Whither Liberalism?
Over at The Corner today, Jonah Goldberg wrote the following:
That said, I have to take issue with Jonah's suggestion that "conservatism has a problem putting its ideas into action" while "liberalism has a problem figuring out what its ideas are."
Let's consider his first statement. I think he's certainly right that conservatives have had a tough time implementing their ideas. But why is that? After all, the Republicans have controlled all the branches of government for the last six years.
Well, I think the explanation is actually pretty simple. Many of the most prominent conservative policy ideas are either 1) very unpopular, 2) totally unrealistic and unworkable, or 3) both. That's why we haven't privatized social security or created individualized health savings accounts. These are just bad ideas; they are policies crafted to fit a pre-conceived ideology, not to solve real world problems.
The most fundamental problem with the conservative approach to governing is that it encourages its adherents to approach all problems with ideological blinders on. The range of potential solutions to any given problem is always very limited because so much is taken off the table before the discussion even begins. This approach leads conservatives to endorse policy ideas that are at best sub-optimal and at worst disastrously ill-advised.
Which brings me to Jonah's suggestion that "liberalism has a problem figuring out what its ideas are." It's not surprising that a conservative like Jonah would think this. But as I've written a number of times before (and as the Bertrand Russell quote in the masthead illustrates) liberalism is better understood as a way of approaching problems, not as a rigid set of substantive principles. In other words, what Jonah points to as a bug is actually a feature of liberalism; indeed, I'd argue it's the defining feature.
For instance, liberals are not interested in big government for big government's sake. If a problem can better be addressed through a market-based approach, they're all for it. It is certainly true that there are a number of policies which most liberals support. But the reason they support these policies is because they believe they have been demonstrated, through argument or experience, to be superior to the alternatives. And most liberals aren't afraid to re-examine their policy preferences should experience and empirical data suggest that something else would work better.
The problem with conservatism is that it discourages this sort of periodic re-examination of policy preferences and the premises underlying them. The Democratic candidates who won on Tuesday are not a homogeneous bunch and they will almost certainly come to the table with different ideas and different policy preferences. But I think what they largely have in common is a determination to reach sensible solutions to pressing problems. At least I hope so, because that's what liberalism is supposed to be about. It's about having an open-minded and outcome- oriented approach to governance.
Now, I don't say any of this because I'm particularly bullish on conservatism's immediate future. It's got problems. But they're not as fundamental as the problems liberalism faces. Conservatism has a problem putting its ideas into action. Liberalism has a problem figuring out what it's ideas are. Taking the liberal mish-mash and simply declaring it a "new politics" doesn't make it so.Now I'll readily admit that this election, however lopsided, does not spell the end of "conservatism." The conservative movement, in some form or other, will always be a potent force in American politics. We have a bipolar system and the debate is always shifting; the parties are constantly realigning around new issues.
It's entirely understandable and predictable that in the wake of this election liberals would go into wishful thinking mode and declare that they've escaped history. But that doesn't make it any less absurd.
That said, I have to take issue with Jonah's suggestion that "conservatism has a problem putting its ideas into action" while "liberalism has a problem figuring out what its ideas are."
Let's consider his first statement. I think he's certainly right that conservatives have had a tough time implementing their ideas. But why is that? After all, the Republicans have controlled all the branches of government for the last six years.
Well, I think the explanation is actually pretty simple. Many of the most prominent conservative policy ideas are either 1) very unpopular, 2) totally unrealistic and unworkable, or 3) both. That's why we haven't privatized social security or created individualized health savings accounts. These are just bad ideas; they are policies crafted to fit a pre-conceived ideology, not to solve real world problems.
The most fundamental problem with the conservative approach to governing is that it encourages its adherents to approach all problems with ideological blinders on. The range of potential solutions to any given problem is always very limited because so much is taken off the table before the discussion even begins. This approach leads conservatives to endorse policy ideas that are at best sub-optimal and at worst disastrously ill-advised.
Which brings me to Jonah's suggestion that "liberalism has a problem figuring out what its ideas are." It's not surprising that a conservative like Jonah would think this. But as I've written a number of times before (and as the Bertrand Russell quote in the masthead illustrates) liberalism is better understood as a way of approaching problems, not as a rigid set of substantive principles. In other words, what Jonah points to as a bug is actually a feature of liberalism; indeed, I'd argue it's the defining feature.
For instance, liberals are not interested in big government for big government's sake. If a problem can better be addressed through a market-based approach, they're all for it. It is certainly true that there are a number of policies which most liberals support. But the reason they support these policies is because they believe they have been demonstrated, through argument or experience, to be superior to the alternatives. And most liberals aren't afraid to re-examine their policy preferences should experience and empirical data suggest that something else would work better.
The problem with conservatism is that it discourages this sort of periodic re-examination of policy preferences and the premises underlying them. The Democratic candidates who won on Tuesday are not a homogeneous bunch and they will almost certainly come to the table with different ideas and different policy preferences. But I think what they largely have in common is a determination to reach sensible solutions to pressing problems. At least I hope so, because that's what liberalism is supposed to be about. It's about having an open-minded and outcome- oriented approach to governance.
posted by A.L. at 12:22 PM
6 Comments:
IMHO, you give the repugs/neocons far too much credit - they came into office with no intention of governing effectively.
