Promoted by Brendan
I'm posting this after a gap of about five months as a test to see whether we can engage in abstract discussions instead of continually talking past one another.
Here are some of what one commonly hears are conservative principles. I will discuss why I don't think some of them are below.
Fiscal
1. Low taxes
2. Small government
3. Laissez faire commerce policies
4. Free trade
5. Regulation by the market
Social
1. Support for the traditional family structure
2. Belief in a hierarchical structure for social organizations
3. Strict regulation of human behavior
4. Personal liberty
5. Opposition to compensatory programs for the disadvantaged
Let's tackle the fiscal ones first. The first four are not principles, they are techniques to achieve an end. What is the end? No one is in favor of high taxes and what is high or low varies from time to time and place to place. So when people say they favor low taxes or small government what they really mean is compared to the present level. How will they know when they get to the right level? There needs to be some criteria. This is lacking. One cannot base a philosophy on being against something, one also has to be for something else.
Regulation by the market (instead of by government) is also a matter of degree. Only the most rabid libertarians favor removing all regulation. So, once again, it boils down to a matter of degree. Do we want the government to regulate drug purity? If so, how much regulation is needed? There is no standard to measure against.
On the social side points one and two belong together. Both are manifestations of a belief that "father knows best". This is another way of saying that the rigid gender, race and class distinctions that existed before should be favored. In the US that has meant white Anglo-Saxon men. This is also a group that is closely associated with the current conservative movement. In other societies the favored group has also tried to hold on to their power. Many justifications have been given over the centuries from the divine right of kings (and the aristocracy), to the innate superiority of certain ethnic groups. This is a "conservative" principle: I've got mine and I want to keep it.
From this principle follows the need for control of behavior. To allow others to do as they see fit is to allow a weakening of the power of the elite. What these restrictions are varies. At one time practicing the wrong religion was persecuted. More recently this has shifted to gender issues and reproductive freedom. The chance that power will have to be shared is also why compensatory programs are opposed.
The support for personal liberty (a typical statement is: "the law shouldn't control what I put into my body") is not a conservative principle, it is a libertarian one. The two groups sometimes find common cause on things like taxes, but are mistaken if they think they have similar social philosophies.
Now what are liberal principles?
1. All persons have equal rights within a society
2. The people are best able to handle their own affairs (collectively)
These simple ideas lead to many things. Among them are that there shall be no privileged group within a society that is based upon birth or inheritance. This implies no racial or gender discrimination. It also implies that society can set up rules for how the disadvantaged are treated.
The second principle leads to a democratic form of government. The people get to chose the laws and how they are to be administered. There is no ruling elite that sets things up for their own benefit. If the majority decide that harmful drugs are to be regulated in a certain way, then that's what is to be done. Those who prefer letting the "market" decide are really saying the don't want democracy to work.
Many of the policies presently condemned by "conservatives" which I have listed above can be seen as examples where democracy has worked (in the past) and the decisions disfavor the privileged so they want to do away with majority rule. The people have chosen the level of government or taxes that we have now.
There will be objections that the people haven't actually chosen many of the present social conditions, that this has been done by special interests. To the extent this is true it represents a failure for democracy to perform as well as it might. It is not a condemnation of liberal principles, it is a sign that democracy needs to be strengthened. In a situation, as at present, where we are in a quasi-plutocracy, restoring balance may be difficult, but that doesn't mean that the principles are wrong.
So what is a conservative? One who wants to see their privilege restored or maintained.
What is a liberal? One who wants to see all treated fairly according to rules established democratically. Everything else is implementation.
__________________________
Good diary though I disagree on some points.
As neither, nor in this paradigm, I find the principles a little too broad to effectively apply to one without applying to the other.
Saying liberal principles are:
is a little vague. I doubt any "non-liberal" (in the modern sense) would disagree with that principle of equal rights. The trick is, like you said, in its implementation. This is why many non-liberals and even many democrats for that matter are not keen on special privilege laws that act as reverse discrimination against the majority.
The second point is also very vague since it does not distinguish the form of collective action....is it voluntary? local? Centralized? etc.....
I'll start there since I don't want to put too much on the plate at once.
I would call those conservative principles as well
I would venture to guess that 99% of conservatives (and nearly all Republicans) would agree with those statements too.
This is the trouble with using characterizations instead of specific policy agendas to describe the parties. The concepts can be too vague to be very meaningful descriptors of the differences between various political groups.
I agree with those two statements also, yet I'm in the middle (whatever that means!).
Welcome back, rdf.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Re: the trick is in the implementation
I think the philosophical differences show up in the implementation -- even where liberals and conservatives share a goal their methods are likely to be radically different.
As far as reverse discrimination goes, while I might oppose "special privilege laws" in theory it often seems to me in practice that the griping is without merit. Some kid decides he didn't get into Princeton because he's white when the actual reason could have been anything from his essay/interview sucked to his parents didn't donate enough money. But yeah, there are good and bad ways to try to legally promote equal rights.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
If these two are both true
then being a conservative requires one to be schizophrenic.
__________________________qui tacet consentire
But since they are probably not accurate
we need to find a better way to explain the values involved.
Many possible takes, but here's one
I completely agree. But here's where it gets tricky: there is a big difference between a *political* coalition and a *philosophical* colation.
Any political coalition that wins an election will almost certainly be made up of a large number of camps. Those camps will likely only agree on short-term, not long-term, directions. It is a marriage of convenience: we may have different endpoints in mind, but for right now, we're heading in the same direction, so let's work together. (Of course this is true of all political coalitions, not just conservative ones.)
I can't speak for other members of the conservative political coalition, only for myself. But let me throw out at least three philosophical standards that I might use when evaluating a proposed economic policy (tax, spending, regulatory, etc.).
1. Pareto efficiency: This is a very weak standard. By this standard, I would favor a policy that made at least one person's life better while making no one's life worse, or disfavor a policy that made at least one person's life worse while making no one's life better. Unfortunately this standard passes no judgment on any policy that makes some people better off and other people worse off, so it's only rarely applicable.
