I rather think I agree with all that Karl syas, but I believe, rather strongly, the emphasis is wrong. The enemy of conservatism is not liberalism, it is tyranny. The opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, it is tyranny. You may argue that democracy is the opposite of tyranny, and in some sense you are right, but only in some sense. Compassion and tyranny existed long before there was democracy, conservatism and liberalism. Back to the bell curves. Conservatism and liberalism have their differences, but contrasted with tyranny they have a whole lot more in common, yet, both in defending themselves against the other, tolerate tyranny. Not convinced?
Until 1974 Ethiopia was governed as a feudal state. The land was owned by a bunch of landlords, and the land was worked by a bunch of serfs, who were little more than slaves. After WW2, a middle class began to develop, and students from that class went abroad to study, and inevitably began to look at alternatives to the feudal system. Rightly or wrongly they saw feudalism as a sub system of capitalism, so the only real alternative was Marxism, and its child, communism. Compassion. In 1974, the soldiers rebelled against their officers over non-ideological issues - food, pay, postings - and to their own surprise, they won. They became the de facto rulers of the country, but they had no ideology. So these returned students became active. When we first went to Ethiopia in 1974, there was shooting in the streets every night. We passed bodies in the morning. This fighting was not between the army and feudalists. It was between Marxist factions fighting for the ideological space in the new government. This has strong similarities to the Bolshevik revolution.
Students had been going to study in both the West - UK, USA, Germany, as well as Soviet block countries. The consensus of my Ethiopian friends is that all the returned students involved in the fighting had studied in the West. Compassion. Those who had studied in the Soviet block had no interest in this struggle. Realism.
But there was incredible excitement within the country. Young people no longer came to church. They were studying Marxism. A "land to the tiller" movement transformed the country side. Our Wpg. Ethiopian friends who were involved in that movement, still speak of that time with fondness. There were huge rallies. Compassion. But that wasn't all, unfortunately. They began to use the war metaphor: Death to Imperialism, Death to Feudalism, Death to Capitalism, and those who refused to go along with that suffered and could be killed. Implicitly, "if you are not for us, you are against us.
Leninism teaches that the revolution needs to be lead by a cadre. The peasants are just that, peasants. They don't know what's best for them. The doctor metaphor is used. He is the one who knows best, not the patient. So because the end is noble, almost any means can be justified. At this stage it is no longer compassion. They had also rejected capitalism, but that is not why it was bad. It was bad because the movement had rejected compassion.
I find the comparison with what happened in Washington under Bush uncanny (for the record, Obama has not improved things significantly). I find the similarities between the cadres in Ethiopia and the neo cons in Washington way more significant than the differences. The war metaphor is everywhere: war on drugs, war on crime, war on terror. If you are not with us, you are against us. Because the end is right, any means is justified. Lies, torture, killings - maybe not so much within the US (but also there), but look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly compassion is absent. I'm not sure what you mean by standards, Karl, but would standards say that the end justifies the means.
I know this is not conservatism. But what is distressing is that it seems (please convince me I'm wrong) that grassroots conservatives, given a choice between tyrannical conservatives and democratic liberals, will choose the tyrannical conservatives.
I don't claim to understand the housing collapse and the Wall street collapse in the US. You may be totally correct that this was the result of liberal policy. But it was the bankers who got rich. If the banker is foreclosing but goes home with a multi-million dollar salary, this is not driven by compassion. If Franklin Graham of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association can lay of 10% of the workforce because donations are down, yet at the same time allow himself a 17% pay increase, that is not driven by compassion. I cannot see how multi-million dollar salaries are not determined by the market place. It is one director saying "I'll pay you 10 M if you pay me 8 M. Bill Clinton said it well. He abused Monica Lewinski for the very worst of reasons: because he was able to. Executive pay themselves these salaries because they have the power to do so.