They fully intended to undermine the fiscal integrity of the Federal Government and to run down the assets in the military - in the process, they have established fiscal policies for GENERATIONS TO COME!
Its the ol' "drown it in the bathtube" thing.
Of course, in order to implement this policy, they had to tell a bunch of lies. In order to find enough political hacks to make it happen, they had to pass out a lot of cash - hense the culture of corruption.
Respectfully, you are giving their stated objectives far too much credit and analysis - what they say to the rest of America is all lies - its the only way they can maintain the illusion of popular support.
What they say amongst themselves as they laugh all the way to the bank is very different - they are really just all saying "SCREW YOU"!
Giving it any more analysis than this is actually enabling the lying liars.
I see some of the "conservative" bloggers are saying the GOP should retrench back to its "strengths" -- fiscal conservatism and a strong defense, for example.
I doubt they'll be able to, because:
1. Fiscal conservatism is a wonderful ideology, noble even -- but when politicos get their hands on the purse strings it seems the urge to disburse that money (even money they have to print without backing) in order to cement their power, they almost invariably do it. Not a majority-producing issue.
2. Strong defense can mean a lot of things, and in particular, it means different things to different people. Your "strong defense" is my "corporate welfare". Since there's no universal definition of this, it won't carry a majority either. Also, please note that military spending flies in the face of item 1, making people espousing both subject to attacks on their "inconsistency", which for conservatives is deadly.
3. How do they justify their courting of the "social conservatives"? (Code for: right-wing religious voters.)
4. Where do the security moms fit into this? Security moms aren't going to be impressed with funneling money to the military-industrial complex, which is what most "strong defense" spending is these days.
Personally, I think they're hosed for perhaps a generation, given the way they screwed the pooch while they had power the last six years. And I'm not unhappy about that.
Viewed from this standpoint, it becomes apparent that the liberal's lack of ideological push-buttons is an advantage, not a detriment, except in what passes for the mind of a conservative. A liberal doesn't have to re-define the terms of the argument in order to hide their real position. You just adapt to what the reality of the situation will allow, while trying to further the liberal goals.
i think "liberalism" can mean two different things; AL's post is unclear because it mixes both meanings. one scale has liberalism (or the left) as the opposite of conservatism (the right). another scale contrasts liberalism with fundamentalism. in effect "liberal" is an overloaded term and makes for much confusion. leftists can be fundamentalists who see the world in black-and-white (i.e. power and money are inherently evil), believe in strict ideology rather than testing beliefs empirically, etc.
certain types of minds embrace fundamentalism and its elegant simplicity; others prefer see a more nuanced and complex reality. it's important to remember that both the right and the left can offer stark, black-and-white moral visions to satisfy the fundamentalist.
here's my theory for the reason behind AL's conflation of liberalism's meanings. i believe conservatives in the U.S. have become increasingly fundamentalist in the last few decades. The current (George W Bush) administration espouses much more good-vs-evil simplicity than even the previous (Bush 41) administration. By contrast, the left has moved away from some of its more fundamentalist roots of the '60s and '70s. other countries (for example, Venezuela) have a much larger base of intellectuals considered "conservatives" and it is the left tends to be more fundamentalist and populist.
in other words i think what has become conservatism's downfall has been its increasing fundamentalism (a core set of beliefs that should not be questioned against reality) and extremism (no desire for compromise, no sense that anything can be learned from the other side).
regardless, i agree with AL on his key point: jonah goldberg shows the classic profile of both the fundamentalist and the extremist. apparently no real-world experience will cause him to question or modify his convictions. poor guy.
Let's not forget, Jonah just published a book equating liberalism with totalitarianism.
So he's suggesting, I suppose, that authoritarian and dictatorial regimes are really just a little mushy-headed, in the end.
AL:
I just finished Bob Altemeyer's Authoritarian Specter (via John Deans Conservatives without Conscience) and I am struck by how well your analysis tracks one of the differences between High Authoritarians and Low Authoritarians: LA's believe that truth is something you must seek, HA's believe it is something you are taught, handed down from (naturally) an authority.
Short version, once you KNOW the truth, all you have to do is apply it and wait for the good results to show up, no matter how long it takes.
I agree with Dan.
It was not that long ago that the people most dogmatically pushing an unworkable social model were Communists. And although the US was little troubled with Communists, it was conservatives who were forever denouncing liberal "social engineering" and accusing liberals of insisting on "equal outcome" instead of just "equal opportunity."
Conservative back then boasted that they were the reality-based ones who realized you could not legislate social attitude. (All of which was generally used as an excuse to uphold the status quo and reject any type of reform).
Conservatives, once in power, turned out to be just as capable of social engineering and ideological dogmatism. Liberals, after a spell in the wilderness, have learned the value of flexibility and pragmatism (without rejecting reform and improvement). This should be a lesson, I think, not to fall victim to the arrogance of power, and to remain reality-based even when we are the ones who hope to change reality.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home