Defining conservatism down

OC Register ^ | 2/9/04 | Erica Harpster - Opinion

[Nick Danger]

It is a shame that they do not teach more conservative philosophy at UC Irvine, because if they did this woman might better understand the difference between "conservative" and "libertarian."

To be in favor of small government for its own sake is fundamentally libertarian. It is not conservative. Many conservatives might also be in favor of smaller government, but that is not usually for the sake of smallness per se. The sentiment tends to spring more from what "big government" is likely to do, i.e. if big government sets out to do 100 things, experience tells us that 85 of them will apply coercive force to some otherwise free market, thus hosing up the allocation of resources; and almost all the rest will have to do with using force majeure to restrict private property rights, such as telling farmers what they can and cannot do with their land.

At the same time though, we will see many self-described conservatives advocate in favor of bigger government, so long as the bigness takes place in the areas that they want. The advocates of protectionism, for example, would be happy to see some huge bureaucracy sticking its fingers in otherwsise private exchanges of goods and services. They are essentially advocating the forceful application of political sentiment to economic decsion-making... not philosophically much different from the liberals who want higher taxes on SUV's to "save the environment."

Other conservatives want to abolish the Posse Comititus Act and have military troops rounding up illegal aliens; still more want tens of thousands of troops with machine guns stationed all around the perimeter. So "big government" is fine with many self-described conservatives so long as it is doing what they want instead of what liberals want.

Throughout, this woman makes the assummption that "conservatives" want, or ought to want, smaller government as an end unto itself. I don't think it's true that such a sentiment is universal among conservatives. There are many people here, certainly, who advocate all sorts of big government programs, all of which would entail huge amounts of spending. It's just that their aims are different from the ones that big-government liberals might advocate.

It appears that the author is just young and confused. When she learns more, she will stop being a College Republican and become a libertarian.

[OWK]

Throughout, this woman makes the assummption that "conservatives" want, or ought to want, smaller government as an end unto itself. I don't think it's true that such a sentiment is universal among conservatives. There are many people here, certainly, who advocate all sorts of big government programs, all of which would entail huge amounts of spending. It's just that their aims are different from the ones that big-government liberals might advocate.

Sharply limited government within the specific powers designated in the constitution is what I always understood conservatives to advocate.

Maybe that's what is confusing me.

Maybe conservatives really are for big government, so long as the programs are not ones advocated by liberals.

What say ye conservatives?

[Bella_Bru]

If you have lost your manual, you will need to report back for an immediate re-education class entitled, "If you criticize your party you must be planning on siding with the opposition".

Complimentary Kool-aid will be served.

[Bella_Bru]

If President Bush signed an executive order calling for the killing of all first born males, they'd say it was shrewd politics and that the Dems would be worse.

Worse still, they support the same programs and policies they would vehemently oppose if "the other guy" did it. I guess the "R" next to the name makes everything ok for them.

[Bella_Bru]

Does your's wave? Mine does. :-P

[The_Eaglet]

Campaign Finance Law A 'Baby Step'-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 60

[George W. Bush]

As measured by Alexa web-traffic rankings, FreeRepublic.Com is MUCH bigger than NationalReview.Com (ranked #1,233 in the world versus NRO at #2,086). And in turn, LewRockwell.Com is MUCH bigger than FreeRepublic.Com (ranked #774 in the world versus FR at #1,233).

Yes, but Alexa skews results. We FReepers aren't allowed to take internet polling and stat engines as seriously as other people since our activities tend to FReep them.

[Sloth]

Whatever, she's doing a good job for the opposition.

I think the 'compromisers' are doing a good job for the opposition.

[Sloth]

Obviously when he has no elections to face he will be far more compliant with the concerns of his 'base.'

LOL... That's right, nothing is more likely to make a politician listen to his constituents than a complete lack of accountability.

[Nick Danger]

Sharply limited government within the specific powers designated in the constitution is what I always understood conservatives to advocate.

I have my own definition of "conservative," which I basically stole from Thomas Sowell. I don't claim that this is the "correct" definition, but it is one I find useful. It is independent of specific policies. Instead it arises from a certain (possibly inherent or even genetic) orientation of the brain. Sowell calls the orientation leading to conservative policy preferences "the Constrained Vision." Sowell also describes an "Unconstrained Vision," and the people whose heads work that way tend to favor policies we would call "liberal."

A decent one-page synopsis of this idea is here. Basically, someone with the Constrained Vision believes...

1) Human nature is essentially unchanging and unchangeable – there have been no great changes in the fundamental intellectual and moral capacities of human beings; 2) Human capabilities are severely and inherently bounded for all – man is sharply restricted in his capacity for improvement and has only a very limited ability to affect his surroundings; 3) Life is inherently harsh and difficult – suffering and evil are inherent in the innate deficiencies of human beings; 4) Man is basically self-centered; however, things can be improved within that constraint by primarily relying on incentives (rewards and punishments) rather than on dispositions; 5) Resources are always inadequate to fulfill all of the desires of all of the people; 6) Social outcomes are a function of incentives presented to individuals and the conditions under which they interact in response to those incentives; 7) Given the moral limitations of man and his egocentricity, the fundamental moral challenge is to make the best of the possibilities within the constraints of man's nature; 8) There are no solutions, only trade-offs that leave many desires unfulfilled and much unhappiness in the world; 9) It is imperative to have the right processes for making trade-offs and correcting inevitable errors; and 10) It is better to cope incrementally with tragic dilemmas than to proceed categorically with moral imperatives – for amelioration of evils and for progress it is generally preferable to rely on systemic characteristics of social processes (such as moral traditions, the marketplace, the law, or families) rather than solutions proposed by government officials.

