|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 :::
Thanks for the link to the entire Chronicle story. First a comment in response to this -- perhaps the author was thinking of privacy. Conservatives have generally failed to see very much of a "right to privacy" in the US Constitution, except in its small, specific manifestations such as search and seizure, etc. I have always regarded this, though, as fidelity to the notion that the public has a right to be governed under the rule of law, i.e. we should apply the law as it is written. Depends on your point of view.
I think Mr. Wolfe has a problem with his point of view. He is surprised, first of all, at the sympathy liberals have with the views of a Nazi. We should remember that Nazism was a left-wing phenomenon, although I would hesitate to call it a "liberal" phenomenon. The Nazis were self-described socialists who pursued radical policies expanding state power over individual freedom and instituting wholesale societal changes in the name of transforming human society. This has always sounded very left-wing to me and I have sometimes debated those who have placed Nazism on the right; they usually claim that fascism in general was a right-wing phenomenon because of its traditional support of religion and toleration for a heavily-regulated, corporatist form of capitalism. I still don't see it. But I digress.
I think Wolfe's main problem is that he is a liberal who cannot see the broad sweep of politics in this country from an unbiased viewpoint. I realize that this is a serious accusation to make against a professor of political science. Some examples:
- "Jesus's call to love your enemy is perfectly appropriate for religion, but it is incompatible with the life-or-death stakes politics always involves." Let us remember that these words are written by a liberal. While Wolfe is accusing conservatives of regarding politics as a battle fought to the death -- or at least destruction -- of your enemy, Wolfe himself is arguing that "love your enemy" is incompatible with his own understanding of politics. Why am I reminded of Governor Dean's remark "George Bush is not my neighbor"? I think Wolfe both misunderstands politics ("life-or-death" shows he cares about politics a little too much) and Christ (whose teachings are not supposed to stop at any bright line in human endeavor).
- "War is the most violent form that politics takes ... ." International politics, perhaps. Certainly not domestic politics.
- "[C]onservative talk-show hosts like Bill O'Reilly fight for their ideas with much more aggressive self-certainty than, say, a hopeless liberal like Alan Wolfe." Well, I won't defend Ann Coulter, who, it seemed to me, lost her mind -- though not her writing ability -- sometime in September 2001. But two conservatives arguing forcefully is pretty poor anecdotal evidence that conservatives argue more aggressively than liberals. Especially when the liberal who is making this point is doing so in the middle of a vast ad hominem attack on conservatives in which he suggests conservatives are adherents to what is basically a Nazi philosophy, something which they themselves fail to understand because they are not familiar with political philosophers. Consider this: "Schmitt's German version of conservatism, which shared so much with Nazism, has no direct links with American thought. Yet residues of his ideas can nonetheless be detected in the ways in which conservatives today fight for their objectives." How's that for slander? Instead of saying that some conservatives have adopted political tactics that bear a similarity to political arguments made by a Nazi philosopher, which could be as true about conservatives as it could be about liberals, he asserts that conservatives are tainted with a "residue" of ideas that "shared so much with Nazism". How can there be a "residue" of something that was not "direct[ly] link[ed]"?
- "Liberals insist that there exists something called society independent of the state ... ." I submit that the conservative viewpoint is not given by an obscure Nazi philosopher but rather best summed up by Margaret Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
- "Conservatives are not bothered by injustice because they recognize that politics means maximizing your side's advantages, not giving them away. If unity can be achieved only by repressing dissent, even at risk of violating the rule of law, that is how conservatives will achieve it." I'm not sure this even deserves a response. I wonder what kind of a definition of "injustice" the fellow is using. Certainly none I'm aware of. Then again, if he believes that Christ's teachings are "perfectly appropriate for religion" but not generally applicable outside of "religion" than he probably has a different view of injustice than I do. For instance, I doubt he regards socialism as a crime against humanity -- but more on that in some future post.
- Here's where the paranoia and lack of perspective enter, though: "Still, if Schmitt is right, conservatives win nearly all of their political battles with liberals because they are the only force in America that is truly political." He is arguing from a perspective in which he believes that conservatives win almost all political battles. How far left is this fellow anyway? If this is his premise, he'd better stick with "rethinking" Marxism. This article is based on the self-perception that he is a victim of political opponents who utilize Nazi tactics for self-gain and almost always win. Note that he does not argue that Marxism is wrong, or that the collapse of communism invalidated Marxism, but rather than Marxism needs "rethinking". That should place him well on the ideological spectrum. It also explains his perception that "society" is in the thrall of powerful interests that use any tactics necessary to maximize their interests. The fellow is a Marxist, disappointed that Marxism has not taken root in the US.
- "From the 2000 presidential election to Congressional redistricting in Texas to the methods used to pass Medicare reform, conservatives like Tom DeLay and Karl Rove have indeed triumphed because they have left the impression that nothing will stop them." I think conservatives looked on Al Gore, the Florida Supreme Court, et al., as acting like nothing would stop them -- stop them from disregarding the rule of law. As it happens, the US Supreme Court stopped them, by a 7-2 vote, and by a 5-4 vote told them not to start again. I submit the Colorado redistricting as counterevidence to the Texas redistricting. Were the methods used to pass Medicare "reform" any different from parliamentary tactics used in legislatures everywhere since the dawn of deliberative democracy?
- "There is, for liberals, always something as important, if not more important, than victory, whether it be procedural integrity, historical precedent, or consequences for future generations." Tell that to the proponents of Roe v. Wade. And how on Earth does he associate "historical precedent" with the left? That's odd even for a Marxist.
- "Liberal to its very core, the United States ... " -- so, now conservatism is un-American? Indeed, "To the degree that conservatives bring to this country something like Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction, they stand against not only liberals but America's historic liberal heritage."
Finally, in his last paragraph, Wolfe implies that pluralism is "good." Well, I will agree that a system in which people can voice differing opinions is good, but I am guilty of one of the charges he makes against conservatives: I believe in right and wrong. Generally, pluralism means the coexistence of some ideas that are "right" with some ideas that are "wrong". Things would certainly be better without the "wrong" ideas, but since we have no good way of agreeing on which ideas are which, pluralism is a necessary evil.
He asserts that disagreement is "virtuous". I disagree. There is no virtue in disagreeing with someone. If I claim that 2+2=5, I disagree with most people on Earth, but does that make me or my claim virtuous? Disagreement is an unfortunate consequence of the human condition. We should not idolize it. We cannot eliminate it, nor should we try. I've met a lot of people who believe that disagreement is important, that it is better to nominate a bad candidate in an election than let a good one run unopposed. I don't see it.
Wolfe ends his piece implying that government should be limited. Well, it's always good to end with a comment everyone can agree with. It helps dampen passions and suppress disagreement.
You know, when I compare the length of my blog entries to others in this and other blogs, I can't help but feel that I'm missing the point. And wonder whether anyone but the Brothers Jens will get this far.
::: posted by Eric at 8:21 PM
|
|
|
|