2. Utilitarian: Do the benefits of the policy exceed the costs? Sounds good, but the trouble comes into play when you try to do interpersonal comparisons of utility. (One of the basic principles of utility is that it is ordinal, not cardinal.) I personally resolve this problem by measuring utility in units of dollars. If a policy makes one person $2 better off and another person $1 worse off, the policy is a good one on net. Note that this means that I would reject a policy that takes makes a poor person $1 better off at the cost of making a rich person $2 worse off. (Some utilitarians would disagree with my reasoning, on the grounds that "a dollar is worth more to a poor person than to a rich person.")
3. Libertarian: Does the policy restrict or enhance peoples' freedom to do whatever they want, so long as they don't harm others?
In the end I use a mixture of the utilitarian and libertarian approaches. About 95% of the time I find that they agree in almost all respects. The remaining 5% of the time, they agree on the short-term political direction but disagree on the long-term endpoint.
For example, my libertarian side would say that it is immoral for government to be involved in the road construction industry -- government, at any level, should not tax people to build roads, period.
My utilitarian side would merely favor devolving most federal transportation responsibilities to the states and counties, replacing gas taxes with congestion-based tolls, repeal union rules like Davis/Bacon that drive up construction costs, and thinking about privatizing at least some roads.
In the short term, both sides would be opposed to any increase in the federal gas tax or in federal transportation spending, while both would be in favor of shifting transportation dollars back to the states. At the state level, both would be in favor of funding roads through tolls instead of gas taxes, or in favor of eliminating those ridiculous HOV (carpool) lanes.
Well said, LZ
Very thoughtful post.
However, I add one little quibble as per a previous conversation:
On utlitly
I always thought that was an Austrian position against the Neo-classicals! hahahaha ; )
I'd also add that Pareto efficiency, by my perception of economics, is shoddy and unreliable precisely for this reason.
just a thought :)
ofcourse now that I think about it
I think austrians would say preference is ordinal and not cardinal.
But actually, I think it applies to both utility and preference.
Nice analysis LG, but that makes you a Libertarian, not a
Conservative.
Now, as someone who used to be a fairly staunch Republican as well, I too once held to the belief at one time that modern conservatism derived from libertarianism or the revival of classical liberalism from the likes of Friedman and Hayek.
After all, it was Reagan who pronounced that " the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism..."
That's no longer the case. Whether it's "compassionate conservatism, "big government conservatism," "neo-conservatism," or "social conservatism," conservatism without libertarianism devolves into authoritarianism, and crony privitization or crony corporatism certainly doesn't meet any utilitarian test.
If you honest to your principles, you have to abandon the conservative label and adobt the libertarian label. And if the GOP cannot return to it's modern libertarian roots, it needs to die. Advocating a stop measure gap like Rudy to fend off Hillary isn't going to work out nor should it be advocated. First of all, The 9-11 National Security State only ends up centralizing more wealth and power around Washington
. Secondly, Rasmussen now has Ron Paul polling close to 10% nationally as a Libertarian Party candidate in a 3 way race between Hillary and Rudy. I can almost guarantee that if it's a Hillary vs Rudy matchup and Ron Paul can sniff 15%(which would get him in the debates), he will make an independent/3rd party run. There goes your contention that Rudy would be best candidate to get the libertarian vote. Indeed, Ron Paul would hurt Rudy much more than Hillary, and you would likely see Rudy try to marginalize libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.
And Paul appears to be to game for the fight. In a very recent Rolling Stone interview, Paul called Rudy a chickenhawk and a draft dodger...
__________________________Why do you feel
the need to liberally plaster the libertarian label on conservatives.
Can't someone just look at things on an issue by issue basis and see that there are areas of agreement?
For example, many liberals are in full agreement with Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan on their positions War in Iraq.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
I'm not a libertarian
My views on social issues are moderate-to-slightly-conservative, not libertarian. I'm pro-choice, but I respect the pro-life point of view and would advocate the reversal of Roe v. Wade. I am opposed to both gay marriage and civil unions, and I consider both divorce and out-of-wedlock births to be important social problems. I don't believe in a strong "right to privacy." I oppose the drug war and would support legalization of drugs, but at the same time I have no sympathy for your average pot smoker or drug dealer, and my general attitude towards violent criminals is "lock them up and throw away the key." I support the death penalty.
I don't consider myself an expert on foreign policy, but my views tend to be to the conservative side there also. I have my sympathies for Ron Paul, but they are *despite* his foreign policy positions, not because of them.
So how exactly am I a libertarian?
pretty much the same
minus opposition to civil unions, and reversing Roe. Everything else including the view on Ron Paul is similar.
Although libertarians might also consider divorce and out-of-wedlock births to be important social problems but would be opposed to solving them through government :)
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
yes, Ender
very true. A real problem is a real problem. But that does not mean there is some kind of collective govt. policy to properly address it.
First, you left out Foreign
First, you left out Foreign Policy, and in particular Defense/Military Policy.
Now onto your list and arguments.
Fiscal
1. Low taxes
2. Small government
Conditionality of #1 on #2 (assuming by #2 you mean low spending level), otherwise known as fiscal responsibility, is true fiscal conservativism. Unfortunately, you are correct in describing what passes for fiscal conservatism today, which is favoring tax cuts, period, and yes, also favoring low spending, but favoring tax cuts independent of spending level, either in the erroneous belief that tax cuts will “pay for themselves” (or even generate higher revenues), in the hope that tax cuts will force lower spending, or just plain old regardless of spending, but just because “it’s my money”, even though eventually (in the long-term) whatever we spend has to be paid for through taxation (albeit to some extent taxation of some subsequent generation rather than us). And by the way, blindly or carelessly buying into that “tax cuts pay for themselves” myth without checking into it (which would lead one to discover that it’s a myth) is irresponsible, and fiscal irresponsibility is not conservative. Funny thing, by the way, is when the same person claiming to be a fiscal conservative actually argues at one moment that tax cuts generate higher revenues and at the next moment that tax cuts will reduce spending by “starving the beast”, not realizing that the two are contradictory theories and imply that mutually exclusive results will both occur. Please don't lump thoughtful, true fiscal conservative like me in with idiots who wouldn't know fiscal conservatism if it bit them on the ass.
