What We All Want
A well-known commentator said the following yesterday in response to Barack Obama’s speech. Without peeking, who do you think the author is and does the statement stand on its own to definitively define the difference between conservatives and liberals?
We all want opportunity for our kids. We all want a growing, expanding economy. The argument we have is how do you get there? The argument is very simply put, or the distinguishing aspects of the argument are: Liberals want to use government based on a contempt and lack of understanding and confidence that average Americans can overcome things in life. Conservatives like us believe that if you just trust people, the inherent goodness and decency of people will come to the forefront if you don’t tamper with their freedom
, if you don’t tamper with their liberty, if you understand what our Founding Fathers understood, that our freedom and liberty comes from our Maker, from our Creator. We are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. My view of the Democrat Party today is that those are under assault. We know that life is under assault. We know that liberty is under assault. Don’t make me give you all the examples. This is something that’s not even arguable. We’re talking about banning certain kind of lightbulbs; talking about how you can use your property, all these examples — liberty is under assault at the leadership level of the Democrat Party. Pursuit of happiness, they’re not happy; they don’t want anybody to be happy. They are miserable. They look out across America and they see misery and they enjoy it. These are people who are happily miserable. So all three of the basic tenets of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, are under assault by the American left today.
Now, how can they say we all want to move in the same direction when that is where they — I don’t care if it’s Hillary, I don’t care if it’s Barack Obama, I don’t care if it’s John Edwards, I don’t care who it is, Algore, they are all the same. Life is under attack; liberty is under attack, ’cause they don’t trust people with liberty. They don’t trust voters to do the right thing. They don’t trust you to drive the right car. They don’t trust you to have the right kind of anything. And of course the pursuit of happiness, there’s an all-out assault on happiness. Nobody has a right to be happy in America today when there’s so much misery elsewhere. We, on the other hand, believe that liberty is part of our creation, freedom, natural yearning to be free is part of our creation, is what has distinguished this country in 220 years, from all other populations of human beings in the history of this planet. Our DNA is no different than anybody else’s on the planet, but how is it that we have come to be this awesome and for-good superpower? How has it happened? It has happened because of our founding documents; it has happened because of an inherent understanding that our freedom and ambition, who we are as human beings, is part of our creation.
The answer is Rush Limbaugh and in my opinion the answer is clearly “Yes”.
Unlike any of the Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination, Limbaugh articulates exactly what the principles of this country were at the time of its formation and what they ought to be today.
That’s why I have called Barack Obama’s message one of anti-hope - because at its core it seeks to diminish the freedom and independence of every American of any race, creed, or color.
The same is true of Hillary Clinton too, of course, although I believe her agenda is a less-intrusive one overall, outside the field of healthcare. That’s one of the reasons why I prefer her to win the nomination, the other being her greater ability and inclination to lead the continuing fight against international terrorism.
The answer to the quiz is Rush Limbaugh and I know so because I was just reading the transcript of his last show.
The answer is Rush Limbaugh and in my opinion the answer is clearly “Yes”.
Heh. OK - you gave it away.
I agree with that and his message is that America isn’t a good country right now, but that it can become one (by electing him). That’s also not very positive.
Interesting, too, that part of Obama’s mild criticism of Rev. Wright was that Wright ‘doesn’t believe that people can change’. Yet really, liberal ideology doesn’t believe that people can change either- instead, society must be pushed into change by the government policies.
Ironic, no? He doesn’t seem to see it.
When discussing the arguments of either side, it would be useful to enunciate the most favorable iteration of those arguments, rather than the weakest one. As far as I know, no liberal has run around saying "I have contempt for you."
Ah, arbitrista, and did you make a similar comment whenever a left wing pundit or blogger said that conservatives were attacking their patriotism?
I guessed about right and I think this:
is idiotic and prejudiced, about what I would expect from him. Yes liberals are all about contempt and conservatives are just fuzzy and wonderful. Gawd, no lack of objectivity there no sir. But what am I saying? We’re talking about Rush.
I think this is incredibly naive and part of the reason we got so damn deep into Iraq. The belief that somehow freedom and equality are the natural state of human kind is shown to be false by thousands of years of history full of oppression and inequality. The natural tendency of any group of human beings is the tribal chief, the warlord. To trust in a leader rather than to deal with things yourself. Freedom and equality must be nurtured and defended to stand a chance.
I would say that both conservatives and liberals want equality and freedom, but they have a different view on the cause and effect. Liberals see freedom as a consequence of equality, therefore the most powerful way to address freedom is to promote equality of opportunity. Conservatives see equality as a direct consequence of freedom, and therefore the only sensible way to achieve true equality is through freedom.
This might not get at things like regulations on lightbulbs (or regulations on marriage, or regulations on drugs). But I think it covers the fundamental split. the difference between regulating light bulbs or marriages is just a difference in the value set. The past 8 years have show us that republicans like to regulate just as much as democrats, its just a matter of what they regulate.
