Posted by
Arturick on Friday, May 15, 2009 3:25:29 AM
I've seen quite a few liberals on the boards claiming they wished to seriously discuss things with a "polite" conservative. I am, in general, not terribly polite around here. Townhall is a venue for conservatives, as such we feel quite comfortable kicking back and discussing in a style better compared to a cranky, familial gripe-fest than a moderated debate. Liberal visitors, knowing the overwhelming ideological bias, are generally here to tweak noses, rather than have a serious discussion. So, I've reserved this space on my blog for polite, serious discussion of conservative ideology with any liberal who actually wants such a thing.
First, though, a few basics to keep in mind...
The old political spectrum of left to right is a largely unhelpful construct which fails to fully describe most governments in a meaningful fashion. Adolph Hitler is arguably the most famous case of how unhelpful a flat scale is, having held positions that are far to the right and left in standard terms. A vegetarian animal rights activist who promotes national cultural purity through force is not, I suppose, best described as a moderate. The old spectrum also traditionally places communism and fascism at opposite ends, but how can two totalitarian systems be opposite? Where would anarchists fit?
A better system is an x/y grid, with the x axis representing cultural ideology (abortion, modern art, sex on trampolines in front of mixed company) from liberal to conservative, and the y axis representing governmental ideology (controlling every aspect of life to utter anarchy) from libertarian to authoritarian. Let's look at Hitler from this perspective.
Holding a wide array of views from the liberal side (vegetarian, animal rights, hanging out with the Thule Society, workers rights) and conservative side (anti-modern art, pro-traditional culture, pro-family), Hitler seems to fall in the middle ground between socially liberal and socially conservative. Hitler, however, buries the needle on the authoritarian side of things. His government was brutally socialist, but nationalistic, which brought him into conflict with internationalist socialists backing Stalin. Mussolini summed up the ideological difference between fascists and traditional Marxists, saying that Italian workers do not empathize with all the workers of the world, they empathize with Italian workers. Stalinists began to deride fascism (Mussolini's term for his own strict, socialistic government) as "right wing" to sway the sympathies of avowed Marxists.
But what of racism? Hitler's racism/anti-semitism was his defining characteristic for most people, so where does sheer racism fit in on the scale? It doesn't. Racism is not a creature of the left or right, authoriarian or libertarian. The so-called "redneck" is a conservative racist. Nazis are authoritarian racists. Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Minister Louis Farrakhan are liberal racists. I know a woman who is radically leftist/authoritarian who supported John Edwards. I pointed out to her that Edwards was ideologically identical to the more charismatic Barak Obama. Her resonse: "I don't trust Obama. He's a *n-word*." Racism is simply a negative personal quality which does not reflect anything intrinsic about political ideology outside of race.
So here's what the extremes of the scale look like:
Authoritarian Conservative - Theocratic. Iran, Saudi Arabia
Authoritarian Liberal - USSR under Lenin, various failed experiments like "millenarianism"
Libertarian Liberal - No particular real world allegory on a national level. Anarchy.
Libertarian Conservative - Idealized vision of America as a "moral," yet free, capitalist society. Essentially, maximum freedom with peace maintained by strong shared values.
Assuming both axis went from -10 to 10, I'd be around 6, -5, a morally conservative, somewhat limited government kinda guy. I believe the government has to take on various authoritarian roles, sometimes on moral issues, but support vigorous debate before any action is taken.
Now, modern American conservatives/Republicans run the gamut of the moderate to extreme from Authoritarian Conservative (Mega Bible Thumpers) to Libertarian Liberal (Libertarians/Ron Paul supporters). This causes tremendous internal debate in the GOP about the direction of the party. Amercan liberals/Democrats seem very tightly clustered in the Liberal Authoritarian to Moderate Authoritarian sector, disagreeing to some extent on social issues (gay marriage, or civil union?), but sharing a firm consensus that granting more power to the Federal government is always the answer.
Ultimately, the uniting force behind the "big tent" of the GOP is not firmly shared ideas, but the fact that Democrats embody the single ideological mix we all find reprehensible. Our agitation is increased by the fact that this is also the most historically discredited type of government.
Now, the dirty secret of many conservatives (myself included)...
Communism will hopefully be the ultimate one world government. I dub this the "Star Trek scenario."
In the Star Trek scenario, unlimited clean energy is found (dilithium crystals in Star Trek), allowing for effectively unlimitied resource gathering, space colonization, and the elimination of need. One day humans will hit a button and a steak will appear. Hit another button, and Cindy Crawford will jump in your lap. An unlimited supply of resources and room to expand would completely shatter many of humanity's natural instincts, allowing for social engineering that would be cruel and stupid if attempted today.
The rub, though is that I believe vigorous competition in a capitalist setting will bring about the technological innovations needed to reach such a point.
So, with that foundation in mind, if any liberal honestly wants to talk philosophical differences, here's the place to do it. I'm a non-denominationl Christian, so I believe miracles can happen.