conservatisms, based on which relations of power are traditional in any time and place. Conservatives in Saudi Arabia have deep attachments to certain relations of power that conservatives in the U.S. deplore.
But to finally answer your question, in cases of radical inversions of power relationships, such as in the USSR, it's a gradual process of transition. When does a black cloth in bleach become light enough to call white? Who knows? It gets lighter, and at some point it's pretty white.
By the 1980s, the rule of the Communist Party over the means of production in the USSR was so established that the "Communist hardliners" were the conservatives and Gorbachev was the liberal, with his freer-market-driven ideas.
rob | March 15, 2007, 10:56am | #
"An administration that attacks civil liberties isn't given a gold star because it does so LESS than a previous administration." - Andy
Agreed. But it's good to not get too hysterical when something happens a little bit when history tells you that traditionally it's been far worse. The reaction is usually to a perceived threat, and I doubt many U.S. citizens have felt more threatened than they did in the wake of 9/11. That doesn't excuse it, but it helps to have the context.
"Third, your use of the phrase 'war-time' is misleading. What little domestic threat America faces is no greater than it was after Oklahoma City, and to say that our wars of choice in the Middle East justify 'war-time' measures is to say that any time we put soldiers abroad, we forfeit our rights to do." - Andy
There's nothing mis-leading about my use of "war-time," and it strikes me as disingenous to make that argument. Your points could have just as easily be made about World War I & II, and in some circles have probably been made about the Civil War. The actual likelihood of an attack on U.S. soil is probably greater now than WWI & 2, certainly more so than the Cold War. (Particularly in the continental U.S.)
"while your optimism is admirable, you're forgetting a key difference. With instant media and 'individual reporting' the awareness of these events is higher, and the unknown timeline is shorter. You could be impressed its only gotten this far, or be horrified that even when watching the events unfold in real time, its gotten this far." - Andy
I think that "individual reporting" is about as reliable as "anecdotal evidence." Sadly, they can swing a debate with emotional appeals, but that is rarely for the good. Emotional appeals are used by people who don't have faith in rational thought and discourse, in my experience.
rob | March 15, 2007, 11:05am | #
"Yes, and I've also noticed how utterly disinterested you are in posting similar criticisms of any conservatives or conservative ideas whatsoever." - joe
What's it like to live in a paranoid world where everyone who doesn't agree with you on everything is your sworn enemy? Got jihad, joe?
"And how eagerly you parrot whatever conservative spin of the day is coming out of the Republican Noise Machine, and downplay concerns about the Bush administration." - joe
You're the guy in here shilling for the DNC's latest talking points, joe. Project much? But yeah, I'm cynical enough to believe that it's no surprise that the current administration is a cluster-fuck. I've been around long enough to realize that it's not any different than any other administration. Yep, I'm SO partisan!
"The abuses of this administration are no different from what other presidents have done, so there's nothing to worry about?"
Pound that straw man, joe, pound it...
"Gee, you don't say..." - joe
Uh, no, joe. I DIDN'T say that. Obviously, reading comprehension would just ruin your partisan outrage.
joe - I agree with everything that metalgrid just posted. Now, about your partisanship insults...
Andy | March 15, 2007, 11:11am | #
Rob,
So you concede that this administration has harmed American civil liberties. You concede that relativism isn't a defense. Beyond that, you're just arguing to argue.
BUT - I like to argue, so... en garde
In regards to "war-time," you totally skipped over my assertions regarding Oklahoma City. My point was terrorism was not a unique threat, and that any rational person could see that. Really, the only grounds for your argument here is a return to your point that the average American on American soil had more to fear than in other conflicts. Well, in regards to that point, someone smart once told me that "Emotional appeals are used by people who don't have faith in rational thought and discourse"
The simple fact is that if you extend "the potential threat of terrorism" to be a "wartime" situation, you have officially put the US on "War footing" forever, and have ceded your freedoms forever, because that threat will never change. You might be comfortable with that, but frankly, you'd be wrong to be so.
And in regards to individual reporting, you may have seen my earlier posts regarding my hatred for the concept on a lot of the same grounds you've already mentioned. But my point isn't that it somehow is more reliable, it's that it means we are AWARE of what's happening. Unlike, say, the Civil War, when news of a major change in civil liberties could take months or years to reach the general populace, we're looking at a time line of days, or even hours sometimes. So in my opinion, it's unfair to equate impact solely in terms of without considering knowledge of,immediacy of, and acquiescence to the impact of the violation.
(And you casually passed over the fact that military tribunals for non-military US Citizens don't happen all the time, and they are a big deal, but I put it in a seperate post, so you may have missed it. Also, it's sort of just a.. you know... fact.)
