Political Conservatism is not so much a philosophy found in the declarations of philosophers or in the platforms of political parties. It is a way of thinking, a natural resistance to change found in most men. It is more of an attitude than a doctrine. It is a desire to preserve the customs, mores, conventions, and religions that give mankind a sense of belonging, individuality, comfort, and hope.
Political conservatism does not depend exclusively upon the group, class, race, religion, ethnicity, or the family in which one is raised. It is more a matter of individual temperament. People tend to stereotype African Americans as liberals, but there are many conservative Black people such as Justice Clarence Thomas, Ohio’s Kenneth Blackwell, Larry Elder, Alan Keyes, Shelby Steele, J. C. Watts, and others. Similarly, American Jews are often stereotyped as being politically liberal, when, in fact, many of the leading conservative spokesmen are Jewish including William Kristol, son of the famed conservative writer Irving Kristol, John Podhoretz, son of the noted conservative writers Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, Jonah Goldberg, syndicated columnist, and others.
The fact that conservatism and liberalism are both matters of temperament is proven in many large families. Children can be raised in the same house by the same parents and yet, as they grow older, they diverge in their political beliefs. Older people tend to be more conservative than younger people. College professors and scientists tend to be more liberal than ordinary people. Religious ministers and priests tend to be more conservative than laymen. People in rural areas tend to be more conservative than people in cities. I assume that part of the rural conservative temperament arises out of the fear of losing the way of life and the natural beauty and glory that permeates the country setting.
To the extent that there are philosophical underpinnings for modern political conservatism, some of it stems from the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. While the Reformation was a liberating movement, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Knox were conservatives, and many of the sects that developed from their philosophy were conservative. When the Puritan sects that emerged from the Reformation came to America, they brought with them a strict cultural and moral ethic that influenced American customs and beliefs and that still survives today.
If any philosopher could be considered the father of modern political conservatism, it would probably be the Irish statesman, author, orator, and political theorist, Edmund Burke. Burke opposed the French Revolution, and wrote that the proper formulation of government comes from patient development of the state through societal institutions such as the family and the Church. He believed in private property and the class system.
Perhaps the most influential name in modern American conservatism is that of Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator from Arizona in the 1960s. Goldwater was an ardent anti-communist who campaigned against the welfare state, social programs, labor unions, and the growth of the federal government. His book, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” was a best seller read by conservatives and liberals alike.
The leading conservative intellectual of our time was the late William F. Buckley, Jr., an author, magazine publisher, television personality, and columnist. Buckley voiced all of the conservative principles espoused by Goldwater and Reagan, and did so with erudition, wit, and a remarkable vocabulary.
While there are many conservative personalities on television, talk-radio, and in the newspapers today, the leading intellectual conservative is probably George Will. He tends to concentrate on his opposition to big governmental initiatives like stimulus packages, bailouts, social programs, and governmental health care coverage.
Both conservatives and liberals have the same goals for America. Both seek freedom, prosperity, security, and world influence. While their prescriptions for achieving these ends vary widely, there should be no doubt about their unity of purpose.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Liberalism and Democracy
You may not know it, but even if you call yourself a conservative Republican, you are probably, in some respects, a liberal. You probably believe in certain fundamental liberal doctrines like freedom of speech, religion, the press, and all of the other freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. You probably take for granted the right of women to vote, a liberal idea that was not officially recognized in America until adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.
Liberalism is not a fixed set of beliefs. It is an evolving attitude that favors individual freedom, concern and compassion for poor and oppressed people, opposition to governmental totalitarianism, opposition to domination of the weak by the powerful, and support for the rights of minorities. Liberalism has always been a progressive movement calling for political freedom, religious freedom, and equality under the law regardless of race, religion, sex, nationality, social class, age, or wealth.
Liberalism in America was influenced by the philosophy of great European thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu. They spoke of the “Rights of Man.” The American Revolution established the first nation based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. When Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams spoke of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” they were echoing John Locke.
The United States is a liberal democracy. Our institutions are based on liberal ideas. Our Revolutionary War was fought on the basis of a liberal document, the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War was fought to free the slaves, a liberal cause. The civil rights movement to end racial segregation was a liberal movement. Liberalism has always been a movement for freedom wedged between the extreme positions of both the left and right
People sometimes confuse liberalism with its opposite, communism. I once had a debate with a communist. He accused liberals of being soft because we believe in the civil liberties and freedoms that Americans hold dear. I told him that communism crushes the human spirit. It attempts to grind men down and make them into what the philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset called “Mass Men.” Liberalism tries to lift men up, to give them the opportunity to realize their individual potential and their uniqueness as human beings.
