A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I recently responded to a Facebook posting agreeing with a friend who described John McCain's recent logic on DADT as tortured and disingenuous. As we rarely agree on his political postings, it prompted a larger discussion. And so with his permission, I offer his questions to conservatives for your consideration and response:
Contrary to many of my postings, I'm really not an ideologue. When it comes to the benefits of small government vs. big government, lower taxes vs. higher taxes, etc. I really don't stand on principle. If someone could show me the free market works, I don't have a moral stance against it. If someone can show me how letting the rich pay less taxes benefits the country, I'm game. If someone can show me massive government spending in a recession works, I don't have a moral stance for or against that either.
There are just going to be some people, however, I disagree with on basic issues. I think of everyone as being a Venn diagram, politically, to some extent. So, for instance, the areas where I agree with fundamentalist Christians is very limited. Some areas exist, to be sure, but not many. Fiscally conservative, but socially liberal Republicans, probably a good deal of overlap.
But what I'm interested in finding out when people disagree with me politically is where we might find agreement. In other words, are they differences in core beliefs? Or differences in methodology/ideology? What you see me responding to on my posts is Fox News and out and out ugliness from politicians like Sarah Palin, who, I admittedly detest.
So, for instance, there are some things I believe in very strongly:
I believe in protecting the environment and all that entails -- clean air & water, saving species and ecosystems, converting to renewable energy.
I believe in protecting freedom of speech.
I believe the government should help those in need and a civilized country doesn't let its citizens suffer.
I believe those without power and money should be given a voice and protected.
I believe consumers should be protected from bad and fraudulent practices, products, etc.
I believe a woman should have the final say on what happens with her pregnancy, not the government.
I believe organized religion has no place in public policy.
I believe people of all races, creeds, and sexual orientation should have all the same rights as everybody else.
And I value honesty, intellectual curiosity, and critical thinking if an when I can find it in a politician.
There's probably a ton I'm leaving out, but you get the idea.
As for the means of achieving these goals, I really don't stand on principle. For me, though, historically, the Republican party has opposed these ideals. And currently is moving farther and farther to the right in their stances.
So, I'm curious. Do you disagree with the above things I mentioned and their ilk? If not, where do we overlap? What are the things that define your political views?
Just to re-emphasize, I'm not interested in arguing. I'm interested in understanding.
Maybe this is all to exhausting -- that was my first reaction to be sure. But maybe you want to help me respond? Just take one point -- a conservative response to the environment, religion in public life, etc. -- and put forward your best argument. And remember the goal here is persuading a friend, not scoring points. I bragged about the Ricochet COC, He's watching.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Well, in the interest of comity, I would tell him that I, as a conservative, also detest Sarah Palin, though probably not for entirely the same reasons he does.
The only thing I disagree with him about is that I think we've done an enormous amount already to protect the environment and that much of what the environmental movement is now pushing for is more about Socialism than environmentalism.
May '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Trace,
Does your liberal friend say why he believes those things are noble social objectives? He argues that he does not really stand on principle, but I believe its usually the case that people stand upon certain principles at least implicitly. Many liberals believe in the principles of positive rights, which sanction the use of force to secure freedom from material want. I guarantee that your friend deduces the morality of those objectives ultimately from one common premise.
Jun '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I believe people of all races, creeds, and sexual orientation should have all the same rights as everybody else.
Absolutely with you, Trace's Friend. I believe that everyone has the right to be hired, promoted, matriculated, or elected based solely on performance and ability.
