Left, Right, and Center:
A Common Good Take on Politics
(or, Why I am a Liberal)
(Part 1 of the essay)
Introduction
Why write about politics? Surely we’re sick of it. The simple reason is that it’s important. Even if people can’t articulate exactly why, they grasp its importance -- hence the anger that’s now coursing through America. But people are passionate about other things -- such as religion, culture, geographic region, and even sports -- without the same anger. What’s different with politics?
One reason has to do with culture, identity, worldview. Historically marginalized people desire leaders from similar backgrounds because they are uniquely able to identify with their fears and hopes. Evangelical Christians want “godly leaders” in office because that reflects their values and hopes for the country. Business folks want “business friendly” politicians not just for policy reasons; they believe a “business perspective” provides for better government. And so on. If you feel like the “people at the top” don’t share your basic worldview -- or indeed feel like they are set against it -- then you’re going to be anxious and angry.
A connected reason -- and a cause of the angst about culture and identity -- is that politics and politicians set the terms of how governments operate. Political systems are, by definition, systems and institutions which are coercive in nature. They force people to do certain things and to be certain ways -- or else. The primary tools of coercion are those of taxation, civil and criminal law, rule-setting (regulation), and the attendant enforcement mechanisms (police, courts, and so on).
Coercion is the corollary to community. If individuals were sprinkled throughout the world, largely self-sufficient, having little contact with others, then there’d be no need for rules. Instead, we live as members of nested, overlapping communities: family, community, region, nation, global. To get along and indeed to thrive, we need the coercive power of the state. But no one enjoys being taxed or being told what to do -- even if it is supposedly for the common good.
A final reason is that what politicians, parties, and administrations actually do (or fail to do) -- the practical choices they make -- can affect one’s life massively and in real time. Think of the effect a declaration of war has on the lives of those who must fight it. Or the failure to respond decisively to a pandemic. The stakes are real; people know that.
So these are some reasons why politics makes people anxious and angry and why it’s important to write about.
Why write about politics? Surely we’re sick of it. The simple reason is that it’s important. Even if people can’t articulate exactly why, they grasp its importance -- hence the anger that’s now coursing through America. But people are passionate about other things -- such as religion, culture, geographic region, and even sports -- without the same anger. What’s different with politics?
One reason has to do with culture, identity, worldview. Historically marginalized people desire leaders from similar backgrounds because they are uniquely able to identify with their fears and hopes. Evangelical Christians want “godly leaders” in office because that reflects their values and hopes for the country. Business folks want “business friendly” politicians not just for policy reasons; they believe a “business perspective” provides for better government. And so on. If you feel like the “people at the top” don’t share your basic worldview -- or indeed feel like they are set against it -- then you’re going to be anxious and angry.
A connected reason -- and a cause of the angst about culture and identity -- is that politics and politicians set the terms of how governments operate. Political systems are, by definition, systems and institutions which are coercive in nature. They force people to do certain things and to be certain ways -- or else. The primary tools of coercion are those of taxation, civil and criminal law, rule-setting (regulation), and the attendant enforcement mechanisms (police, courts, and so on).
Coercion is the corollary to community. If individuals were sprinkled throughout the world, largely self-sufficient, having little contact with others, then there’d be no need for rules. Instead, we live as members of nested, overlapping communities: family, community, region, nation, global. To get along and indeed to thrive, we need the coercive power of the state. But no one enjoys being taxed or being told what to do -- even if it is supposedly for the common good.
A final reason is that what politicians, parties, and administrations actually do (or fail to do) -- the practical choices they make -- can affect one’s life massively and in real time. Think of the effect a declaration of war has on the lives of those who must fight it. Or the failure to respond decisively to a pandemic. The stakes are real; people know that.
So these are some reasons why politics makes people anxious and angry and why it’s important to write about.
Aims of the Essay
In this essay I seek to do a number of things:
The essay’s scope is limited, in its practical import, to the obligations of the state to its citizens and vice versa. So, its ramifications fall primarily within the domestic and economic spheres. This may seem unduly limited. Yet this issue of obligation -- how I am obligated to you and you to me within the context of a nation-state -- is quite fundamental, both conceptually and practically. Political worldviews thus bifurcate morally (What does justice require? What does self-reliance entail?); practically (What is the purpose of government? What should it in fact do?); and rhetorically (“Heartless Conservatives” versus “Big Government Liberals.”)