Classical liberalism stressed freedom of commerce from government intervention. Adam Smith proposed "laissez-faire" capitalism. Modern liberals became skeptical of laissez-faire capitalism, however, when the Industrial Revolution produced the monopolistic aggregation of wealth and power as well as the exploitation and abuse of working people. The Great Depression of the 1930s further shook liberals’ faith in laissez-faire capitalism. Rather than pushing for socialism or communism, however, liberals like Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for government intervention in aid of the economy and governmental regulation of business.
Liberals do not necessarily favor taxation. They realize that a tyrannical government can use taxation as a method of subjugation and repression. In recent times, however, they have favored governmental expenditures in support of domestic programs including programs that help the poor, the elderly, the sick, the unemployed, the disabled, and other similar groups.
Among the most burning issues that separate today’s liberals from conservatives in America are the liberals’ belief in governmental stimulus of the economy, women’s rights, including the right to choose abortion, and the rights of homosexuals, including the right to marry. Liberals support the use of stem-cell research to cure disease, the availability of methods of contraception in addition to abstinence, and the total separation of church and state.
Despite the anger generated by these disputes, I believe that liberals and conservatives in American have far more in common than they realize. Both believe in the democratic institutions and fundamental rights found in our constitution. I will discuss this further in my next commentary about Conservatism.
Liberalism is not a fixed set of beliefs. It is an evolving attitude that favors individual freedom, concern and compassion for poor and oppressed people, opposition to governmental totalitarianism, opposition to domination of the weak by the powerful, and support for the rights of minorities. Liberalism has always been a progressive movement calling for political freedom, religious freedom, and equality under the law regardless of race, religion, sex, nationality, social class, age, or wealth.
Liberalism in America was influenced by the philosophy of great European thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu. They spoke of the “Rights of Man.” The American Revolution established the first nation based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. When Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams spoke of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” they were echoing John Locke.
The United States is a liberal democracy. Our institutions are based on liberal ideas. Our Revolutionary War was fought on the basis of a liberal document, the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War was fought to free the slaves, a liberal cause. The civil rights movement to end racial segregation was a liberal movement. Liberalism has always been a movement for freedom wedged between the extreme positions of both the left and right
People sometimes confuse liberalism with its opposite, communism. I once had a debate with a communist. He accused liberals of being soft because we believe in the civil liberties and freedoms that Americans hold dear. I told him that communism crushes the human spirit. It attempts to grind men down and make them into what the philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset called “Mass Men.” Liberalism tries to lift men up, to give them the opportunity to realize their individual potential and their uniqueness as human beings.
Classical liberalism stressed freedom of commerce from government intervention. Adam Smith proposed "laissez-faire" capitalism. Modern liberals became skeptical of laissez-faire capitalism, however, when the Industrial Revolution produced the monopolistic aggregation of wealth and power as well as the exploitation and abuse of working people. The Great Depression of the 1930s further shook liberals’ faith in laissez-faire capitalism. Rather than pushing for socialism or communism, however, liberals like Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for government intervention in aid of the economy and governmental regulation of business.
Liberals do not necessarily favor taxation. They realize that a tyrannical government can use taxation as a method of subjugation and repression. In recent times, however, they have favored governmental expenditures in support of domestic programs including programs that help the poor, the elderly, the sick, the unemployed, the disabled, and other similar groups.
Among the most burning issues that separate today’s liberals from conservatives in America are the liberals’ belief in governmental stimulus of the economy, women’s rights, including the right to choose abortion, and the rights of homosexuals, including the right to marry. Liberals support the use of stem-cell research to cure disease, the availability of methods of contraception in addition to abstinence, and the total separation of church and state.
Despite the anger generated by these disputes, I believe that liberals and conservatives in American have far more in common than they realize. Both believe in the democratic institutions and fundamental rights found in our constitution. I will discuss this further in my next commentary about Conservatism.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Radical Right-Wing
There is a significant difference between ordinary conservatives and members of the radical right-wing organizations now growing in America. As my next few commentaries will explain, liberals and conservatives in America have much in common, but there are extremists out there who do not share our basic democratic values. There are people who are so enraged by the verdict rendered in the last election that they feel their only recourse is to armed revolution. Such people are not patriotic Americans. They have more in common with the German and Italian fascists of the 1930s than with today’s conservatives.