I believe those without power and money should be given a voice and protected
If you mean spoken for and patronized I have a problem. The most desparate of the poor are represented in public forums and halls of power by individuals who do well for themselves but perpetuate the powerlessness and poverty of their constituents. For example, I would listen to the voice of the poor mother demanding a decent education for her child and encourage her to support breaking the teacher's union monopoly, vouchers, and charter schools. This would require her to reject the political establishment that governs where she lives, vastly increasing her power to effect change in her child's education
Edited on Dec 7, 2010 at 4:03amSep '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Dear Trace's Friend,
You have outlined noble sentiments, but they don't seem to be ordered in any kind of hierarchy towards ends or goals, along with means to achieve them. You've stated several principles for example (on abortion, religion in the public square, etc) but stated them as axioms or irreducible first principles. Each one of them would make for a fascinating discussion. Some are economic, some political. Where would you like to begin?
Sep '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
They are differences in core beliefs and worldviews. Because of that there is naturally a disagreement in methodology. I recommend the book A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell for anyone who truly wishes to understand this phenomenon.
I can't condense Sowells writings, but essentially it is how man is perceived. Do we accept man as he is, or do we engage in structuring a civilization to improve man, that is, do we reject man as he is? Naturally one would say that we must always try to improve ourselves, yet how much coercion must be applied to do so, and most importantly, by whom is it applied and how? For me this is the crux. If man needs improving, (and there are certainly good arguments for this), some men, (who admittedly need improving) are the ones charged with the task, a fatal flaw.
In short, one side wants a government that simply allows for mans flaws and limits them, the other side wants a government that somehow improves society itself.
I believe governments are incapable of making fundamental changes to society without severe coercion and even then it ultimately fails.
Aug '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I very much believe in good stewardship of our environment, too. Where we differ is in how this is best achieved. Are regulations really the most effective way to serve the environment, or are their good intentions too often spoiled by unintended consequences?
Does it not bother you, for example, that the Endangered Species Act is documented to cause "pre-emptive habitat destruction" as it penalizes people rather than rewarding them for having species-friendly habitats on their property? Now, you might say (and I'd agree) that pre-emptive habitat destruction is wrong, that it's an abuse of the intention of the ESA, but we cannot stop people from behaving in ways other than we intended simply by wishing it, especially when we give them incentive to do so.
I would rather the government offered a bounty to those whose property was a habitat for endangered species.
Given enough space, I could cite plenty of reasons for why I believe more well-defined property rights, freedom, and prosperity are better for the environment than mere regulation, however well-intended.
(cont...)
Aug '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
One of the main environmental purposes of well-defined property rights is to avert or mitigate tragedies of the commons.
Well-defined property rights include much more than we may at first imagine: they include the right to enjoy the visiting species, lack of pollution, neighborhood and view, etc, that your property came with. Thus they include the right for you to take action against your neighbor's environmental destruction of those aspects of your property, and by extension, for your neighbors to take action against the environmental destruction you do to their aspects (and remember, aspects of property extend far, far beyond what most of us typically imagine). Anglo-American common law provides for this. Why do we not make better use of this legal tradition? Because at some point, we decided to regulate instead.
Now, there are cases where the rights violated by environmental destruction are too diffuse to be defended of themselves. In these cases, a Pigovian tax may be appropriate, to make people pay for the negative externalities they inflict on others.
Overall, I believe property rights and judicious "pollution taxes" provide better incentives against environmental destruction as well as fewer unintended consequences than regulation does.
Aug '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" is excellent and also balanced. It's not a book where Sowell takes sides; rather, he explains how a fundamental difference in the pre-cognitive perception of how the world works causes people to disagree in the patterns that they do, and how it often results in the two sides of an issue talking past each other.
Until this difference in perception of the world is acknowledged, it tends to seem as if "the other side" has goals opposite from what we want -- that if "we" want peace, prosperity, and freedom, "they" must want pretty much the opposite, because what they want to do is so different from what we would do.
But once you acknowledge the differences in worldview, you realize that both sides usually want the same thing -- they just have radically different perceptions about what is the most effective way to achieve that thing, given the constraints on human nature.
You cannot understand "the other side" without learning this lesson.