3. Laissez faire commerce policies
Laissez faire is an extreme, in fact an absolute, that most economic conservatives would not favor. You point out in your criticism that conservative arguments should be relative rather than absolute, and they generally are (at least among thoughtful economic conservatives). So it seems you’ve set up a bit of a straw man here: falsely attributing an absolutist position to conservatives, then criticising them (us) for it.
5. Regulation by the market
That’s a bit of an oxymoron, but I think I know what you mean (free market, without regulation). As with #3, that’s an absolute, and I don’t think most economic conservatives hold an absolute position. And you’re right that perhaps the libertarian wing of the Libertarian party, so to speak, would. But I think most conservatives would oppose, for example, no regulation of prescription drugs or other consumer safety matters (sure, there are the courts – lawsuits – but I don’t think most conservatives would want to rely solely on that mechanism). So again, seems like a straw man to me, unless you’re just talking about dumbass economic conservatives who like to spew rhetoric without thinking through matters of degree and trade-offs, in which case I’d kindly ask you not to group all of us economic conservatives together under the banner of fiscal or economic conservatism.
Social
1. Support for the traditional family structure
Well, yeah, that’s what they might call it. But the reality is that the focus of their efforts with regard to family structure is in opposing non-traditional family structures, not in supporting the traditional family structure. To create the appearance that their arguments and efforts are aimed at supporting the traditional family structure they have to do absurd intellectual gymnastics like claiming that letting gays marry will cause heterosexuals to stop wanting to get married. (By the way, Iike what Jon Stewart said: “I was opposed to gay marriage…until I found out it wasn’t mandatory.”) Their true goal is to prevent gays from acquiring equal marriage rights because as long as they prevent that, government (and by extension, society) is maintaining an implicit position that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality and is immoral. If their goal were really to support the traditional family structure they would take all the enormous time, effort, and dollars they devote to fighting to “gay marriage” and devote it instead to mitigating the true great threat to the traditional family structure: divorce. Where is the great national movement to ban no-fault divorce, for example. (I wouldn’t necessarily favor such a ban, particularly for married couples with no children, but such a movement would much more closely fit social conservatives’ stated objective of “protecting the traditional family”.)
2. Belief in a hierarchical structure for social organizations
Not sure what you mean by that. And you write:
On the social side points one and two belong together. Both are manifestations of a belief that "father knows best". This is another way of saying that the rigid gender, race and class distinctions that existed before should be favored. In the US that has meant white Anglo-Saxon men. This is also a group that is closely associated with the current conservative movement. In other societies the favored group has also tried to hold on to their power. Many justifications have been given over the centuries from the divine right of kings (and the aristocracy), to the innate superiority of certain ethnic groups. This is a "conservative" principle: I've got mine and I want to keep it.
I have to say that that is borderline offensive. You seem to be implying that economic/fiscal conservatives favor racist and sexist policies, along with policies that disadvantage lower classes, and do so knowingly to selfishly hoard our relative wealth, and that we invent rationales for doing so either as disingenuous public statements to achieve our aims politically, or perhaps just as subconscious rationalizations. Is that what you’re saying?
3. Strict regulation of human behavior
To allow others to do as they see fit is to allow a weakening of the power of the elite. What these restrictions are varies. At one time practicing the wrong religion was persecuted. More recently this has shifted to gender issues and reproductive freedom.
I am essentially pro-choice than pro-life, although my position is different from the conventional pro-choice position and my reasoning is different from the typical – and illogical – pro-choice reasoning, BUT I believe that pro-lifers hold their positions based on genuine religious and moral beliefs, not in the interest of preserving “the power of the elite”, whatever you’re considering “the elite”. And while I don’t believe there’s any reasonable reason for considering a zygote a person and I don’t believe a non-person has the same right to life as a person, many/most pro-lifers do consider an early embryo a person, and based on that premise, abortion is murder, and individual liberty (“reproductive freedom”) is not an argument for a right to murder.
4. Personal liberty
What do you mean? Seems like # 3 and # 4 are largely contradictory.
5. Opposition to compensatory programs for the disadvantaged
Who are "the disadvantaged"? By what criteria? If you're talking about policies of preferential treatment in employment and university admisssions, are you defining "disadvantaged" simply on the basis of malanin, ancestral geography, and genitalia? Because that's what conservatives oppose. That's what I oppose. Affirmative action based on economic status or prior disadvantaged access to resources, and/or consideration of obstacles overcome as an indicator of potential, would be a different story in my view and I think in the view of many opponents of affirmative action as it exists in America today. And if substantial racial/ethnic/gender discrimination -- other than the affirmative action itself, which is a form of such discrimination -- were pervasive in American hiring and admissions today, that would be at least a reasonable argument for affirmative action on such bases (as is perhaps the case in India with the "untouchables"), but that standard is not met in the U.S. today.
And what do you mean by “compensatory”? What is being “compensated” for? And who must do the compensating? Who owes whom a debt and for what?
Now what are liberal principles?
1. All persons have equal rights within a society
Really? And if an upper class African-American kid is granted university admission over a working class white kid, despite the latter having better qualifications, simply because of the former’s skin color, do you consider that “equal rights”?
2. The people are best able to handle their own affairs (collectively)
That seems less than fully accurate, to say the least. Conservatives tend to favor social issue contraversies being decided through the political process rather than the judiciary. Although they are not fully consistent in this regard, as in the current D.C. gun control case the Supreme Court may consider, it is generally the case.
there shall be no privileged group within a society that is based upon birth or inheritance.