I am not convinced that communism is more just or more efficient than capitalism. But I am convinced that it was not communism that collapsed in Ethiopia -- is was cadre-ism. Lack of compassion. Something that started off grassroots became elitist. I really don't understand Eastern Europe and the USSR well enough to comment on that. But I do think it would be useful to look at that history through this lens. I also think elitism is currently the biggest threat to the western democracy.
I am not sure how to focus my response, as there is much I agree and disagree with, as well as much that I need to think about more. I also don’t feel I have full clarity on the situation in Ethiopia, or African affairs in general. But a few quick points.
ReplyDeleteIn my own mind, I see liberalism, elitism, and state compassion virtually synonymous when looking at public policy, as it is the bigger government (elite) that will decide what to do for its people in the name of compassion. They will decide how to spend other people's money, they will try to control the media and filter the information the public can see, they will move society away from religion so that the government is the true authority in their life. What starts off as compassion intent perhaps (distributing wealth etc..), needs more central control to carry out their intents. That central control then concentrates power by definition, and as we noted originally, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Conservatism, is for limited government, and inherently non-elite as it wants the people to have more power. Bush did very little that was conservative, and expanded the government, and perhaps not ironic his campaign slogan was "Compassionate Conservatism".
I think you and I agree on one important point, and particularly that elitism is the biggest threat to western democracy. We certainly agree on the bailout (helped the ultra-rich and enabled those not paying their mortgage to stay in their house - both bad things) and "stimulus" (Obama's plan to take from the taxpayers and give to his constituents) being bad things and signs of elitism.
This is not a response to what you have said Karl. That is coming. I have just finished listening to a fascinating podcast from Public Radio.
ReplyDeletehttp://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/stem-cells/
It just underlined for me again what a disservice to the American Public the Republican/Democrat division is. As we all know both, the Republicans and the Democrats have made stem cell research a partisan issue. According to this scientist, neither party knows what it is talking about.
Responding to you Karl, I speak of Africa because I feel I can understand African politics better than I can most. I find it much easier to say of them: "Why don't you do it this way? It would be so much better. Check your own history." Also things seem to happen faster there. Communism survived for 70 years in the USSR. It survived for 20 years in Ethiopia. Yet, from my perspective, the evolutionary stages in the two countries were remarkably similar. It might be said that it is elitism that has destroyed that continent, yet it has produced the greatest statesman (by far) of the 20th century - Nelson Mandella. I'm rambling. But if you want me to clarify something, I'll be happy to.
ReplyDeleteSo back to your posting, I hear you saying, let's forget our current parties. They don't stand for any ideology anyway, other than their own enrichment. Basically I agree. So why the incredible allegiance to a party? Forget I asked that question. There are more important things to talk about!
I also agree that for a people, any people, to keep their government in check is a huge challenge. Logically it might follow from that that the bigger the government (what? relative to the size of the country, or in absolute size?), the harder it is to keep it in check, but I simply do not know whether history bears that out. I don't think it does.
So then the big question I have of conservatism is how is the power of powerful people kept in check? As someone quipped in a discussion about communism, "Under capitalism one person oppresses the other, and under communism its just the other way round." Absolutely the powerful in government tend to abuse their power [with some significant exceptions], but even as I look around, the powerful within the company, as well as the powerful companies abuse their power. So, if you like, the question of power control breaks down further: 1) How are the big companies kept in check? 2) How is the "polluter pays" principle enforced? 3) How are common resources managed, or are there none?
I know these are big questions. You may want to start a new post.
One comment about what you term "state compassion", I am not clear yet as to what you consider to be a legitimate role for government. I'm sure that will become clearer as we continue these conversations. I do submit, however, that in the Old Testament, a major role of government was to look after "the widow, the orphan and the stranger in your midst." As the prophets evaluate various governments, this is a major evaluation criteria.
So for clarity, I think all conservatives agree with providing a level of safety net for the poor. The issue is degree. If we use the Old Testament as a guide, 20% tax was considered slavery, and certainly the biblical principal of tithing was not a progressive system (everyone was to pay 10% regardless of income). Yet in the US for example, the top 1% pay 45% of all taxes, and the bottom 40% pay no taxes but are rather net recipients. Surely if we are to use the Old Testament as a guide to govern, and ask everyone to pay 15% to the government to help the poor - that candidate today would be branded a racist/capitalist pig bent on only the interests of the rich.