Sep '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Trace,
May I make a suggestion that may help move this along more quickly? Since your friend has given us a list of sentiments that are open to extensive debate, I sense that he/she needs something to push up against or argue with. Something written by a conservative. Many people have mentioned Thomas Sowell's book but I find that Kenneth Minogue's The Liberal Mind (written in the 60's and available in a beautifual edition from Liberty Fund Inc) may be more effective in getting the juices flowing by giving a less than 200 page snapshot of what is most troubling about "The Liberal Mind".
Their choice, but I am interested in the outcome. Let us know either way.
Aug '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I would also recommend Sowell's "Knowledge and Decisions", particularly the first half. Much of politics -- much of life, in fact -- is about making the best possible decision we can given our practical constraints.
But how is this achieved? How do we gather the information? How do the costs of gathering information influence us?
The first half of the book is technical and apolitical. In the second half, Sowell gives his opinion as to why the decision-making process works better when the political process is done "his way". So the second half is polemic (good polemic, I think, but still polemic).
That said, even if you disagreed with every single one of Sowell's opinions in the second half of the book, you'd still come away from the book with the lessons of the first half: how to think systematically about using knowledge to make decisions.
Aug '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I'd also recommend "Capitalism and Freedom" to anyone seriously asking about whether capitalism works. It is short, so can't answer every question or satisfy all misgivings, but it is a good place to start.
If it seems cruel to ask a liberal to read so many "conservative classics", when nearly all of us would acknowledge that wading through something written by "the other side" can be unpleasant -- tedious, confusing, upsetting... I can only reply:
If you're as serious as you think you are about engaging "the other side's ideas", then the evidence of that seriousness is a willingness to sacrifice your time and perhaps even your comfort to engage the best of what "the other side" has to offer.
Most all of us make throwaway observations and remarks about "the other side" -- it helps jolly us along in life -- but that is not the same as serious engagement.
Jul '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I really don't stand on principle.
Yes, you do. You believe the government holds power over the individual.
If someone could show me the free market works, I don't have a moral stance against it.
Read the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Then read the Wealth of Nations. In those, you will find moral arguments for the free market.
If someone can show me how letting the rich pay less taxes benefits the country, I'm game.
Now here's a reasonable statement. Define rich. I would say: how much of a role do you think envy (certainly a moral sentiment) should play in politics?
If someone can show me massive government spending in a recession works, I don't have a moral stance for or against that either.
I'd hate to be wearing these glasses where I see that burdening future generations with debt has no moral turpitude.
Fiscally conservative, but socially liberal Republicans, probably a good deal of overlap.
Ah, the jackalope that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. How to spend on Social Security without fiscal restraint?
(continued)
Edited on Dec 7, 2010 at 9:23amJul '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I believe in protecting freedom of speech.
Good. Because that is in the Constitution.
I believe the government should help those in need and a civilized country doesn't let its citizens suffer.
I have to quote the great P.J. O'Rourke here:
Salvation is an individual matter. There are no group discounts in the Ten Commandments, Christ was not a committee, and Allah does not welcome believers into Paradise saying, "You weren't much good yourself, but you were standing near some good people." That we are individuals-unique, disparate and willful-is something we understand instinctively from an early age. No child ever wrote to Santa: "Bring me-and a bunch of kids I've never met a pony, and we'll share."
Virtue is famously lonely. Also vice, as anyone can testify who ever told his mother, "All the other guys were doing it." We experience pleasure separately; Ethan Hawke may go out on any number of wild dates, but I'm able to sleep through them. And, although we may be sorry for people who suffer, we only "feel their pain" when we're full of baloney and running for office.
(continued)
Jul '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I believe consumers should be protected from bad and fraudulent practices, products, etc.
How is this a role of government? What about Consumer Reports?
I believe a woman should have the final say on what happens with her pregnancy, not the government.
No moral arguments here. Let's argue biology.
Wait, let's not: you're wrong.
I believe organized religion has no place in public policy.
You're working on Christmas?
I believe people of all races, creeds, and sexual orientation should have all the same rights as everybody else.