What conservative policy positions are intended for that purpose? Yes, there’s opposition to the estate (inheritance) tax, but what else?
no racial or gender discrimination.
Same question: what conservative policy positions support such discrimination? And how is it that a liberal, who I assume favors race-based and gender-based discrimination (and correct me if that assumption is incorrect), can accuse conservatives of favoring such policies?
Those who prefer letting the "market" decide are really saying the don't want democracy to work.
That is odd. Someone can prefer a relatively free market, but still submit to whatever policies (e.g., regulations, wealth redistribution) result from our democratic process, whether he likes those policies or not. How does favoring a relatively free market imply an opposition to democracy?
So what is a conservative? One who wants to see their privilege restored or maintained.
That’s offensive (as well as completely unsubstantiated by anything you’ve said). It implies that conservatives are guided solely by selfish motives.
What is a liberal? One who wants to see all treated fairly according to rules established democratically.
You seem to conflate “rules established democratically” with “all treated fairly”. Needless to say (or so one would think), a democracy can produce rules that are greatly unfair to some. And again, what’s fair about a policy under which someone who had greater advantage (the upper class African-American kid) is given preference over someone who was disadvantaged (the working class white kid) simply because of his skin color?
typo corrections: "malanin"
typo corrections:
"malanin" should be "melanin"
"pro-choice than pro-life" should be "pro-choice rather than pro-life".
Oh, and if by "compensatory
Oh, and if by "compensatory programs for the disadvantaged" you mean economic safety nets, first of all, I don't think most conservatives would want to completely elimate such programs (welfare, Medicaid, unemployment, Social Security & Medicare, etc.). Second, just because someone meets the economic conditions to qualify for such aid does not mean they are "disadvantaged". "Disadvantaged" implies that their economic situation is the result of some, well, disadvantage, which is certainly not always case.
Well said, B Rational (nt)
don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Thanks, Purp. I hope rdf
Thanks, Purp. I hope rdf addresses my points.
Jeffersonian Liberal
Something like this
Friedman,Goldwater, Reagan(pre-80s Reagan).
Yahoo hosting sucks...the video may or may not play...
__________________________My take on the comments so far
What I gather from those who disagree with me seems mostly to be based upon semantics.
There are many shades of conservatism and part of this group is at the libertarian end of the spectrum. For whatever reason these people prefer to call themselves conservative rather than libertarian and thus disagree with some of my characterizations.
You are, of course, free to call yourself whatever you wish, but it leads to confusion. So here is what I mean. If you want to call this chocolate, vanilla and strawberry in the future that's fine too.
I stand by my definition of liberal, see above.
A "libertarian" is one who shares the liberal ideals of equality, that's why they are libertarian and not conservatarian.
Libertarians mostly believe that society should be set up with as few restrictions on personal liberties as possible. The various groups within the movement differ on where the line should be drawn. I'm not interested in discussing libertarianism (again). So if you don't like my definition start a new diary and set the record straight as you see it.
This diary is about conservative principles. If you read my original remarks you will see that what I said was that there are several principles which are frequently offered as being conservative but which I argue are not. I'm not setting up a strawman. I commenting on the conflating of current political objectives with a social philosophy.
People don't much talk about social philosophy any more, and especially not in the blogosphere where everything gets framed by current events. So I don't regard the principles I listed as being "true" conservative principles and go on to explain this in detail.
There was a nice reframing in a comment on another blog about this:
For various historical reasons the libertarians allied themselves with the GOP over the past 50 years. The Republicans were happy to have them. I'll explain the relationship in another posting if people are interested.
As far as I can see there are no "conservatives" on this site regardless of what they call themselves. I can explain this further if there is interest as well.
You might be interested in reading the comments on the eurotrib.com blog where I cross-posted this essay. Many of the comments are from people outside the US and they have a different perspective on things.
__________________________--- Policies not Politics
Keep in mind, Robert
that by holding to tightly to set definitions, you wind up not advancing the conversation.
Definitions differ from people to people but there must be some common general view (besides hating the opposite party) that ties people roughly together.
As a libertarian who makes no illusions about being a conservative or a liberal (as I see them), I think you seek to define these two groups in a way will not satisfy the group you do not belong to.
While I agree that it's important to separate social philosophy from political objectives, even on a social philosophy level, you're definitions don't jive quite well. Both are wrong.
I can empathize with both sides, regardless of whether I agree or not. In this sense, you short changed the conservatives.
Trust me, these conservatives here are not libertarians. I can attest to that personally. So, obviously something is missing.
To me conservative philosophy is about order. Conservatives are reluctant to change established and proven social norms. Social Order is a guiding principle. Economically, order plays a role in the sense in that it ties in with personal responsibility.
Now that's charitable....charitable enough to empathize with yet clear enough for me to disagree with.
People don't much talk about social philosophy any more,
While I'm not a libertarian
While I'm not a libertarian or a Libertarian, I like what Libertarian candidate Harry Brown used to say about the two parties and their respective ideologies: "The Democrats don't want anybody to have any money and the Republicans don't want anybody to have any fun!"
sounds pretty accurate in my estimation
By contrast, Robert, liberals
liberal philosophy, to me, is tied to the idea of social equality. In the liberal view, equality cannot be attained in a satisfactory manner without cooperative effort and thus seeks to mitigate socio-economic forces that a simple adherence to order and tradition are unable to deal with to that end of equality.
Again, I feel this is precise enough to empathize with while still leaving room for contrast and disagreement.
These are simple and rough definitions. We could go further but I think it's a good starting point but certainly not an ending point.
Equality or egalitarianism?
Liberalism has gone through several conceptions of "equality."
At first, equality meant equality under the law: the abolition of special or inferior rights and privileges by birth (nobility, caste, legal discrimination on the basis of race or sex).
Since the original problem of equality under the law has basically been solved in most Western countries, over time liberals have moved on to "equality of opportunity" and "equality of results." But these are egalitarian, not "liberal" (in the older sense), concepts: in order to pursue them, government must restrict our freedom.
