Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Conservatism Simply Another Word for Humility?
I wrote a post a few days ago attempting to make the point that the oppressive regulations which face American citizens today have no apparent purpose other than to remind us that government is everywhere, and is an absolute authority; much as rituals remind us of the importance of religion. Then a commenter made a great point, and turned my reasoning on its head. Anybody who can explain the following conundrum, please enlighten me in the comments.
I was trying to point out that by tolerating and engaging in these rituals (filling out forms and following regulations – each one of which is probably not that big a deal), we are being constantly reminded of the importance of government, and therefore the power of progressivism. These little things add up to a big message.
This overbearing regulatory environment is sometimes a point of agreement between conservatives and progressives – nobody likes being told what to do. Most of us agree that it is ok up to a point, so many will argue that we are simply disagreeing over a matter of degrees. But one of the comments on my post made me stop and think.
@OmegaPaladin, in a thoughtful and well-written comment, first made the obligatory concession that our regulatory environment is silly: “We are obviously over-regulated…” Ok, fine. But then he (or she – I’m not sure of his/her sex – sorry) made the case that we really need a fairly powerful and far-reaching regulatory system – a reasonable point of view, although one with which I disagree. He concluded with this concise summary of his viewpoint: “We need regulations because there are people who are evil and will kill people out of laziness or greed.” OmegaPaladin, if you are reading this and if I have misrepresented your point of view, please correct me.
Anyway, his disagreement didn’t surprise me – this is a complicated topic, and reasonable people can disagree in good faith on many aspects of this issue. What surprised me was his reasoning.
My viewpoint, and the viewpoint of many conservatives, is that humans are flawed creatures, and thus cannot be trusted with power. The most effective defense against this is the dilution of power. On the other hand, many progressives believe that humans are flawed creatures, and thus may “kill people out of laziness or greed.” The best defense against this is centralization of power.
I was not surprised with his disagreement – I expected that. What I did not expect was his reasoning.
So a progressive says that humans are flawed, and require powerful government to control them. A conservative might wonder who that progressive intends to put in charge of this powerful government. Since humans are flawed, who could be trusted with such authority over others? The obvious answer, I suppose, is progressives. I suspect that progressives would say that progressives make good and trustworthy leaders because they:
- Care more about society at large than themselves – social mindedness
- Lack the profit motive, thus act on others’ behalf more dependably
- Are more intellectually curious and open-minded than conservatives
- Care about everyone of all races, ethnicities, religions, etc.; while conservatives are mean
- I could go on, but you get the idea…
A conservative might point out that if these criteria are not met consistently, then a powerful centralized government goes from benevolent to dangerous very quickly. A conservative might also look through history to see how often such wise and benevolent people have not only achieved absolute power, but also did a good job using it. A conservative might point out that an open-minded liberal is a rare beast indeed. A conservative might also point out that individual liberty and free markets are historically much better at squelching discrimination that a powerful government. A leader may hate a certain group, but a storekeeper will not turn away business. A conservative might – well, most likely, he’ll hear the progressive reasoning from the previous paragraph, chuckle, shake his head, and walk away.
Even as a freshman in a college philosophy course, I thought that Plato’s Republic was satire. “People will be happy and content under the absolute authority of kings? And who does this out-of-touch philosopher think would make the best kings? Philosopher-kings? Come on – is he serious?”
My point is that while both conservatives and progressives take a dim view of human nature, their different approaches to dealing with it might be because conservatives are also skeptical about their own human nature. They don’t trust themselves in positions of power any more than anyone else. While progressives believe that if we can just find the right leader (someone like them) and put him in a position of authority, then everything will be ok.
Perhaps that is the true definition of conservatism. I used to think that conservatives just believed in basic human rights, individual liberty, and constrained government. But progressives would agree with much of that. So perhaps the best description of conservatism is simply humility.
You are not perfect, and you should not be trusted with power. And neither should I.