I am not nonpartisan in all this. Having been (with apologies to St. Paul) “a Conservative of Conservatives” for most of my life, I am now firmly Left of Center. That means, within American political life -- warped and diminished as it has become -- that I am a Liberal. So this essay is written from a definite point of view -- that of someone who experienced a major shift in his political beliefs in early midlife. It is opinionated: I will argue for a number of conclusions. I shall nevertheless be fair. Note, too, that inasmuch as my faith is important to me, that will feature in aspects of what follows.
Practically speaking, I hope the essay is both explanatory and persuasive. I want to explain, in a straightforward way, what philosophers in particular have had to say about political life and thus to inform -- hopefully in a way that elevates the discussion. At the same time, I seek to persuade the reader on a range of points.
A note: By the upper-case (Liberal versus Conservative) I highlight the partisan implications of the two perspectives. Using the lower-case, I highlight their social, cultural, or philosophical significations. So, the latter is basic, the former derivative.
In this essay I seek to do a number of things:
- First, to inquire as to political tribes in general and as to our two most prominent ones in particular.
- Second, to inquire as to the worldview -- the societal impulse -- that informs each of these latter.
- Third, to consider the nature and justification of various types of political systems.
- Fourth, to explore the relationship between the individual person and the collective group, especially as that informs political systems.
- Fifth, to evaluate American individualism in our current cultural moment, particularly as that impacts our politics.
- Sixth, to understand the nature and implications of the two main types of liberalism: classical and welfare.
- Seventh, to consider our moral obligations toward one another, within the context of a modern, democratic state.
- Eighth, to defend the claim that welfare liberalism is the political system best-suited to help us meet those obligations.
- Ninth, to consider objections to welfare liberalism, most significantly the specter of socialism.
- Tenth and finally, to explicitly connect welfare liberalism with the notion of “the common good” within the context of pluralism.
The essay’s scope is limited, in its practical import, to the obligations of the state to its citizens and vice versa. So, its ramifications fall primarily within the domestic and economic spheres. This may seem unduly limited. Yet this issue of obligation -- how I am obligated to you and you to me within the context of a nation-state -- is quite fundamental, both conceptually and practically. Political worldviews thus bifurcate morally (What does justice require? What does self-reliance entail?); practically (What is the purpose of government? What should it in fact do?); and rhetorically (“Heartless Conservatives” versus “Big Government Liberals.”)
I am not nonpartisan in all this. Having been (with apologies to St. Paul) “a Conservative of Conservatives” for most of my life, I am now firmly Left of Center. That means, within American political life -- warped and diminished as it has become -- that I am a Liberal. So this essay is written from a definite point of view -- that of someone who experienced a major shift in his political beliefs in early midlife. It is opinionated: I will argue for a number of conclusions. I shall nevertheless be fair. Note, too, that inasmuch as my faith is important to me, that will feature in aspects of what follows.
Practically speaking, I hope the essay is both explanatory and persuasive. I want to explain, in a straightforward way, what philosophers in particular have had to say about political life and thus to inform -- hopefully in a way that elevates the discussion. At the same time, I seek to persuade the reader on a range of points.
A note: By the upper-case (Liberal versus Conservative) I highlight the partisan implications of the two perspectives. Using the lower-case, I highlight their social, cultural, or philosophical significations. So, the latter is basic, the former derivative.
Our Political Tribes
It is a remarkable fact that a country like America -- blessed with peace, relative prosperity, incredible freedoms, a common language, largely barrier-free access to the market, and a bewildering array of entertainments -- has been riven into political tribes. Liberal and Conservative are the two most prominent. But what is the difference between them? Do the terms actually mean anything anymore? Or are they just tags to identify people we dislike -- people different in worldview and indeed in culture?
True, there are more than only the two. There are sub-tribes. There is quite a distance between the Moderate / Center-Left and Democratic Socialism (though the Right paints them the same). And there are still principled Conservatives who’ve not bent the knee to the present Elephantine Dispensation.
There are other clans. The tribe of the Disconnected-and-Don’t-Care (like many of my kids’ friends). The tribe of the Principled Independent (surely frustrated souls at this point). The tribe of the Hold-My-Nose-Because-It’s-The-Best-I-Can-Do (folks sick of it all yet still feeling a civic duty to vote).
