« Cutting Through The Hysterical Miasma | Main | See Ya Sunday »
January 13, 2006
Liberalism vs Conservativism
Shrinkwrapped has a great post up about those that move from liberal to conservative (funny how you hardly ever hear of anyone going in the other direction). In his post he cites liberal blogger Barbara O'Brien's post on the definition of liberal and conservative (emphasis mine):
[...] In the real world, oppression comes out of the private sector just as readily as the public. In fact, if government doesn't step in and put a check on private sector oppression, ordinary people can become as powerless and persecuted in a free country as they would be in a totalitarian state. The most blatant examples of this in American history involve racial minorities, but there also has been economic oppression where the wealthy were able to mercilessly exploit the laborers of all races who created their wealth. But liberalism assumes that We, the People, are rational beings who can recognize problems and use representative government as a means for solving those problems, thus achieving systemic improvement in the human condition. Thus, in the 20th century We, the People authorized government to ensure fair labor practices, for example.
But in the conservative mind, all checks on the power of the wealthy to get wealthier amounts to collectivism, which is the same thing as Communism. Where ordinary citizens are able to use government as a tool to protect themselves from oppression, that (to a rightie) is coercion and just a step away from Stalinism. In a free society, government should step aside so that big corporations can shortchange their workers and rob them of their lives and dignity without interference.
Barbara is up in arms over what she feels is conservatives' improper definition of "liberal"--she says, "It's true that liberalism is about liberty." But having said that she proceeds to cough up all the unsubstantiated class-warfare canards about the business class vs. the "ordinary citizens". And before any Lefties out there scream "Enron!", please note that one, two or even ten bad examples does nothing to prove that free-market capitalism is not the most effective scheme for generating (not redistributing) wealth the world has ever seen. Where would you rather live, Barbara--South Vietnam or South Korea?
I think Barbara makes the classic liberal mistake of assuming that utopia is reachable. In the comments to Shrinkwrapped's post I said:
Regarding the definitions of conservative and liberal: The ones I've come up with for my own use are centered around the ideas of rationalism, empiricism and human fallibility. Liberals think they can change the world for the better with their plans that are independent of the real world. Conservatives base their policies on what has succeeded or failed in the past. It's important to note that conservatives are not opposed to change per se; it's mindless change for change's sake that we're against. Liberals will cling to their pet plan even in the face of verifiable disastrous results (e.g. the public school curriculum).
Human fallibility goes to the heart of the matter. Conservatives know there are no perfect humans, therefore any government, business, church, human rights organization, bridge club or little league team--anything done by humans--likewise cannot be perfect. Liberals dream up a utopian version of everything, combine it with the aforementioned blindness to real world results and proceed to rail about the perceived failure to achieve perfection.
This liberal utopianism is obvious when you consider their seizing on an Abu Ghraib or Enron and then extrapolating to general condemnation from an isolated example. And the "oppression of the poor by capitalism" idea really falls apart when you closely look at the real world data. For example: A 1992 Treasury Department study showed that between 1979 and 1988, 86 percent of those in the bottom income quintile moved to a higher quintile, and 35 percent in the top income quintile moved to a lower quintile.
Classical liberalism is concerned with freedom--freedom of the individual, not the reshaping of that individual's human nature into a utopian mold.
UPDATE: Oh brother...is there anything worse than a misspelling in the title of a post? Especially "conservativism"! No wonder I'm so far down in the ecosystem.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/498
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liberalism vs Conservativism:
» apartment therapy from apartment therapy
shit-happens 2563613 This page contains some info about apartment therapy [Read More]
Tracked on June 21, 2007 01:20 PM
Comments
Your point on generating (not redistributing) wealth is vital to the discussion of what Liberalism really is.
Paul Graham wrote a very interesting (if rather lengthy article where he discusses the difference between money and wealth in the context of star-ups http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html that is a must-read.
Additionally, Rich Karlgaard of Forbes had an article on http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/global/2006/0109/035A.html how most politicians, economists and journalists act as if growth were a mirage and wealth a zero-sum game.
Classic Liberalism is based the notion that wealth can be created, and that all people have the right to pursue it.
Posted by: Fausta at January 13, 2006 03:03 PM
Thanks for the links; I'll check'em out.
Posted by: Jeff at January 13, 2006 08:40 PM
I need to E-personally Apologize for a comment I made at AJ Strats's site.
I responded to a comment you made and I blew it and assumed you were another same "named" commenter (that I have read) and thought your comment was--whatever, I blew it and therefore misread and misattributed you.
I did realize what a stupid and horrible mistake I made and I promptly apologized and made the correction at AJ's site.
I just felt it I should personally tell you sorry and I just hope that you know that my mistake does not reflect on AJ or his commenters.
I might be making a mountain of a mole hill here but I just know how touchy and easy it can be to malign people on the internet and I think if you make a mistake you should pony up to it.
I hope you except my apology and hope if you see me commenting you will not think bad of me.
The good news? I liked your site and have now bookmarked it, Somehow, this does not seem like a good apologetic thing, does it?
Maybe I can redeem myself though?
Posted by: Mary Mapes at January 15, 2006 02:34 AM
Gack! I wasn't even aware--I'm afraid I need to work out some system for remembering when and where I comment. I do think I remember that thread (though it may have been at Dr. Sanity's) because there was another obnoxious guy named Jeff (I think I actually signed in as "Jeff 2" or something).
In any event, thanks for taking the time to write (and of course I accept your gracious apology). And thanks for the bookmark--I only wish I could come close to AJ's amazing prolificacy.
Posted by: Jeff at January 15, 2006 02:24 PM