Equality of results is an abominable concept. It objects to an outcome, not a process. Outcomes (such as the distribution of wealth) are not in themselves just or unjust. They simply *are*. Only a process can be just or unjust. If an outcome is achieved by a process that is just, then we are obligated to accept that outcome as legitimate.
For example, if you and I start with $100 each, and then (by mutual consent) we play a game of poker and you win all the money, leaving you with $200 and me with nothing, I cannot object to this outcome as being "unjust." The outcome simply is what it is. It would be unjust at this point for me to demand some or all of my money back on the grounds that "it's not fair that you have all the money now." If I don't like the outcome, too bad: I shouldn't have played the game in the first place if I couldn't handle the consequences of my actions.
Worse, liberals have begun to advocate the *reinstatement* of special privileges under the law, such as affirmative action, in order to attempt to change outcomes. They hope to achieve what they see as a more just outcome (more equal distribution of wealth) through an unjust process (governmental discrimination on the basis of race).
yes, LZ
that is why I left the deeper meaning of equality vague.
How many liberals actually advocate
for equality of results? I'm sure there are some on the fringes but I can't think of many offhand...
Affirmative action isn't at all an attempt to create a more equal distribution of wealth, it's an attempt to correct for (legal) prejudice. The more just outcome sought is simply equality of opportunity. You can argue that affirmative action in practice constitutes special privilege and/or doesn't accomplish its goals, but I don't think it's fair to portray it as some weird flavor of class warfare.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Equality of opportunity is often egalitarianism in disguise
A classic "equality of opportunity" argument is as follows: rich families can afford better schools, thereby giving their kids better opportunities. In order to correct this, we must tax the rich to give more money to schools in poor areas.
If you (A) believe in "equality of opportunity" and (B) view family wealth as being a key part of "opportunity", then you will logically draw conclusions that are very similar to those of an advocate of "equality of results." To equalize opportunities, you would be forced to attempt to equalize results also.
I reject the concept of "equality of opportunity." No two people are the same. Regardless of wealth, no two people will ever have the same opportunities. That's not "good" or "bad", it's just a fact. We might as well be trying to equalize peoples' heights so that everyone has the same "opportunity" to play pro basketball.
It is not my responsibility to give other people "opportunities." If someone lacks opportunities, then... frankly, too bad. It isn't my fault, so it isn't my problem. Deal with it. Life ain't fair.
I may choose to voluntarily help people who lack opportunity if I so desire, but I am not morally obligated to do so, nor I should not be forced to do so.
I agreed with and liked your
I agreed with and liked your prior comment (and I assume your attribution of egalitarianism to liberals was relative rather than absolute -- i.e., that they want greater equality of results than today or than do conservatives or libertarians, but not absolute equality of results), but I do not share the philosophy you seem to be expressing here. I DO believe we have a moral obligation, individually AND as a society, to provide some substantial degree of equal opportunity (e.g., funding public schools through taxation, rather than letting poor kids go uneducated, even aside from the argument that such a situation would lead to harmful results for most of the population -- less productive workforce, more crime, etc.).
Now, you have a legitimate (libertarian) argument that it should be up to each individual to decide if he wants to sacrifice for the benefit of others, in this case to provide more equality of opportunity. But, while reasonable people can disagree over whether it is moral to COMPEL individuals to help others against their will, there is another factor to consider: free rider problem
. If the vast majority of members of a society agree on the moral obligation to make such a sacrifice, we need to consider the fairness of allowing it to be done on an individual level rather than as a mandate on all, considering the unfairness of sacrifice (and suboptimal inputs into the effort) due to the free rider problem.
Affirmative action isn't at
Affirmative action isn't at all an attempt to create a more equal distribution of wealth, it's an attempt to correct for (legal) prejudice.
Is it really? Today? It seems that the rationale has shifted over the years. First it was present discrimination (and perhaps justified at that time), then I think it was mostly past discrimination and the indirect effect of disadvantage in terms of opportunity (e.g., there was a good chance one's parents were discriminated against due to racism, resulting in one ending up going to a crappy school, or perhaps one having fewer social connections that can help one's career), and today much of the talk is of "diversity" -- in terms of race, ethnicity and gender at universtities and in the workplace -- that is justified in terms of benefit for everyone, not just the recipient of favorable treatment. And it strikes me as just a policy with a built in constituency -- the population segments that benefit from it, plus others who are afraid of being branded "racist", etc. -- that is constantly in search of any justification to overcome the fact that what IS incontravertible is that the policy itself is institutionalized discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender.
The more just outcome sought is simply equality of opportunity.
I disagree. If that were the case, why is it based on race, ethnicity, and gender, unless you accept the premise -- that I don't -- that substantial discrimination on those bases is pervasive (I mean, other than the discrimination of affirmative action itself as currently practiced). How is it equal opportunity for, say, an upper class African American kid with an inferior record/application to be admitted to Harvard over a poor Asian kid whose parents came here without a dime or English fluency and who had a better record/application?
You can argue that affirmative action in practice constitutes special privilege and/or doesn't accomplish its goals, but I don't think it's fair to portray it as some weird flavor of class warfare.
It would be closer to justifiable if it were class-based.
Yes, the rationale has shifted,
but so have the legal limitations on affirmative action. I don't have this info at my fingertips but I think that SCOTUS has been gradually slicing away at what types of preference are constitutional. So as the need became less severe the methods became less rigid -- not that this was deliberate, just that it seems to have worked out that way.
why is it based on race, ethnicity, and gender, unless you accept the premise -- that I don't -- that substantial discrimination on those bases is pervasive
But of course that's the premise. The motivation is to compensate for discrimination. Now, you might very well disagree that there is sufficient bias today to make it necessary, which is fine. I just don't think it's fair to suppose that the goal is something other (like wealth redistribution) than what is plainly stated.
How is it equal opportunity for, say, an upper class African American kid with an inferior record/application to be admitted to Harvard over a poor Asian kid whose parents came here without a dime or English fluency and who had a better record/application?