ROTFL. I’m pretty sure that considerably fewer than all Americans want Rush Limbaugh to be the keeper of the American vision. And I’m at a loss to see what GOP leaders have done to increase freedom and let Americans’ inherent goodness come to the forefront. The prescription drug plan maybe?:-) these are the platitudes conservative politicians talk about glowingly when they’re not running things. Then they ignore ‘em when they get their hands on the wheel. Freedom may lead to inherent goodness, but it’s the earmark pork that you make into bacon. So even if you buy this vision wholeheartedly precisely as Limbaugh states it, and agree that liberalism is based on nothing more than paternalistic contempt, you’re still left without a dog in the hunt. The GOP is utterly discredited as a purveyor of it. So I guess all you folks preening over Rush’s platitudes ought to encourage him to run, because it’s been at least 15 years since any prominent and powerful GOP leader has walked this walk. Y’all seem to think that Rush is the guy with the right vision, so why not draft him now. There’s still plenty of time. Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Which is what Limbaugh is attempting to do here. True enough that the neocons who rushed into Iraq didn’t adequately consider that, and true enough that Limbaugh doesn’t criticize people on the right for not defending freedoms enough. But I don’t see what we gain by saying "Well, both conservatives and liberals are susceptible to reverting back to ancient needs for a tribal leader" as though we should just hang it up. At least conservatives do continue to try to keep freedom as the goal. Liberals today (who are no longer classic liberals), not so much.
Marc:<i>Unlike any of the Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination, Limbaugh articulates exactly what the principles of this country were at the time of its formation and what they ought to be today.</i>The principles of this country, at its formation, was that white people had a right to buy and sell black people, that women were chattel, that we had a perfect right to push Indians off their lands, and that the people had to be kept from anything like direct democracy. Further, they opposed a standing army — want to push that agenda? They didn’t think the federal government had any business building things like roads. (Get off the interstate.) They opposed all foreign entanglements: NATO, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war. . .Don’t project your feelings onto the Founders, and don’t ignore history in order to push a partisan ideology. You wouldn’t want to live in the country as they envisioned it. Fortunately they knew that, which is why they built a system that would adapt as needed, and not a dusty, moldy, political fundamentalism.C. Stanley:<i>Yet really, liberal ideology doesn’t believe that people can change either…</i>No, that’s the position of the Founders. It’s why they built a government of checks and balances, because they assumed that the instant a person has power he’s likely to begin to use it corruptly.
Goddamned Safari.
I disagree with this part:
"Conservatives like us believe that if you just trust people, the inherent goodness and decency of people will come to the forefront if you don’t tamper with their freedom."
People are not inherently decent nor good. That is the twaddle of the left. Conservatives understand two things. First, we understand that people are selfish and cruel but that when people sit down to govern themselves, they recognize that selfishness and cruelty and create laws and institutions to ensure that the worst impulses of humanity are curbed because living together and not screwing each other is the only way to make sure that we keep a stable and vibrant society. Second, we understand that rights are not things a government grants to individuals but things the individual trades to receive certain specific things from the government that only the government can provide.
You’d be a fool to rely on someone’s inherent goodness. Altruism isn’t something you possess. Neither is goodness. Both are things you must learn and things our society must insist are taught.
Of course. But part of the checks and balances is the need for the people to understand that their freedoms are paramount, that we don’t give them away capriciously just because we might think that the right kinds of leaders who are right thinking enough will enact a socially progressive agenda to force change on society.
Neither party has done a good job respecting freedom, and voters unfortunately aren’t living up to their part in checking that. I still feel that I’d rather on the whole advocate for the party that says it stands for freedom, and then attempt to speak up or vote out individuals who don’t live up to that platform. I presume that people who find specific types of freedoms to be more limited by the GOP than the Dems feel the same about their party preference.
Apparently a lot of Republicans don’t trust the public to do the right thing, either, by trying to say who people can marry. By nannying the public away from seeing two seconds of a real, actual, body part on television that might be a bit taboo. And I think Rush dug a hole on the "talking about how you can use your property" one. Wasn’t it the current conservative-leaning make up of the Supreme Court that pretty much gave a state government the power to take your land and give it to a corporation at any place, at any time, and for any reason?
I think you get the idea. My point is that neither party can really stake a claim to being the true provider of the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Both try to take it away, just in different areas.
Both parties should just back off when it’s not necessary.
I’m an idiot. Ignore the part about the Kelo case, I suppose. My main point still stands, though.
Quite well said Jimmie. I too think that Rush is wrong when he says that conservatives believe in the inherent goodness and wisdom of people. At least European conservatives - which is what I am - are quite negative about John Doe. And about politicians.
The ones who believe in the inherent goodness of people are liberals. That’s also the main mistake with their ideology.