Published in General
I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
This is a very good point, but I don’t know that I’d go so far to say that conservatism and humility are synonymous. Maybe you should ask James Taranto if he thinks of himself as a humble person. His politics may be an exercise in humility, but if so, I’ll bet he thinks he’s pretty smart for having figured that out.
Not on Ricochet.
The conservative approach to human knowledge I suppose is innately humble in that we must acknowledge, along with Burke and others, that our reason is limited, that much human knowledge is embedded in institutions, mores, habits, prejudices that we may or may not understand. And with Hayek that the information we would need to centrally control, manage or regulate our gargantuan economy, is beyond our reach and always will be. Yet individual conservatives may be quite devoid of personal humility. On the other hand, the hubris of the left is a thing to behold. They confidently dismisses the accumulated knowledge, and wisdom contained in the bank of knowledge of nations and of ages, and believe the world so simple and manageable that they, being intellectually and morally superior can confidently manage the infinitely complex world of human community, climate, the Smith/Darwin/Hayek processes of emergent systems and the moral and spiritual world brought to us in man’s religions.
As years ago, Milton Friedman asked Phil Donahue (and I’m paraphrasing from memory): Where are these angels that would do all these good things?
Donahue had no answer.
Absolutely brilliant point.
Your entire comment is brilliant. It sounds silly, but I don’t think I understand the root of what separates conservatives from progressives. It must be huge, but I can’t see it. Thanks for your well thought out comment.
Nailed it. Scary isn’t it?
@OmegaPaladin, Response was typical liberal claptrap. He is confusing more than one issue into one question to purposeful confuse the issue. One its based on the arrogant supposition just because a Conservative does not want a lot of pointless regulations that don’t significantly reduce what they are supposed to stop, that they somehow don’t want any regulation. We are not libertarian anarchist. We just believe in well established experience based regulations, that is what the freaking bill of rights is. Many self-professed well know libertarians actually believe in Environmental law at the federal level because of externalities, it does mean they think the current laws work.
Secondly, he is arguing for a theocracy based on an incoherent every changing morality of progressive morality. There is no single religious text, body of work, nor self-professed or appointed religious leaders that determines what is progressive moral thought. Law is written so its consistent and not changing, judo-christian morality is fairly static and not changing and somewhat black and white. Were as a morality which never is in the same place because its based on feelings or the idea humans are “evolving” destroys the very foundation of what modern law is (aka Progressive morality). We merely go back to the old days were the word of the king was law. The word could and was always conveniently changing from circumstance to circumstance and from person to person.
This going into a third point many Christians argue but many even good Conservatives arrogantly dismiss. Then who is to define what is morality/ good and bad. If your argument is humans are evil and then you must define what is evil behavior in a fairly coherent way. Who is to say that if greed is bad then what is greed. If greed is bad then get ride of money because money is bad also. That is what the communist thought on greed is. It was all based on their own interpretation and idea of what evil is. At lest Christians, Jews and most major religious base their morality on old time proven text. So if you believe humans are evil then the law needs to at lest be loosely based on some religion’s fairly consent and static morality.
So yes an accurate understand that humans are evil is good. However conservative thought also believe that humans in power default position is to even more evil, therefore there need’s to be checks on that power and law to make executing that power more difficult. That is limiting when and how that power can be used so when it used for tyranny and evil is limited in it destruction or others can check that power. On the other hand you have a foundational evil in progressive thought, its that they don’t believe in any check’s and limitations on power. That is they believe they are a God themselves which really is all OmegaPaldin is arguing for, God Kings.
Granting (for the moment) that all Progressives are noble and good people who can be trusted to act in others’ best interests ….
How can we protect ourselves from the False-Progressives who have perfected a Progressive personna because they are attracted to the power for their own nefarious interests? Once in the Progressive seat of total-power, what can be done? cf: Chavez, Castro, etc.