There are many such tribes -- varying in Purpleness. Nevertheless, the Liberal and Conservative ones -- or at least their ideas -- dominate our debates and hence our (attempt at a) shared common life. So they shall be my focus.
What is meant by these two labels? What is the essence of each, the big ideas for which they’re shorthand? I’m not looking for what the worst of us on our worst days means when they use ‘Conservative’ or ‘Liberal’. Rather I want to know what the best of us on our best days mean. So I’m excluding the loudest, angriest, most unreasonable voices, while including the most sober and thoughtful ones.
This attempt at rational sorting is easier said than done. My own view is that the cacophony on the Right is louder than that on the Left. A devotee of conservative media would object, pointing to the recent “anarchy” in our cities by “left wing” activists. Regardless, with open-mindedness and creativity it (still) seems possible that a person of goodwill and intelligence can identify the essential features of the two Tribes no matter where she gives allegiance.
It is a remarkable fact that a country like America -- blessed with peace, relative prosperity, incredible freedoms, a common language, largely barrier-free access to the market, and a bewildering array of entertainments -- has been riven into political tribes. Liberal and Conservative are the two most prominent. But what is the difference between them? Do the terms actually mean anything anymore? Or are they just tags to identify people we dislike -- people different in worldview and indeed in culture?
True, there are more than only the two. There are sub-tribes. There is quite a distance between the Moderate / Center-Left and Democratic Socialism (though the Right paints them the same). And there are still principled Conservatives who’ve not bent the knee to the present Elephantine Dispensation.
There are other clans. The tribe of the Disconnected-and-Don’t-Care (like many of my kids’ friends). The tribe of the Principled Independent (surely frustrated souls at this point). The tribe of the Hold-My-Nose-Because-It’s-The-Best-I-Can-Do (folks sick of it all yet still feeling a civic duty to vote).
There are many such tribes -- varying in Purpleness. Nevertheless, the Liberal and Conservative ones -- or at least their ideas -- dominate our debates and hence our (attempt at a) shared common life. So they shall be my focus.
What is meant by these two labels? What is the essence of each, the big ideas for which they’re shorthand? I’m not looking for what the worst of us on our worst days means when they use ‘Conservative’ or ‘Liberal’. Rather I want to know what the best of us on our best days mean. So I’m excluding the loudest, angriest, most unreasonable voices, while including the most sober and thoughtful ones.
This attempt at rational sorting is easier said than done. My own view is that the cacophony on the Right is louder than that on the Left. A devotee of conservative media would object, pointing to the recent “anarchy” in our cities by “left wing” activists. Regardless, with open-mindedness and creativity it (still) seems possible that a person of goodwill and intelligence can identify the essential features of the two Tribes no matter where she gives allegiance.
The Political Spectrum and its Limitations
Let’s begin with a simple observation: If certain Frenchmen had chosen to sit on one side of an assembly rather than another 200 years ago, modern-day Leftists would be Rightists and vice versa. This shows the artificiality of labels in politics and society more generally.
To take two examples: In Britain ‘liberal’ has historically meant something closer to ‘libertarian’. It hasn’t had the “big government” / anti-capitalist overtones as in America, though this is changing. Second, the relatively recent use of ‘progressive’ in place of ‘liberal’ is, I take it, an attempt to replace an old word with one sounding more optimistic and carrying less baggage. (This hasn’t fooled anyone on the Right.)
Because humans tend to think in simplistic spatial terms, we typically conceptualize politics as a spectrum drawn from Left to Right. It is vital to acknowledge a number of things here.
The first is that this bifurcation of Left versus Right can play itself out into X versus Y for a range of topics: democracy / aristocracy; urban / rural; free trade / protectionism; communitarianism / individualism; cosmopolitanism / nationalism; and so on. The issue is that it’s possible to hold different positions on each of these bifurcations, which then means that the Left versus Right dichotomy, taken in bare terms, becomes rather unhelpful. (1)
Second, what counts as Left or Right depends on context:
Third, as with any other aspect of life, a valuable political perspective can be taken too far, can be “doubled-down on,” can be intensified to a point where it no longer is healthy or good. If someone really prizes potatoes, sees all the benefits in potatoes, builds a diet around them (fries, chips, salad, baked), even a business, this might become problematic. Potatoes are wonderful. But too many potatoes is too many. If wisdom in one’s personal life involves moderation and balance, how much more in political life.