Actually though, I do think that quite a lot of American conservatives do believe in the inherent goodness and wisdom of people, though they shouldn’t. That’s actually a problem, which leads to problems in society being ignored until they become so rampant that liberal/progressives have an easy time selling government solutions to the public. If conservatives would do the difficult task of using nongovernmental institutions to work toward the collective good of society more thoroughly, then they’d demonstrate how freedom can allow the best part of human nature to flourish.
So, I think Rush is both correct in saying this is how conservatives (in America) view things, and incorrect because most of those conservatives are getting it wrong. It is true and correct, though, that conservatism involves a belief that the corruptive nature of power means that there’s even more reason to distrust the goodness and wisdom of people in govt as compared to the public in general (not necessarily to each individual working in govt, but ‘the govt’ as an entity.)
Christine: I think we disagree on that. It’s not that when let to their own devices people prove they’re ‘good,’ it’s that having the government help people (become better) has the opposite effect. Basically it’s: yup, it’s a harsh world, and we can improve some things, but it’ll continue to be a harsh world with anger, hatred and inequality as long as humans exist and by trying to do too much about it, we’re actually making things worse. When you want to change things for the better, you have to do so slowly. Otherwise, the cure is worse than the disease.
That’s, in a nutshell, conservative (at least European) ideology.
Let me explain a bit more (it was a bit overly negative): if you encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives, society as a whole will be better off; not because all people are good and will take responsibility but because many will and because taking that away from them will make them worse.
Basically, you could say, the difference between conservatism and liberalism is that liberalism strives towards an utopia, whereas conservatism does not. It’s more aimed at making the best of reality, not striving towards a wonderful future in which we are (materially) equal and happy and healthy and prosperous and not sinners, etc.
Spot on Kranky,
It’s has been at least 15 years since any prominent and powerful GOP leader has walked this walk. (let me add that becuase in order to be prominent and powerful, you need to be be a neocon. None of the power brokers in the GOP (if they want to remain powerful) would ever break out of the mold to put forth any plans to increase freedom and let Americans’ inherent goodness come to the forefront.
Michael: I agree with all of that, but I’m not sure what part of my comment contradicts it. To me, they are two related thoughts; one is that govt power corrupts the people who wield it, so we should be wary of giving too much power over; and the second is that the ways in which that power is used to control people’s lives often makes them less able to use their own free will for good purposes (as you say, makes the problems worse instead of better.)
And yes, about the utopia part- conservatives are more accepting of the fact that there will always be strife and inequity. To some, that comes across as a greater negativity- but it’s also freeing, because if we accept that things will never be perfect we’re better able to find ways to maximize the good potential in people. Even the fact that there’s inequity, to a degree, is good because it spurs competition.
I think that the conservative-liberal divide has very little to do with the opinion about people. Both ideologies can be defended from a humans-as-bad and humans-as-good standpoint. For instance:
Conservatives-humans-as-bad: Human nature is to compete, to achieve through effort an advantage over others, a better life. Altruism is a false utopia. As such, any attempt to force humans into a false solidarity (like Communism) are doomed to fail from the onset, since they go against our fundamental nature. The best we can do is create a minimal structure that ensures that we can pursue our natures in a system that is functional instead of chaotic, a system that rewards effort with success, and is therefore in line with our natures.
Conservatives-humans-as-good: Humans are fundamentally good creatures, and perfectly capable of taking care of the less fortunate on their own. A large super-structure of government only serves to diminish this instinct, as people start to expect god-like "government" to take care of the less fortunate, when personal, community-based charity can do it much better. If you ensure that people have an environment in which to be successful through effort, then people will come together on their own to help those that fall through the cracks, in addition to reinforcing the human sense of responsibility.
Liberals-humans-as-bad: Human nature is to be selfish, for one human to try to seek advantages and power over other humans. We all possess these impulses and if left unchecked, situations develop where the naturally stronger lord over and exploit the naturally weaker. In order to prevent this a system needs to be in place to keep human selfishness in check, a system that makes sure that people cannot gain through the exploitation of others. Government is needed to enforce justice, which is not naturally a part of our instincts.
Liberals-humans-as-good: Humans are social creatures, and therefore endowed with a sense of empathy. Humans do not like to see other humans suffer. As civilization progresses, government must reflect the values of solidarity and equality that humans naturally have. Government is able to provide things, through the pooling and centralization of resources, that no small group of individuals, no matter how well-intentioned, could. Government exists to express those values, to make sure that those that have less have something to fall back on.
Claudia, I think that’s pretty much on target. But then because each group applies the logic differently, they also view the others’ opinions as being more negative about human nature. And that’s what Limbaugh was doing (and BTW- when I used to listen to him, I found that this was a common theme of his and I think it explains some of his appeal to conservative listeners; it’s not unlike the optimism that Reagan tapped into.)
I’m taking your replies as evidence in support of my idea of the split between freedom and equality being the crucial goal, and the other being a collateral result:<blockquote>demonstrate how freedom can allow the best part of human nature to flourish.</blockquote><blockquote>if you encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives, society as a whole will be better off</blockquote>