December 21, 2002
LEFT BEHIND:
Left Has Hard Time in Era of Terrorism (EDWARD ROTHSTEIN, December 21, 2002, NY Times)[C]onservative and liberal categories really do offer opposing views of the world, providing different explanations for events in history, different descriptions of human nature and different philosophies of political justice. These ideas have always changed with historical circumstances, but after 9/11, some of liberalism's perspectives have come under increasing scrutiny.In an article called "The Case for Liberalism" in the December issue of Harper's, for example, George S. McGovern tries to revive liberalism as a loyal opposition in the face of possible war. He says its definition as a political philosophy is "based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties." In contrast, conservatism's function, Mr. McGovern argues, is "to cling tightly to the past"; it cannot be relied upon for "constructive new ideas" that might lead to a "more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world." Conservatism's main contribution, he suggests, is just to keep a critical watch on liberalism, whose virtues should be transparent.
Mr. McGovern's version of conservatism is hardly recognizable as the conservatism of recent decades; his version of liberalism is also formulaic. But if liberalism is considered in its broadest sense, Mr. McGovern's sweeping assertions about its obviousness might be true. Much of political modernity, with its ideas of democratic rule, individualism and human rights, actually represents a triumph of classical liberalism. In fact, attitudes like Mr. Lott's aside, much contemporary conservatism honors similar ideas, making it less an opponent of liberalism than an alternative interpretation of the liberal world.
Mr. McGovern gets at least one thing right and it is the thing that separates classic conservatism from modern liberalism: liberals believe in "the essential goodness of man". All else flows from this utopian idea. If Man is good then socialism and communism are workable, because we will all want to share what we have equally. If Man is good then we've no need of religion or morality or tradition, because each of us can create our own rules and they too will be good--each is sufficient unto himself. If Man is good then everything that Man does will represent progress. If Man is already good then the transcendent does not matter; we can make a material heaven here on Earth. If Man is good then his new ideas--a product of his Reason--will be good, or mostly good, and are all worth trying. And so on and so forth...
Posted by Orrin Judd at December 21, 2002 8:06 AM
"the essential goodness of man"
When I began to realize (horrors!) that I was (in the philosophical sense) a conservative, it was in part because I realized that I didn't believe in "the essential goodness of man". I thought, "hey, if they're counting on the essential goodness
of man for this stuff to work, they'll be waiting a long time!!"
If men were "essentially good", you wouldn't have to teach each new generation of kids table manners.
It is the beginning of all wisdom to recognize the evil in man and, therefore, little surprise that the Bible begins by noting it.
Posted by: oj at December 21, 2002 9:50 AMYes, you've hit on a great point, Orrin. The left doesn't object to giving government leaders unlimited powers because it believes they are essentially good and will use those powers well; the right believes in distributing power widely among the people, so that every individual's power is limited, checked and balanced by the power of others, and no one can do great harm. These checks and balances mean that people have to cooperate to get things done -- thus the right is communitarian in a way the left isn't.
Rothstein's last two lines are right on. Our founding fathers were classical liberals; conservatism preserves their vision; liberals today oppose it.
Your point about the left opposing reality is also spot-on. Much of the left, I believe, is in perpetual revolt against the "tragedy of choice" - the fact that when you choose one thing, you get all its consequences and you forever abandon the alternatives you rejected. The left hates the fact that if you sleep with one woman, you can't sleep with another, or if you sleep with fifty men, you are likely to get a disease. The left is continually trying to have its cake and eat it too. Conservatism is, by contrast, realistic.
My goodness. That's one of the best explanations of conservatism's superiority to liberalism I've ever read. Good show.
Posted by: Timothy at December 21, 2002 1:46 PMWhackadoodle --
The problem is that, because the left assumes that man is essentially good, they have decided that any behavior that is not innate, like table manners, can safely be abandoned as the fascistic expression of an archaic class system.
Red Terror bad. White Terror -- never heard
of it.
Man has the capacity for evil all right. Conservatism
has done no more than liberalism to control
that. Look at the world. Are the places with
the most religion the best off?
Obviously not.
Harry:
The point is that it can't be controlled. The best you can do is limit your fellow man's ability to exercise it.
David --
That would have been impressive rhetoric to wield as a child -- "Mother!! I will not chew with my mouth closed, because to do so would be to submit to your fascistic expression of an archaic class system!!"
Maybe the impulse cannot be controlled,
Orrin, but the behavior can be.
I was talking with the pastor of the biggest
holy roller church in the county once, and he
said his goal was to create better men. I
said I would settle for better manners.
There really is a difference between the
street I live on and the condition of the same
area 250 years ago, when it was inhabited
by savages. But we are no less human than
they were.
We are more "human" precisely because of morals and manners and the dignity we derive from our relationship with God.
Posted by: oj at December 23, 2002 4:12 PM