Fourth, the validity of a point of view -- especially a critique -- can change as the world changes. I recall my father and grandfather arguing over unions. (This was during the 1980s.) Dad was a manager at a trucking line; he saw how unions can be used to extort. PaPaw was a lifelong railroader; he remembered how unions had first given workers basic protections.
Fifth, the way a certain political position is held matters. Though ideologically Ronald Reagan was a flinty Conservative, his personal decency smoothed those edges. Moreover, when a platform becomes identified less with ideas and more with a personality, that’s to move toward populism (and often authoritarianism). A populist leader goes “over the heads” of legislators, courts, the media, and even the law directly to The People, finding his legitimacy in a perceived popular mandate. Populists confuse authentic democracy -- which requires victors to treat losers as legitimate participants and to uphold democratic norms -- with a crude majoritarianism. (2)
Sixth, in a duopolist political system like America’s, Conservative and Liberal taken as labels inevitably cover over and then compress a range of opinions on their respective sides. An almost irresistible pull toward ideological conformity kicks in. The net result is increased political polarization. (3)
Seventh, it is possible to carve out a thoughtful, principled position -- a political philosophy in fact! -- without regard to conventional labels. The Economist newspaper’s credo of “liberalism” is a noteworthy example, as are those who espouse Centrism. (4) (I hope in fact that this essay’s conclusions will count as such.) Such manifestos are, unfortunately, often interpreted in terms of what counts as Liberal or Conservative on a given day. They can also be maligned as a sort of “average” of various opinions -- and thus as tepid or bland -- rather than as principled attempts to combine the best elements of different platforms.
Eighth and finally, the meaning of terms and the identity of groups change over time. The Democratic Party, in the South, once fervently advocated Jim Crow. Now it is criticized for playing “identity politics.” As to the current GOP, Conservative icons like William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, and Reagan would be pushed to its margins. Moreover, there are plenty of parties with ‘Liberal’ in their name yet Conservative in their policies and vice versa. (5) And simplistic etymological “analyses” as to what ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ means are of no help. By such lights, modern day Conservatives would not be reflexively opposed to expanding environmental protections. (5A)
Let’s begin with a simple observation: If certain Frenchmen had chosen to sit on one side of an assembly rather than another 200 years ago, modern-day Leftists would be Rightists and vice versa. This shows the artificiality of labels in politics and society more generally.
To take two examples: In Britain ‘liberal’ has historically meant something closer to ‘libertarian’. It hasn’t had the “big government” / anti-capitalist overtones as in America, though this is changing. Second, the relatively recent use of ‘progressive’ in place of ‘liberal’ is, I take it, an attempt to replace an old word with one sounding more optimistic and carrying less baggage. (This hasn’t fooled anyone on the Right.)
Because humans tend to think in simplistic spatial terms, we typically conceptualize politics as a spectrum drawn from Left to Right. It is vital to acknowledge a number of things here.
The first is that this bifurcation of Left versus Right can play itself out into X versus Y for a range of topics: democracy / aristocracy; urban / rural; free trade / protectionism; communitarianism / individualism; cosmopolitanism / nationalism; and so on. The issue is that it’s possible to hold different positions on each of these bifurcations, which then means that the Left versus Right dichotomy, taken in bare terms, becomes rather unhelpful. (1)
Second, what counts as Left or Right depends on context:
- Conservative media label a Liberal like me a Leftist. It must follow then that they are Rightists. This is all fair enough, as long as we each own our “-ist.”
- A Progressive politician in America -- counted as Left here -- would be smackdab in the Center in many countries in Europe.
- Historical comparisons can be humbling. Nazi Germany would be considered Far Right; Leninist Russia would be considered Far Left. Both were totalitarian and vile.
Third, as with any other aspect of life, a valuable political perspective can be taken too far, can be “doubled-down on,” can be intensified to a point where it no longer is healthy or good. If someone really prizes potatoes, sees all the benefits in potatoes, builds a diet around them (fries, chips, salad, baked), even a business, this might become problematic. Potatoes are wonderful. But too many potatoes is too many. If wisdom in one’s personal life involves moderation and balance, how much more in political life.
Fourth, the validity of a point of view -- especially a critique -- can change as the world changes. I recall my father and grandfather arguing over unions. (This was during the 1980s.) Dad was a manager at a trucking line; he saw how unions can be used to extort. PaPaw was a lifelong railroader; he remembered how unions had first given workers basic protections.
