|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 :::
Regarding the strange diatribe against conservatives quoted below --
I agree that the two sides seem mostly flipped. Then again, people look at me funny when I refer to the National Rifle Association as "a civil rights organization."
I'd like to comment on this one line: "Liberals believe that policies ought to be judged against an independent ideal such as human welfare or the greatest good for the greatest number; conservatives evaluate policies by whether they advance their conservative causes." What, praytell, are those conservative causes? In my experience, they are generally causes that conservatives perceive as important to human welfare and the greater good. A conservative arguing for school vouchers to fund parochial education, for instance, is undoubtedly trying to advance a "conservative cause". However, his motivation generally goes deeper, to a desire to improve education, help children, and perhaps even try to save a few souls (which, after all, if you believe that souls can be saved, you must admit should be just about the highest priority around). Saying that someone's cause is invalid because it is a "cause" is nonsensical.
I saw the egregious Senator Schumer on TV a brief while ago. He said that liberals believed in great principles, while conservatives just wanted power. Why do they want power?, he was asked. Because, he said, they were afraid liberals were going to ruin the country. While saving the country may technically stop short of being a "principle", it's significantly more than a power grab for power's sake.
I'll also comment on this one from the article quoted below: "Liberals instinctively want to dampen passions; conservatives are bent on inflaming them." To me, this seems almost a contradiction in terms. Conservatism is, in its very nature, opposed to radicalism, change, or irrational, emotional appeals. While I agree to a point with Chesterton, who wrote "He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative", the notion of conservatives inflaming passions is really alien to me. (I recall an article in the National Review, published during the aftermath of the 2000 election recount mess. Conservatives had taken to the streets to protest. The writer -- I can't remember who -- asked whether anyone had informed them that conservatives do *not* conduct street protests. It just isn't done!)
OK, one more: "Liberals want to put boundaries on the political by claiming that individuals have certain rights that no government can take away; conservatives argue that in cases of emergency -- conservatives always find cases of emergency -- the reach and capacity of the state cannot be challenged." This, of course, depends on your notion of rights. Liberals in general wish to restrict the right to bear arms (think gun control), freedom of thought (think hate crimes), the right to own property (think socialism and confiscatory tax rates -- "tax the rich!"), and, increasingly, the right to practice religion in public. The "emergency" of the "appearance" of corruption led a mostly liberal coalition to restrict the freedom to donate money to political campaigns in the 70s and again in the nearer past. What rights have conservatives sought to curtail? Especially on the grounds of an "emergency"? I can't really think of any. Any help? Nixon's price controls, maybe? I wouldn't consider him awfully conservative, and even a moderate conservative like William Safire submits that Nixon is in purgatory because of the price controls. I suppose if you view abortion as a "right" then conservatives have sought to curtail it -- but not on the grounds of an "emergency".
I haven't read the full, original article, but this excerpt appears to be devoid of specifics to back up the sweeping generalizations made. I don't know if conservatives treat liberals in general as "unworthy of recognition", but the author of this piece is definitely unworthy of further publication.
::: posted by Eric at 9:33 PM
|
|
|
|