True conservatives are deeply patriotic. They may be distressed at the turn this nation has taken, but they want to work by political means to change it. They value the institutions of our democratic society. This is not the case with that group of radicals who care nothing for the judgment of the majority. They are so incensed by having a bi-racial president promulgating liberal laws that they want to counter such programs with violence. As Charles M. Blow of The New York Times says: “They feel isolated, angry, betrayed, and besieged. And some of their ‘leaders’ seem to be trying to mold them into militias…. its not all just harmless talk. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report in April that warned of right-wing extremist groups gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the nation’s first bi-racial president. The report predicts that a worsening economy will lead to more people joining militias and skinhead groups and carrying out individual acts modeled after those of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
According to the DHS report: “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish ‘financial elites.’ These ‘accusatory’ tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs….Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.”
In its 2009 annual report, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that the number of hate groups operating in the United States continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54% since 2000. The SPLC identified 926 hate groups active in 2008, up more than 4% from the 888 groups in 2007, and far above the 602 groups documented in 2000.
The SPLC report says: “Several white supremacists have been arrested while allegedly plotting to kill Obama, and following the election he received more threats than any previous president-elect. Scores of racially charged incidents — beatings, effigy burnings, racist graffiti, threats and intimidation — were reported across the country after the election. Extremists are also exploiting the economic crisis, spreading propaganda that blames minorities and immigrants for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Tough economic times historically provide fertile ground for extremist movements.”
It is curious that a number of these groups assert the superiority of the white race even though there is no superiority to be found in their memberships. Most members of these groups are uneducated, unsophisticated, and unintelligent dimwits. When one hears the ranting of a Ku Klux Klan group, one is astonished that they fail to recognize the irony in their claims of white pre-eminence.
It would be nice to think that these morons are harmless, but, unfortunately, many of them are armed and dangerous. Because they cannot cope with their roles as losers in society, they want to lash-out at the demons that assail their self-worth. We need to beware of them.
True conservatives are deeply patriotic. They may be distressed at the turn this nation has taken, but they want to work by political means to change it. They value the institutions of our democratic society. This is not the case with that group of radicals who care nothing for the judgment of the majority. They are so incensed by having a bi-racial president promulgating liberal laws that they want to counter such programs with violence. As Charles M. Blow of The New York Times says: “They feel isolated, angry, betrayed, and besieged. And some of their ‘leaders’ seem to be trying to mold them into militias…. its not all just harmless talk. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report in April that warned of right-wing extremist groups gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the nation’s first bi-racial president. The report predicts that a worsening economy will lead to more people joining militias and skinhead groups and carrying out individual acts modeled after those of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
According to the DHS report: “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish ‘financial elites.’ These ‘accusatory’ tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs….Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.”
In its 2009 annual report, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that the number of hate groups operating in the United States continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54% since 2000. The SPLC identified 926 hate groups active in 2008, up more than 4% from the 888 groups in 2007, and far above the 602 groups documented in 2000.
The SPLC report says: “Several white supremacists have been arrested while allegedly plotting to kill Obama, and following the election he received more threats than any previous president-elect. Scores of racially charged incidents — beatings, effigy burnings, racist graffiti, threats and intimidation — were reported across the country after the election. Extremists are also exploiting the economic crisis, spreading propaganda that blames minorities and immigrants for the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Tough economic times historically provide fertile ground for extremist movements.”
It is curious that a number of these groups assert the superiority of the white race even though there is no superiority to be found in their memberships. Most members of these groups are uneducated, unsophisticated, and unintelligent dimwits. When one hears the ranting of a Ku Klux Klan group, one is astonished that they fail to recognize the irony in their claims of white pre-eminence.
It would be nice to think that these morons are harmless, but, unfortunately, many of them are armed and dangerous. Because they cannot cope with their roles as losers in society, they want to lash-out at the demons that assail their self-worth. We need to beware of them.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Arlen Specter-Democrat
The only surprising thing about Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party is that it took him so long. He has been a “moderate” for many years in a party that has abandoned the concept of moderation.
I’m sure that when Senator Specter voted for President Obama’s stimulus bill, the Republicans who provide funding for senate races told him that they would fund his opponent in the Republican primaries. After 29 years as a Republican, he was a pariah. Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine described the feeling in a recent New York Times Op-Ed article: “Being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of ‘Survivor’ — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe.”
Specter’s switch was a sweet gift to President Obama. It does not mean that Specter will automatically vote for every Democratic bill, but it will free him to vote his conscience instead of feeling duty-bound to vote with the Republicans. Specter has long been a moderate on social issues. He has supported freedom of choice on abortion and the funding of stem-cell research. He has opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He has supported affirmative action. He is not a complete liberal, but he is far more liberal than most of his senate Republican colleagues.