Fifth, the way a certain political position is held matters. Though ideologically Ronald Reagan was a flinty Conservative, his personal decency smoothed those edges. Moreover, when a platform becomes identified less with ideas and more with a personality, that’s to move toward populism (and often authoritarianism). A populist leader goes “over the heads” of legislators, courts, the media, and even the law directly to The People, finding his legitimacy in a perceived popular mandate. Populists confuse authentic democracy -- which requires victors to treat losers as legitimate participants and to uphold democratic norms -- with a crude majoritarianism. (2)
Sixth, in a duopolist political system like America’s, Conservative and Liberal taken as labels inevitably cover over and then compress a range of opinions on their respective sides. An almost irresistible pull toward ideological conformity kicks in. The net result is increased political polarization. (3)
Seventh, it is possible to carve out a thoughtful, principled position -- a political philosophy in fact! -- without regard to conventional labels. The Economist newspaper’s credo of “liberalism” is a noteworthy example, as are those who espouse Centrism. (4) (I hope in fact that this essay’s conclusions will count as such.) Such manifestos are, unfortunately, often interpreted in terms of what counts as Liberal or Conservative on a given day. They can also be maligned as a sort of “average” of various opinions -- and thus as tepid or bland -- rather than as principled attempts to combine the best elements of different platforms.
Eighth and finally, the meaning of terms and the identity of groups change over time. The Democratic Party, in the South, once fervently advocated Jim Crow. Now it is criticized for playing “identity politics.” As to the current GOP, Conservative icons like William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, and Reagan would be pushed to its margins. Moreover, there are plenty of parties with ‘Liberal’ in their name yet Conservative in their policies and vice versa. (5) And simplistic etymological “analyses” as to what ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ means are of no help. By such lights, modern day Conservatives would not be reflexively opposed to expanding environmental protections. (5A)
|
|
Societal Impulses: liberal and conservative
Where does this leave us? Is there any hope of understanding what it means to be Liberal or Conservative? Or are we left with defining them just in terms of whatever parties, groups, politicians, media, personalities, or voters happen to claim the labels? (6)
It’s helpful to think in terms of liberal versus conservative impulses when it comes to how society should function. Sociologist James Davison Hunter argues that the primary impulse of a conservative is toward the right-ordering of society. Possible examples include:
In contrast, Hunter maintains, the primary impulse of a liberal is toward justice within society -- where “justice” is understood as economic equity or the righting of institutional or social or historic ills such as racism, sexism, colonialism, or other such “-isms.”
I find Hunter’s analysis quite helpful. It makes sense of much data and usefully organizes my thoughts, impressions, study, and experiences as to how ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are typically used when talking about society per se. (8)
An excellent example comes from the recent unrest over race and policing in America. (9) The conservative impulse is to appeal to “law and order,” to support the police, to decry violence and property damage, and to label even non-violent protests as riots. The liberal impulse is to identify police brutality as one of many injustices -- historic and current -- against African Americans, to find violence sometimes justified in the pursuit of justice, to see appeals to “law and order” as defending an unjust status quo, and to point to the police as tools of oppression.
Though it obviously does have political implications, Hunter’s analysis in terms of liberal or conservative impulses is less about politics per se than it is about culture or worldview. It’s crucial to see the affective, nonrational (not the same as irrational) element to this. This is why so many arguments over politics are pointless or counterproductive. When people have divergent worldview “lenses” it’s quite hard to make headway.
Thus, in terms of our example, most liberals do not hate the police; nor do they condone vandalism. But they’re willing to err on the side of “defunding” the police and tearing down offensive statues if that speeds justice. Likewise, most conservatives do not condone excessive police force nor are they racist in intent. They just believe it’s essential to have a well-ordered society, where people and property are protected. Consequently, there’s simply no excuse for resisting arrest, protesting in the streets, or defacing a monument.
These points made, let us turn to Part 2 of the essay, where I consider political systems more broadly.
Where does this leave us? Is there any hope of understanding what it means to be Liberal or Conservative? Or are we left with defining them just in terms of whatever parties, groups, politicians, media, personalities, or voters happen to claim the labels? (6)
It’s helpful to think in terms of liberal versus conservative impulses when it comes to how society should function. Sociologist James Davison Hunter argues that the primary impulse of a conservative is toward the right-ordering of society. Possible examples include:
- Old school aristocrats would see this right-ordering in terms of the natural superiority of the elite over the masses.