ReplyDeleteI agree that conservatism can run wild the more unethical the citizen. However, I think there is ample evidence that private business or citizens, are better stewards of the land and people's interest, than the government. Lets look at any renewable resource. For example, the US has more trees today than 100 years ago, yet any communist or extreme liberal form of government in the world is depleting those resources. Are they not? Who exported more food to the rest of the world in the past 100 years, the US and Canada, or communist Russia and China? I think the reasons are obvious, that if people own the property, they have self interest in looking after it. Clearly the system isn't perfect, and some government controls are needed.
Yesterday there was a debate show called "Is the wall still in the minds of the people?"
ReplyDeleteI have always defended the "Ossies" as they say here when the "Wessies" critized them I always say Gott sei Dank, as the Germans like to say often, that the wall was not built around us, these poor people have suffered so much, it was not their choice to grow up under communism. It is not their fault.
hmmm perhaps I have been here too long I noticed recently I don't do that anymore.
Though I think I cheer for them and celebrate the fall of the wall more than anyone in our circles.
BUT I cannot feel empathy anymore for former East Germans, I don't like using "Ossies" has too many negative tones,when they talk like they are victims of a capitalist system, Hello YOU are the WINNERS!
Statements like this " in Ost lernte ich Gemein wohl stand über Personliches wohl and in BRD geht es nur über Ich." Was für ein quatsch. That is so ridiculous saying West Germany is just about "me" and in the East everyone's well being stood over your own.I could scream when I hear things like that. That stmt is the fundamental myth and what buys people into socialism and it is simply not true.
Capitalism and conservatism is exactly about helping others, but helping others to a point of where they can help themselves and not simply throwing money and programs at people.I think this is compassion with responsibility.
Whoaaa! This is going somewhere I, at least, have no need to go.
ReplyDeleteMy question is sincere. I am not trying to score points. How does conservatism deal with the real problems of human nature and this world? What is the role of government? A sub-question is how the poor are protected from the powerful. Does conservatism in its pure form depend on "trickle down" economics? I suggested in my last post that this is not a new problem. The problem was recognized in the Old Testament.
If we are going to look to the Old Testament for guidance as to how we actually do this (rather than whether we ought to), we don't look at tithing and tax, but jubilee, where every 50 years the land was returned to its original owner (but that really is not where I want to go with this conversation).
Absolutely! The Russian and Chinese record on matters related to the environment is terrible! And where they have done some good things, as the Chinese have, there is no reason to believe these good things to be an outgrowth of communism. It is just as likely to have been an outgrowth of their culture. My most fundamental point throughout these postings is that the left/right, conservative/liberal divide is not helpful in addressing this planet's problems. From an environmental point of view, I would be challenged to find anything we could learn from the Soviets, other than how not to do things. There are things we could learn from the Chinese.
I have become largely convinced, but certainly open to discussion, that while not perfect - conservatism does the most to deal with the real problems of human suffering and the poor to your question. I do believe in trickle down economics, based on evidence across history and geographies. Under Reagan for example, the poor did exceedingly well. I believe liberal policies urn into trickle-up poverty (a quote i am borrowing from someone else) where standards of living are equalized, but as a function of everyone having less freedom and wealth. I believe that attempting to create a utopia, where there are no human suffering, to me has been the biggest source of human suffering and evil of the 20th century (communism).
ReplyDeleteI have thought a lot about what divides conservatives and liberals, and i think compassion and standards to me goes a long way. But a quote i read a while back, that I think also hits the point is that "conservatives divide the world in terms of good and evil, while liberals divide the world in terms of rich and poor". As a conservative, i do care far more about creating a system to encourage good behavior (based on judeo-christian values) and giving people an opportunity to be rich. I think liberals (please correct me if i am wrong) focus on the monetary results of people. Said another way, liberals value equality more than liberty.