For years now the Republican Party has been contracting into a regional party predominant in the former segregationist states of the South. It has been taken captive by the Rush Limbaugh dunce-heads, the self-righteous, sanctimonious bigots of the “Religious Right,” and by the Club for Growth. Whereas once the Republican Party could boast leaders like Everett Dirksen, Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, Tom Kaine, and Jack Kemp, it is now led by red-necks like Mark Sanford, David Vitter, Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, and Rick Perry.
It is not uncommon for senators to switch parties. In 1964, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party because the Democrats had become the party of civil rights. Later, in 1994, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democrats to the Republicans. In 1995, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democrats to the Republicans.
Although it was padded with various code words such as the fight over “affirmative action,” “welfare,” or “busing,” the primary issue between Democrats and Republicans in the decades of the 70s, 80s, and 90s was the civil rights of African Americans. The old Southern Democratic segregationist bloc that switched to the Republican Party fought those issues fiercely. In more recent years, the Republicans have added abortion, gay rights, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, and immigration to their list of favorite social issues.
If the lumbering Minnesota courts ever get around to certifying Al Franken as senator-elect, Senator Specter’s switch may help the Democrats get the 60 votes necessary to defeat the wall-to-wall filibuster being promulgated by the Republicans.
I have no doubt that Republican adherence to ultra-right-wing positions will lead to more Democrats in Congress in 2010. Unless the Republicans give-up their antagonism toward gays, immigrants, labor unions, poor people, and single women, they will continue to shrink.
With the 60-vote majority, and with the large Democratic majorities that I expect to come after the next elections, Congress will be able to enact a bundle of liberal legislation including universal health insurance, a cap and tax on greenhouse gas emissions, repeal of all tax cuts for the wealthy, repeal of all tax breaks for oil companies and tax loopholes for rich corporations, restoration of the estate tax, a tax on the windfall profits of oil and other companies, the Freedom of Choice Act, the Stem-cell Research Enhancement Act, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act, the Employee Free Choice Act, anti-discrimination laws to protect gays, and many other desirable laws.
I’m sure that when Senator Specter voted for President Obama’s stimulus bill, the Republicans who provide funding for senate races told him that they would fund his opponent in the Republican primaries. After 29 years as a Republican, he was a pariah. Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine described the feeling in a recent New York Times Op-Ed article: “Being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of ‘Survivor’ — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe.”
Specter’s switch was a sweet gift to President Obama. It does not mean that Specter will automatically vote for every Democratic bill, but it will free him to vote his conscience instead of feeling duty-bound to vote with the Republicans. Specter has long been a moderate on social issues. He has supported freedom of choice on abortion and the funding of stem-cell research. He has opposed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He has supported affirmative action. He is not a complete liberal, but he is far more liberal than most of his senate Republican colleagues.
For years now the Republican Party has been contracting into a regional party predominant in the former segregationist states of the South. It has been taken captive by the Rush Limbaugh dunce-heads, the self-righteous, sanctimonious bigots of the “Religious Right,” and by the Club for Growth. Whereas once the Republican Party could boast leaders like Everett Dirksen, Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, Tom Kaine, and Jack Kemp, it is now led by red-necks like Mark Sanford, David Vitter, Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, and Rick Perry.
It is not uncommon for senators to switch parties. In 1964, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party because the Democrats had become the party of civil rights. Later, in 1994, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democrats to the Republicans. In 1995, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democrats to the Republicans.
Although it was padded with various code words such as the fight over “affirmative action,” “welfare,” or “busing,” the primary issue between Democrats and Republicans in the decades of the 70s, 80s, and 90s was the civil rights of African Americans. The old Southern Democratic segregationist bloc that switched to the Republican Party fought those issues fiercely. In more recent years, the Republicans have added abortion, gay rights, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, and immigration to their list of favorite social issues.
If the lumbering Minnesota courts ever get around to certifying Al Franken as senator-elect, Senator Specter’s switch may help the Democrats get the 60 votes necessary to defeat the wall-to-wall filibuster being promulgated by the Republicans.
I have no doubt that Republican adherence to ultra-right-wing positions will lead to more Democrats in Congress in 2010. Unless the Republicans give-up their antagonism toward gays, immigrants, labor unions, poor people, and single women, they will continue to shrink.
With the 60-vote majority, and with the large Democratic majorities that I expect to come after the next elections, Congress will be able to enact a bundle of liberal legislation including universal health insurance, a cap and tax on greenhouse gas emissions, repeal of all tax cuts for the wealthy, repeal of all tax breaks for oil companies and tax loopholes for rich corporations, restoration of the estate tax, a tax on the windfall profits of oil and other companies, the Freedom of Choice Act, the Stem-cell Research Enhancement Act, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act, the Employee Free Choice Act, anti-discrimination laws to protect gays, and many other desirable laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