It's not. I suspect Harvard does consider economic class to the same degree they do race, so I don't know that your example is compelling. However, my impression is that the poor Asian kid is much more likely to lose his spot at an Ivy to an underqualified legacy admission -- affirmative action for rich white kids. Personally I'd like to address that discrimination first =)
It would be closer to justifiable if it were class-based.
Sure. I still don't see providing an opportunity to someone who faced restricted options due to his socio-economic status as equivalent to wealth redistribution. The goal is completely different, and the fact that poorly-planned implementations might result in similar outcomes is unfortunate but hardly reason to conflate the two.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
as the need became less
as the need became less severe the methods became less rigid -- not that this was deliberate, just that it seems to have worked out that way.
If so, how it worked out is different from what supporters of race/ethnicity/gender-based affirmative action have advocated, and if it is trending in that direction and for that reason, affirmative action supporters are no doubt resisting that trend as much as possible, and I assume would want to reverse it. So the question is: If this trend is as you describe and for the reason you cite, is that a good thing, and is the trend strong enough, too strong or just right, relative to the trend in the relevant types of discrimination that still remain (assuming one thinks that institutionalized racial/ethnic/gender discrimination is justified on that basis, as opposed to believing that such a policy amounts to "two wrongs not making a right", particularly when committed under official policies of government, educational institutions and other organizations, which I think is at least a reasonable opinion.)
But of course that's the premise. The motivation is to compensate for discrimination. Now, you might very well disagree that there is sufficient bias today to make it necessary, which is fine. I just don't think it's fair to suppose that the goal is something other (like wealth redistribution) than what is plainly stated.
Yes, that was my point: there is insufficient racial/ethnic/gender discrimination today affecting employment and university admissions to justify institutionalized racial/ethnic/gender discrimination against the non-preferred groups (non-hispanic whites, asians, men). I believe that the bar must be set high before institutions engage in such unfair practices -- rejecting someone because of the color of his skin (in effect), for example. I also happen to think that such affirmative action breeds racial/ethnic bigotry and also creates doubts regarding the qualifications of, say, a black university student, that may be reasonable (given the fact that standards were lowered for at least some black students at the university in question) but may be baseless in the case of that individual.
And while I wasn't the person to characterize the goal as just wealth redistribution, let me explain why that view does fit with the view that I have: If the there is no substantial (or at least not close to proportionate) justification for such affirmative action on the basis of compensating for existing discrimination against particualar groups, and if the EFFECT is redistribution of wealth, then the question becomes: Do the supporters of this policy really have the rationale and the goal that they put forth, or is that really a smokescreen for the real goal of wealth redistribution. To be clear, I'm by no means questioning YOUR sincerity, and I assume that very large portion -- probably even a majority -- of supporters really believe in this rationale and goal, but I think people do so out of bias, as the result of a rationalization and a desire to hold a belief that seems more reasonable than just wealth redistribution. That's the link re: what the "goal" is. And of course, leaving the "goal" aside, the EFFECT, I believe, is MAINLY redistribution rather than compensation for current racial discrimination against those people.
I suspect Harvard does consider economic class to the same degree they do race, so I don't know that your example is compelling.
First, while that may be a convenient assumption, it seems that neither of us knows to what extent universities consider class vs. considering race/ethnicity/gender. Moreover, I can simplify my illustration. Let's say the Asian kid and the African-American kid are of the same economic class. And I return to my question: How is it "equal opportunity" to admit that African-American kid with an inferior record/application and reject the Asian kid?
However, my impression is that the poor Asian kid is much more likely to lose his spot at an Ivy to an underqualified legacy admission -- affirmative action for rich white kids. Personally I'd like to address that discrimination first =)
Me too. Although ending race/ethnicity/gender-based discrimination is a close second. :p
I still don't see providing an opportunity to someone who faced restricted options due to his socio-economic status as equivalent to wealth redistribution.
As you can probably tell from my "Political Glossary" diary, I think phrasing/terminology matters and I like to point out skewed language. When you say "providing an opportunity" what you're really talking about is preferential treatment: instututional policies that take AWAY opportunities from some individuals based on their race/ethnicity/gender to give preferencial treatment to other individuals based on their race/ethnicity/gender.
Off topic
I think a separate discussion about the need for what I called "compensatory programs for the disadvantaged" would be better by itself.
So, I'll just say the following without supplying any supporting evidence.
1. Discrimination still exists in the US.
2. It is more prevalent than white males believe.
3. It exists in employment, housing availability, punishment for crime, schooling and the ability to raise capital to start a new enterprise.
4. It doesn't exist anymore in public accommodations (with the exception of private clubs).
5. Those who are subjected to discrimination know it and will be happy to describe how it has affected them if they trusted you enough to explain.
6. Discrimination against blacks is still the most pernicious type, although in some regions Hispanics are almost in the same position.
Part of the predominant propaganda used by the right is to deny these facts. Some may do it out of ignorance, but many are lying either to themselves or to others. There is no rational reason that an educated person like Supreme Court justice Roberts could come out with a statement that there is no reason for redress anymore because there is no discrimination. He is either a bigot or a fool. I vote for option one.
So, who will start a new thread on the topic?
__________________________--- Policies not Politics
Re: "who will start a new
Re: "who will start a new thread on the topic? "
Given the nature and severity of the charges you've levelled (bigotry, etc.), seems like YOU should.
critics
It is quite easy for critics to disagree without having to make any case for their statements, but they generally decline my invitations to create their own essays to defend their statements.
I get emails frequently from such people and I always say something like: "what you have written to me is very interesting why don't you repost it on a blog someplace and let others see it and participate in the discussion. I'll join in as well."
I've yet to have a single one take me up on my offer.
So, I'll just offer this prima facie evidence, beyond that I suggest you do a bit of investigating on your own.
Blacks earn about 80% of the average compared to whites.
Women earn about 80% of what men earn.