So not sure i am quite answering the question as i see it, but i am first trying to nail down the root difference between you and I (liberals and conservatives). I agree it is unlikely we will profoundly change each others minds, but i believe what we can accomplish is clarity on what is that root of our differences. I believe it is not simply a random list of issues, as it is likely we disagree on 80%+ of the political issues. I believe there is some template that reflects each of our agendas, and it is that which i think we can potentially nail down better.
Below are a number of disjointed comments. I think when I'm done with that, it is time to start a new thread.
ReplyDeleteI read Ayn Rand a long time ago -- Both "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Virtue of Selfishness". Would it be fair to say that you and the Ayn Rand Institute define conservatism in the same way?
To what extent are you equating conservatism and capitalism? I really don't know how well they match, because you are using "conservative" in a way I am not accustomed to. I also seem to hear you equating liberalism and communism at times. If you are indeed doing this, I must protest strongly. In my mind that is as helpful as saying red and blue are the same colors.
Are you saying that from a conservative world view, trickle down economics looks after the poor? There is no need for special government measures designed to protect the poor from the powerful.
I am far from convinced that conservative -> good/evil and liberal -> rich/poor is a helpful way of describing these two world views. My favorite liberal thinker is Noam Chomsky. I invite you to read one of his essays. (I can suggest one if you like) You may have already. As a conservative you will likely disagree with much of what he says, but I don't see how you can say he is not concerned about evil. And are you suggesting that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are up holding good over evil? (I must admit I have never really listened to either. I have just heard clips.)
You may be right that we will not profoundly change each other's mind, but I hope that we are sufficiently free of ideology that if we receive new information, information that does not support our ideology, that we are sufficiently liberal (pun intended) to shift our ideology rather than reject the information.
And finally I think we do well to remember that most (not all) the tyrants of communism - Stalin in the USSR, Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mengistu in Ethiopia, were created by the regime that preceded the government they headed (I hesitate to call it capitalism, although Marx may have). Communism has brought us Gorbachov in the USSR and Hu Jintau in China.
The conservative state that exists in your mind may be beautiful, even has the communist state that exists in the mind of the communist is beautiful. But it is the conservative state gone awry that has created the outrage that has created the communist tyrants.
In today's world, I don't think communism has any significant appeal. Capitalism is here to stay. What needs to be done to protect it from itself?
Not sure where we should take this next, as there are plenty of avenues. I do believe there is more to explore in the statement that liberals divide the world between rich and poor, while conservatives between good and evil. This is not saying liberals don't believe in evil (although frankly most see the world in such relative terms they often cant define good and evil), but they typically look to rich and poor as the source. The consistent theme is either the corrupt and powerful are to blame, or someone that is poor is therefore desperate and ill-educated. Look at Obama and the Fort Hood shooting, he blames (amongst other things) the fact that the shooter was poor.
ReplyDeleteNoam Chomksy is someone when i discuss issues, is followed closely by the ivy-league circles in the US. I think they share his views that "the Bible is the most geneocidal book in the literary canon". Anyway, he does seem to divide the world by rich and poor from my perspective, and that in his world view evil is perpetrated by the rich and powerful. Conservatives are less stuck on the social status of an individual, and view it as largely independent of a persons decisions. So i don't see the poor needing protection from the powerful (to your question above) as i believe the powerful are not inherently evil as perhaps your question implies.
I also am intentionally linking liberalism and communism. I see liberalism as communism-light, as instead of wanting to take all your money, they want most. Instead of wanting to control all the media, they want to control most. Instead of banning religion entirely like the communists, they want to eliminate it from most realms.
Happy to take the conversation in any venue, but i believe that focusing on what the source of our different views is would be most productive for now. While we both have a judeo-christian value system, we are clearly emphasizing different parts.
At one point, U.Eric mentioned that communism has no appeal, and capitalism is here to stay. I am not so optimistic for a variety of reasons, and believe this article rightly captures the agenda behind the environmental movement - central control.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514939