- Religious traditionalists would see it in terms of a society’s being in accordance with the Bible / Judeo-Christian values or with natural law theology.
- “Western-Civ” traditionalists would find it in the alignment of society with the tradition’s finest minds and highest ideals (think The Great Books, The Great Thinkers, etc.)
- Capitalists would see such right-ordering in terms of the winners and losers in the economics of competition. (7)
In contrast, Hunter maintains, the primary impulse of a liberal is toward justice within society -- where “justice” is understood as economic equity or the righting of institutional or social or historic ills such as racism, sexism, colonialism, or other such “-isms.”
I find Hunter’s analysis quite helpful. It makes sense of much data and usefully organizes my thoughts, impressions, study, and experiences as to how ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are typically used when talking about society per se. (8)
An excellent example comes from the recent unrest over race and policing in America. (9) The conservative impulse is to appeal to “law and order,” to support the police, to decry violence and property damage, and to label even non-violent protests as riots. The liberal impulse is to identify police brutality as one of many injustices -- historic and current -- against African Americans, to find violence sometimes justified in the pursuit of justice, to see appeals to “law and order” as defending an unjust status quo, and to point to the police as tools of oppression.
Though it obviously does have political implications, Hunter’s analysis in terms of liberal or conservative impulses is less about politics per se than it is about culture or worldview. It’s crucial to see the affective, nonrational (not the same as irrational) element to this. This is why so many arguments over politics are pointless or counterproductive. When people have divergent worldview “lenses” it’s quite hard to make headway.
Thus, in terms of our example, most liberals do not hate the police; nor do they condone vandalism. But they’re willing to err on the side of “defunding” the police and tearing down offensive statues if that speeds justice. Likewise, most conservatives do not condone excessive police force nor are they racist in intent. They just believe it’s essential to have a well-ordered society, where people and property are protected. Consequently, there’s simply no excuse for resisting arrest, protesting in the streets, or defacing a monument.
These points made, let us turn to Part 2 of the essay, where I consider political systems more broadly.
Footnotes:
(1) Because simple bipolar analyses are inadequate to capture these complexities, there are two-factor (four “quadrants”) analyses and other multi-factor analyses.
(2) An example on the Left is Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, on the Right Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. There are some politicians -- FDR -- with a populist touch who can be both deeply popular yet also respect democratic institutions. And then there is Donald Trump, a figure both divisive and anti-democratic.
(3) For example, Conservatives have been hunting “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) in the GOP for so long that there aren’t any Moderates left. As to the Democrats, the nature of their coalition is such that a measure of diversity is guaranteed. Still, in the Party’s effort to not fragment, its center has shifted Leftward.
(4) Relative to The Economist, see for example this essay from the September 13th, 2018 edition: “The Economist at 175: Reinventing liberalism for the 21st century” (https://www.economist.com/essay/2018/09/13/the-economist-at-175) As to Centrism, a good example is The Centrist Manifesto by Charles Wheelan.
(5) For example, the Liberal Party of Australia.
(5A) As of this writing -- January 2021 -- it seems beyond dispute that the Republican Party in its current form has much less to do with conservativism per se than with being a vehicle for right wing populism and grievance. This article in The Economist makes the point: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/07/04/the-global-crisis-in-conservatism
(6) This is a critical point in the essay. That’s because I need the help of scholars to make progress. However, Americans aren’t inclined to seek expert help when it comes to things like politics. “Common sense is more than adequate, thank you.” Yet if the issue were one of pure “common sense” then why the stark division in the country? Is half of the population just stupid? If so, which half?
Conservatives are particularly loath to listen to “liberal academics” on any topic, let alone politics. Yet people don’t typically reject the content of a music or art or linguistics scholar’s scholarship. The same goes for expertise in science, medicine, law, or business. Someone may be quite knowledgeable about cars: She reads all the trade magazines, takes in all the car shows, and so on. That doesn’t mean she understands the thermodynamics of an internal combustion engine. It shows humility and common sense to hear a “liberal academic” out. You can always reject what doesn’t make sense.
(7) These putative orderings are not ones that Hunter would necessarily draw.
(8) Hunter’s book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World is the best piece of political theology I’ve ever read. It’s absolutely transformed my views on these things. Highly recommended. (These points about conservatives and liberals are made on pages 112 and 132, respectively. The surrounding context is obviously relevant. I have adapted Hunter’s points to my aims, though not unfaithfully.)