There are only a handful (I think less the five) women as CEO's of Fortune 500 companies.
There are no women running leading law firms and many fewer partners.
Women constitute half the population, but there are only a small number in congress and the senate.
We have never had a women in high elected office.
There is one woman on the Supreme Court and one black.
When men and women perform the same job women get paid less. Walmart is now the subject of a sex discrimination suit which covers 1.2 million female workers. Walmart is the single biggest private employer in the country (perhaps the world).
When a while male and a black male with the same educational background apply for a job the white is much more likely to be hired. In a test a white with a criminal record was preferred by a significant margin over a black with no record. In other words a white ex-felon was more acceptable than a law abiding black.
I could go on, but it's not my function to educate you about the realities of life in the US. You can do this yourself or continue to remain uninformed, but opinionated.
__________________________--- Policies not Politics
IMHO, if you're going to
IMHO, if you're going to brand people as racist, ignorant or delusional for disagreeing with you, you SHOULD consider it your "function to educate" them -- otherwise known as substantiating very bold (and offensive) claims (substantiating your central argument about which they disagree, and, if you're going to call anyone racist, substantiating that claim).
Oh, and merely citing correlations (e.g., average earnings of blacks vs. whites), even assuming your figures are accurate, is obviously not very substantive or persuasive. But I guess it's "not my function to educate you" on the difference between correlation and causation.
rdf
We are on this thread discussing the issues. I see no point in telling people they should make essays.
I'm not denying there discrimination still exists. However, pointing to earnings anecdotes isn't telling as much as you assume it does.
For example:
Why are black males earning 80% of the white male average? how does one arrive at that figure? source?
Again, I'm saying whether or not it's true. I am however saying that discrimination all by itself is less prevalent in those figures once controlled for various things like location and education and line of work.
Same goes for women. Again, can you find anecdotal instances? Of course. Anyone can.
Is it systemic? Or better yet...is it a real problem or is ignoring other factors that have nothing to do with discrimination?
Women tend to prefer more flexible hours and generally prefer to work fewer hours than men. I think this is a huge reason why we see more women in education. Women are more apt to leave the work force for child rearing and thus may progress more slowly.
Men are more apt to prefer that 55-60 hour per week job working on electrical lines for example. One can think of many examples.
Once you figure all this, these wage gaps and appearances of discrimination start to diminish.
As for what to do about real discrimination, I'm open to suggestions I'm not confident that it will ever go away completely.
Exactly. Correlation does
Exactly. Correlation does not equal causation.
Also, as you point out, anecdotal evidence does not equal valid correlation, but I'm willing to grant the existence of correlation in this case (e.g., average earnings of blacks being lower than that of whites; ditto with gender, etc.).
discriminate
From the dictionary:
Discriminate
"To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate"
Women and blacks are distinguished by this definition, they are noticed as being defined by these characteristics.
Discrimination:
"to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit"
Now what I said originally was that conservatives demonstrate
"Opposition to compensatory programs for the disadvantaged"
Now what you wish to discuss is
a) whether such programs are "fair"
b) whether such programs are necessary
c) whether such programs are effective
That's a separate issue and I invited anyone interested to start a discussion about this. I didn't demand anyone do so, but a topic like this deserves to be on its own, not buried in the middle of something else.
What I'm claiming is that certain groups are disadvantaged. I cited statistics to show that they are and invited others to look into the data for themselves. I didn't say why they are disadvantaged, I didn't say whether this was accidental or deliberate and I didn't accuse anyone on this site of any particular viewpoint or attitude. I did say that Justice Roberts acts in a way that supports a belief that he is a bigot.
The causality vs correlation remark is only relevant when one is trying to assign reasons. I wasn't, which is why I said my list consisted of prima facie evidence. The data exists, that's all I stated. If you want it to be substantiated then I repeat that is not what I intend to do. I don't have the time or interest to gather the data for a small audience when people can easily find it for themselves. In addition when people do their own research they may come across other things that I might overlook, and if they presented their finding everyone would benefit.
The rightwing position is that things like affirmative action is being sold as a way to remedy past injustices and that since these injustices no longer exist it is unnecessary, that's Justice Robert's position.
The libertarians position is that favoritism in any form is unjust, but they also ignore the fact that we live in an unjust world right now and sometimes it is necessary to compensate for one type of injustice with "unfairness" of another type. Arguing as if we lived in a perfect society just leads to impractical political ideas, which is why libertarians never get anywhere.
__________________________--- Policies not Politics
In my initial comment I
In my initial comment I asked you to define/explain what you mean by "disadvantaged". You did not do so, and you keep using the term. Please do so (and please read that portion of my initial comment to you upthread).
LOL.
rdf,
Well, I'm not about to go research the data right now either. I have seen it in the past and have read all kinds of arguments.
No one is denying that there is discrimination. But you seem to want to make one little narrow isolated point here on discrimination but seem uninterested in any tangential discussion that arises from it. Let's just talk.
I personally have come to see that injustice exists but that we through our government adopt well-meaning policies that, at times, are helpful while at others no so much.
Getting into the reasons why these things happen and looking at how other factors besides race are involved is a giant step towards a better understanding.
For my part:
Yes and no. You do views that you do not totally understand a great injustice when you try to oversimplify them in uncharitable ways.
Part of discrimination is human nature and you will never wipe that out. It is what it is. Some law firm may hire an Italian over a smith or McHale or a Breitner because the partners are Italian. How are we to know? What to do? Well, nothing. A black business owner may hire the black candidate over the white candidate for his new secretary position.
Sometimes, it's a perfectly innocent preference to hire someone you feel more of a bond with. Sometimes it is discrimination on a larger scale because of cultural ignorance.
My larger point is that we do not ignore the world as it is. We simply come from a POV whereby we look at past events, laws and legislation that had inadvertent side-effects that hurt efforts toward less discrimination, we look at ways to get better results without inviting newer problems. Nobody is claiming perfection but some ways of tackling this problem, when thought thru beyond the labeled intent, can have bad side effects.