Depends on your definition of rights.
And I value honesty, intellectual curiosity, and critical thinking if an when I can find it in a politician.
Good luck.
Edited on Dec 7, 2010 at 9:22amMay '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
This statement "I believe in protecting the environment and all that entails -- clean air & water, saving species and ecosystems, converting to renewable energy" presupposes certain assumptions. Midge has already addressed the differential methodologies wherein markets often do a better job than regulators, and Gregg Easterbrook has covered the issues of rational regulation (so has Bjorn Lomborg, of course).
But this statement is a transgenic breed. First, it mixes goals (clean air & water, saving species) with solutions (renewable energy). Second, it assumes that the "green" (government coercive) solution provides per se more effective outcomes, when the data do not really support that- for example, check out the elephant ivory as personal property solutiomns vs poaching prohibitions, or the fishing rights scenarios.
Third, and most problematic- it assumes that a) all species are of equal value (the "deep ecology" religious view), and b) that there are no essential tradeoffs required to balance the solutions. All of life and all of economic distribution requires realistically trading off; the real world question is the best way to handle it.
May '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Government is essentially a practice of ethics. One derives from one's perception of the world (religion) general principles of how we should respond to that reality (morals). Ethics is about applying those general principles to specific circumstances. It is literally impossible to divorce religion and government, because one informs the other. Only the institutions must be separate. America became great without secularism.
Regarding abortion, an adult chimpanzee has more intellect and self-awareness than a year-old child. What criteria does your friend use to determine the point at which the being within the mother's womb is a human person with a natural right not to be killed? In what other circumstance is it acceptable for a person to kill an innocent to avoid personal hardship or even pain?
Nearly everyone believes that censorship is merited in some cases. The Left and Right only disagree on what should be censored and how. Would your friend do away with slander/libel laws? Would he forbid hate speech? Is it acceptable to say anything to kindergarteners? Should this be legal?
Asking the right questions is crucial. Your friend needs more help with questions than answers, I think.
Aug '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Duane Oyen:
...this statement is a transgenic breed. First, it mixes goals (clean air & water, saving species) with solutions (renewable energy).
True. We often package certain ideas together "for the sake of convenience", and there's nothing wrong with that in itself. But if you're looking to understand, it's better to tease the ideas apart, so that you're not just assuming ideas make sense together just because you've always seen 'em together.
I'm not sure the statement explicitly assumed that, but it's a good bet the assumption was implicit. If Trace's friend wants to understand us, perhaps the first place to start is with why we feel coercive solutions are not per se more effective outcomes.
Yes. If you don't get why trade-offs are inescapable, then conservative attitudes seem bizarre and cruel. Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist" is a good starting place.
Lomborg considers himself a leftist, BTW.
Jun '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
Trace, why not give your friend a Ricochet membership for Christ's Birthday and let him join the conversation -- this boxing with shadows doesn't work I ,for one, thought the Major Don dialog was useful.
May '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
I hear you Pilgrim. I'm going to fetch responses and post but will require some pacing as he is not accustomed to devoting 4 hours per day to Ricochet. Pretty sure I'm not going to get him to read Midge's excellent list of books either. But I get that it's a little free-range. That's part of why I called for back-up. But will make it interactive -- just give me some time. Also hoping Ed. might move to the Big Board so he can see it. (Member posts just for members.)
Jun '10
Re: A Letter from a Liberal Friend
The government's job, federal and state, is to build and maintain public infrastructure, where necessary, to protect me from invading armies, to protect me from crime, from fire, and to provide a civil and criminal justice system to enforce our laws and our Constitution. Anything government does beyond that, they should consider a temporary assignment. It's something more properly done privately. And if government didn't take so much of our money, we, the citizens of this nation would have the money necessary to do efficiently all the extra things that government does inefficiently. First they rob us, and then they say, "we'll do all these things, because you don't have the money."