What I like about this view of things is that it explains why we consistently find the same people on the same sides of issues, even though the issues seem to be unrelated. Find someone who is against nuclear power, and the odds are that person is also pro-abortion, in favor of the welfare state, believes every sort of environmentalist claptrap, and so on. They are not picking policies one-by-one, they are simply viewing the world through a certain kind of lens, and all those things make sense to them.

When someone on FR claims to be a conservative, but advocates policies that don't seem to arise from the Constrained Vision (or worse, clearly do arise from the Uncontrained Vision), I assume that they don't really know what they are doing... they are just mouthing policy positions that are popular within their own circle of friends. Is that harsh? I don't care. Many people do not think, they just emote, and that's reality.

Maybe conservatives really are for big government, so long as the programs are not ones advocated by liberals.

Using my definition of "conservative," the answer could be "yes." Someone with the Constrained Vision will not look kindly on the idea that smart people wearing suits need to employ government coercion to "lead the masses" to perfect themselves. The "perfectability of man" is an artifact of the Unconstrained Vision, as is the idea that there exist humans who are sufficiently smart that they know how to engineer economies, social institutions, the climate, etc.

This is the problem I personally have with Protectionism, and with people who advocate it calling themselves "conservatives." They are basically telling us that smart people wearing suits must use governmental force to keep the stupid masses from buying things from the wrong countries, and that they know where to find people who are so smart that they can tinker with certain aspects of a multi-trillion-dollar economy without screwing it up.

My own puny Constrained mind does not believe that there are any people smart enough to do that, and it also wonders where these people come from who think it is their mission to protect the ignorant masses from acting in the wrong ways. So when those people claim that they are "conservatives," I turn up the gain on my crap detector. I think they are liberals who just don't know what they are.

But there are other kinds of government programs that do pass the Constrained Vision test. National defense is one. Advocacy of strong national defense follows from the Contrained Vision's assumption that human weakness and moral failings will produce various sort of Hitlers and Stalins at unpredicatable times, and we need to be ready for them when they show up. The liberal (Unconstrained) belief in the perfectability of man leads to the belief that if we are nice to Osama, and treat him with respect, he will have no reason to attack us. He is "perfectable," and we are smart enough to know how to perfect him. Conservatives will have none of that. They will want to amass vast quantities of armaments in case the guy turns out to be just plain evil. And that will, in the real world, end up being a big, expensive, government program.

Law enforcement is another one where the same dance goes on. Conservatives expect there to be some level of crime, because humans are not perfect. Liberals will actually believe that if we eliminate "the root causes" of crime (poverty, etc.) that evil humans will vanish from the planet. Man is perfectable. So the libs want to spend money on welfare programs. The conservatives will want to spend almost as much, but on cops and prisons instead of social workers.

It is probably true that liberals will find more uses for government than conservatives will, because there is no end to the problems that Smart People In Big Offices can "fix" if we allow them to boss everyone around. Conservatives will usually show up with a shorter laundry list of things to spend money on. So it will look like conservatives are in favor of "lower spending." But low spending per se is not the motivation. Given a program that fits within the Constrained Vision, conservatives will spend.

[Snuffington]

A really excellent post. I agree whole-heartedly.

[luckydevi]

"No, because she is all negativity and no positive solutions. Temper tantrums are a very ineffective mode of persuasion"

reminds me of a Thomas Sowell column

"Once, after giving a talk, I was confronted by a lady in the audience who asked what some people regard as the ultimate question:


"What is YOUR solution?"


"There are no solutions," I said. "There are only trade-offs."


"The people DEMAND solutions!" she shot back angrily.


The people can demand square circles if they want. But that doesn't mean that they will get them. What they are more likely to get is the illusion of a solution by someone seeking their vote."

--Thomas Sowell

[drhogan]

i was criticized by several people for saying that we shouldn't be criticizing bush during an election campaign. but elections in the US are dualistic: it is repub vs. dem. everything else is just a distraction/spoiler. the greens helped bush beat gore, now conservatives can help kerry beat bush, if they really want to.
bush is not a conservative; he never has been one and never will be one. he is a politician, and he will favor whatever policies karl rove thinks will get him re-elected. i don't agree with a lot of his policies, but i will keep my mouth shut on those things while the campaign is going on. the more effectively you criticize bush right now, the more likely kerry will win.

[Joe Hadenuf]

The current climate of big-government Republicanism has caused traditionally conservative commentators to become apologists for George W. Bush.

You wrote:

"A Democrat trying to wreak havoc among the opposition and depress the Republican vote. It's too bad that she seems to have many followers in California".

Huh? This shows many Californian's are a few steps to the right of you and this administration.

By the way, she's a Republican! You on the other hand are exactly what she is describing above. Dang, this is glaring.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Whatever, she's doing a good job for the opposition.

How, by stating the brutal truth?

[drhogan]

i sent an e-mail to karl rove at the bush campaign pointing out that bush's spending and immigration policies might lose his conservative base. but we should be supporting bush against kerry in the mass media.
right now, the liberal media will be glad to print conservative criticisms of bush, because they want kerry to win.

[drhogan]

i got more criticisms on this thread for saying we should support (rather than criticize bush) during a campaign than i did on another thread where i called pat buchanan a maniac and a closet fascist.
it's strange that saying we shouldn't criticize our candidate during a campaign should provoke such a reaction. but then, jerry ford lost to carter partly because the conservatives sat out the election. way to go, boys!

[TigersEye]

No criticism here. Bush is da Man! There isn't anything to criticize. I wrote him a letter and said "Good job! Give us more of that."