And libertarians do make progress thru the two party system we have. We have a two-party system and most resources are channeled thru them. A stand alone party is not a viable option right now.
Most excellent rdf
I enjoyed reading this comment very much, especially your assessment of the rightwing position and the libertarian position
One position says injustices no longer exist and needs no remedy.
The other position that injustices are irrelevant and need no remedy.
Just curious how you would describe a liberal position on injustice.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
pithy
Thanks, you managed to reduce my long-winded explanation to two sentences. Do you want a job as an editor?
I'm not sure liberals have a position on injustice. I think they have a position on justice, which is that all people are equal before the law. When there is injustice one moves from philosophy to implementation. Attempts to codify this into workable policies have been ongoing for several thousand years with mixed results.
John Rawls in the 20th Century tried with his justice as fairness principle. Some people think this was a major philosophical breakthrough, others see him as a hopeless idealist.
The problem, as I see it, is that justice has the best chance in a democratic society. The problem that remains is what I call the "tyranny of the majority". If the majority (or their representatives) decide that Japanese-Americans are a security risk they end up in concentration camps. The US government was set up to make such sweeping decisions a slow process so that cooler heads might prevail, but this only creates a delay.
I've been pondering this weakness in democracy for a long time and have yet to find anyone with a workable solution to the dilemma.
__________________________--- Policies not Politics
Long winded explanations
are the supporting evidence on the pithy deductions.
What I find most radically alarming, is this push by conservatives and libertarians to hold up self interest as a supreme value over any kind of justice. That our present govt's priorities have changed so radically is on full display in New Orleans, and Mississippi, where the redistrubtion of wealth is going to corrupt cronies and the rich.
What is glaringly obvious is that wealth is trickling up not down.
I see more a tyranny of the minority.... those with the most money wedging their way into power through media consolidation, propoganda publications like the National Review, Fox News, the Washington Times, paid for op-eds, and a blatant disregard for the law.
(The internment of Japanese Americans in one sense protected them from the wrath of mob mentality of hatred for the Japs, so you can see there might be a rationale)
How shocking is it that compassion is frowned upon, because it might lead people to ask for equality or justice for minorities! Ack!
What I find extremely fascinating is the tradtion of Jewish Liberals that promotes a strong sense of justice, fairness and anti-discrimination practices by promoting such things as the Anti-Defamation League, and promoting civil rights and equal opportunity. The Jewish Liberals that are for fairness have been out shouted and out manuvered by Jews that seek revenge.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Jewish Liberals?
Liberals are liberals, and they're to be found in all religions, ethnic groups, and socioeconomic stratas. They all have the same principals. It makes no difference what his/her background is.
There were many immigrants
that were Jewish that came to the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's seeking freedom from oppression. They were liberal in the sense that they were very very strong advocates for human rights, justice and stood strongly with the blacks for civil liberties.
Hitler in his build up to popularitiy blamed liberal Jews in Germany for the loss of WWl. He claimed they were not patriots, that they were anti-war pacificsts whose cowardice was the cause of the fall of the German nation.
It is this same kind of language that we see swift boaters use against Kerry and anti-war democrats, known as the stab in the back.
Joe LIeberman was a very strong civil rights advocate during the 60's, partly because the history of the Jews has been the history of discrimination against a race.
Since many claim that hawkish Jews (neocons) have been part and parcel to the Bush foreign policy I don't think pointing out some of the most wonderful traditions, such as a strong sense of justice and defense of human rights, that are the best values in our country come from liberal Jewish immigrants.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Balderdash
To paraphrase what I think I'm hearing, rdf is saying
1. Let's see if we can have a discussion instead of talking past each other.
2. Conservatives are bad and they think injustices no longer exist and need no remedy. Libertarians are also bad because they think injustices are irrelevant and need no remedy. (I think maybe we can say that for purposes of this discussion, conservative and libertarian simply means "not liberals")
3. Liberals are good, and their position is much more nuanced: "I'm not sure liberals have a position on injustice. I think they have a position on justice, which is that all people are equal before the law [which implies that the non-liberals do not share this belief]. When there is injustice one moves from philosophy to implementation. Attempts to codify this into workable policies have been ongoing for several thousand years with mixed results."
Balderdash. This is stereotyping of "the not-me" at its finest. You seem to be very comfortable making sweeping and not-quite-accurate generalizations about anyone who does not share your label of "liberal" (and there are many flavors of those, too).
B Rational took the time to give you detailed explanations and refutations of many of your points, most of which I agree with, so you can refer to his post for more substance.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Can you fit your claims
into the specific example of how conservatives/libertarians have dealt with the rebuilding of New Orleans vs how you think liberals would have handled the situation?
I posit that rdf's discription of the way the conservatives/libertarians view the responsibility/accountability for rebuilding New Orleans is a perfect fit for his claims of conservative/libertarian world view. Essentially, if you are a victim it's your fault.
The words of Ronald Reagon bear fruit in the case of Katrina..... the self-fulling prophecy. 'The most dangerous words are I am from the government and I am here to help. Clearly for the victims of this natural disaster this statement is true.'
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Let's look at that one
In your estimation, how many people are/were involved in the rebuilding of New Orleans? How many are involved in the decisions being made there every day?
Are you seriously suggesting that there are zero liberals involved in any of those processes -- no liberals in the federal government, none in the state and local government; none of the entrepreneurs or businesspeople or media or social-arena workers who are playing a role in New Orleans are liberals?
Your question is meaningless: liberals are involved in handling the situation. What is happening in NO is the sum total of the actions of thousands of people of all political persuasions. To sit back and say "well, it's all the conservatives' fault" is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.
On the federal level alone, is the Democratic Congress so powerless that they could not, if they wished to, make changes today that would be in line with what I think you're envisioning as the "liberal response"? Certainly they could.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Let me say I strongly disagree
I will try to answer more fully later.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the President (eptimoized as a compassionate conservative) has t