(9) That is, the protests that erupted after the killing of Mr. George Floyd by the police on May 25, 2020.
Images:
"Statue of Liberty."
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1403749
"Centennial American Republic and railroad map of the United States and of the Dominion of Canada. Compiled from the latest official sources."
https://picryl.com/media/centennial-american-republic-and-railroad-map-of-the-united-states-and-of-the
Public domain.
"Goats."
https://pixabay.com/photos/capricorn-rock-animal-mountains-1860183/
"Estates General." Engraving by Isidore-Stanislaus Helman (1743-1806) and Charles Monnet (1732-1808).
Public domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estatesgeneral.jpg
"LGBT Gay Trans Pride BLM Fist Flag"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_Gay_Trans_Pride_BLM_Fist_Flag.png
Attribution: Emercado2020, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
"Thin Blue Line Flag (United States)"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thin_Blue_Line_Flag_(United_States).svg
Attribution: WClarke, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Original 1/1/21.
(1) Because simple bipolar analyses are inadequate to capture these complexities, there are two-factor (four “quadrants”) analyses and other multi-factor analyses.
(2) An example on the Left is Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, on the Right Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. There are some politicians -- FDR -- with a populist touch who can be both deeply popular yet also respect democratic institutions. And then there is Donald Trump, a figure both divisive and anti-democratic.
(3) For example, Conservatives have been hunting “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only) in the GOP for so long that there aren’t any Moderates left. As to the Democrats, the nature of their coalition is such that a measure of diversity is guaranteed. Still, in the Party’s effort to not fragment, its center has shifted Leftward.
(4) Relative to The Economist, see for example this essay from the September 13th, 2018 edition: “The Economist at 175: Reinventing liberalism for the 21st century” (https://www.economist.com/essay/2018/09/13/the-economist-at-175) As to Centrism, a good example is The Centrist Manifesto by Charles Wheelan.
(5) For example, the Liberal Party of Australia.
(5A) As of this writing -- January 2021 -- it seems beyond dispute that the Republican Party in its current form has much less to do with conservativism per se than with being a vehicle for right wing populism and grievance. This article in The Economist makes the point: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/07/04/the-global-crisis-in-conservatism
(6) This is a critical point in the essay. That’s because I need the help of scholars to make progress. However, Americans aren’t inclined to seek expert help when it comes to things like politics. “Common sense is more than adequate, thank you.” Yet if the issue were one of pure “common sense” then why the stark division in the country? Is half of the population just stupid? If so, which half?
Conservatives are particularly loath to listen to “liberal academics” on any topic, let alone politics. Yet people don’t typically reject the content of a music or art or linguistics scholar’s scholarship. The same goes for expertise in science, medicine, law, or business. Someone may be quite knowledgeable about cars: She reads all the trade magazines, takes in all the car shows, and so on. That doesn’t mean she understands the thermodynamics of an internal combustion engine. It shows humility and common sense to hear a “liberal academic” out. You can always reject what doesn’t make sense.
(7) These putative orderings are not ones that Hunter would necessarily draw.
(8) Hunter’s book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World is the best piece of political theology I’ve ever read. It’s absolutely transformed my views on these things. Highly recommended. (These points about conservatives and liberals are made on pages 112 and 132, respectively. The surrounding context is obviously relevant. I have adapted Hunter’s points to my aims, though not unfaithfully.)
(9) That is, the protests that erupted after the killing of Mr. George Floyd by the police on May 25, 2020.
Images:
"Statue of Liberty."
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1403749
"Centennial American Republic and railroad map of the United States and of the Dominion of Canada. Compiled from the latest official sources."
https://picryl.com/media/centennial-american-republic-and-railroad-map-of-the-united-states-and-of-the
Public domain.
"Goats."
https://pixabay.com/photos/capricorn-rock-animal-mountains-1860183/
"Estates General." Engraving by Isidore-Stanislaus Helman (1743-1806) and Charles Monnet (1732-1808).
Public domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estatesgeneral.jpg
"LGBT Gay Trans Pride BLM Fist Flag"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_Gay_Trans_Pride_BLM_Fist_Flag.png
Attribution: Emercado2020, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
"Thin Blue Line Flag (United States)"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thin_Blue_Line_Flag_(United_States).svg
Attribution: WClarke, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Original 1/1/21.