@brianclendinen
Did you read the thread I was posting in? People there were stating that we need to get rid of all of the regulations. That was the specific point I was arguing against. I don’t mind people saying we need to reduce regulation – I mentioned losing 10% of them, selected completely at random, would not really harm us. We should probably remove the majority of them – I came up with a decent list off the top of my head while taking an Uber home.
How am I advocating a theocracy on progressive morality? I would be killed by such a theocracy. I specifically denounced the idea of regulating recklessly, comparing it to an eye doctor cutting out eyes willy-nilly.
I think a natural law basis would work well – the principles of morality that we can’t not know. I would also think Judeo-Christian morality would make a solid ground for legal discussion – it was certainly the legal atmosphere of the Founding Fathers. I do not think that you need be a Christian to recognize the fallen nature of mankind – people seem intent on demonstrating it again and again.
Being a God-King sounds awfully tempting, but I don’t think that is what I was arguing for. I might be the only way to get rid of some of these regulations. (Ethanol, I’m looking at you)
@drbastiat (I am a man, FYI)
I am a progressive? This is a most surprising diagnosis. I voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every election until this one (wrote in my father since I’m in a deep blue state), and have considered myself a conservative since 2001, as I wanted to see Islamic Supremacism get blown to hell. You are welcome to search my Ricochet writings and potentially offer a second opinion.
My fundamental viewpoint is that the second duty of government (after defending people from enemies foreign and domestic) is to establish the Rule of Law. This is more fundamental than even democratic governance. This means that certain acts are declared illegal, and the government will enforce this prohibition. We need this because we are fallen people – perfect people would need no laws. The law helps keep the honest man honest, and keeps the wicked man in check. Regulations are an extension of this.
Take a regulation requiring that a medication’s ingredients are accurately disclosed on the label. This prevents the wicked man from offering watered down medicine, and allows the consumer and physician to make judgements on the suitability of the medication (could it cause an allergic reaction?)
I don’t presume that I am a more moral being than most people, though I concede that most progressive believe this. They are almost always wrong. I will go into that more in my next comment below
The end state of progressive ideology is North Korea, where in the words of the late Christopher Hitchens: “Everything not forbidden is mandatory”
No human or bureaucracy can rule such a society without creating a hellish tyranny. The only way to make such a society work is to change the people, ala Brave New World, but that would trade our souls for happiness. People keep on killing people by the millions in the name of a utopia that never arrives, because we can’t make a world without evil. Laws and Regulations can only contain this evil, not eliminate it, and they must always be diligently crafted and applied in order not to become evil.
Regulators and associated academics often tend to invoke the Precautionary Principle in response to safety concerns. I think that we should apply a Regulatory Precautionary Principle, or a presumption against regulation. Regulation should be the last resort or close to it. You need to keep the hidden consequences of your regulations in mind, since you are not omniscient, no matter your good intentions.
The DEA, for example, has a valid interest in controlling access to narcotics. That does not excuse the incredible ocean of red tape they require. I am near-certain that they could accomplish their goal with fewer, better designed regulations.
I don’t know if humility is the fundamental component of conservatism, but even an aspiring Caesar needs to hear “Remember, thou art mortal.”
That’s an easy one. Me. And who are you to tell me I don’t have a monopoly on the truth?
You are incorrect in this assertion. I know this because I define morality. And I am I.
OmegaPaladin: My apologies. I intended to say that your post, which at least partially defended the regulatory state, was representative of much progressive thought on the matter. I did not intend to imply that you yourself were progressive. I did my best to represent your argument fairly. But in describing part of your argument as progressive, I should have been more clear that I had no idea if you were progressive or not.
It was not my intention to summarize your point of view on politics in general. I was referring only to your post. I apologize for the confusion.
Thanks again for your thoughts – I appreciate you taking the time to share them. I look forward to reading more of your work over time…
@drbastiat
Thank you, I just wanted to make things clear.
One thing that I ardently advocate for is the separation of rule-making and enforcement. All rule-making bodies should report to Congress, not the executive branch. I think our current regulatory culture is incredibly dysfunctional.