A friend once asked me, "What's the difference between a conservative and liberal?" Aren't they just stereotypes? Arbitrary labels? I didn't have a clear response but after thinking about it, now I do. Thus, this post.
The key difference is that at the heart of it, liberals are fundamentally pessimistic while conservatives are fundamentally optimistic.
Bear with me...
Today, conservatives have a reputation of being naysayers, dour old cranks, pessimistic xenophobes who cling to guns and their religious superstitions. Liberals on the other hand have gotten aboard the "Change we can Believe in" bandwagon, the hopey-changey stuff. In some ways, the Tea Party has only served to cement the reputation of conservatives as a bunch of angry white men, anxious to return to the 80s or 50s.
To some extent this is true. By definition, conservatives want to conserve the status quo, to return to the old ways, to preserve values and morality. Liberals are progressives who believe that change is always good. That the old is not worth keeping. Sadly, this has equated to conservatives being seen as pessimistic: "I don't know what this country is coming to". While liberals are seen as optimistic, "Things will get better. Just take a look at my new iPad!".
It's time to change that. Enough with the Goldwater conservatives. We need Reagan conservatives. We need to recognize that in reality, conservatives are the optimists. Let me explain.
Liberals believe a person is a victim of his circumstances and environment. If you were born into a different culture, what would happen? Everything is genes and environment. You, in essence, have no control of your destiny. After all, you may be a hard-working student in the DC suburbs but if you'd been born in the Bronx, you might be in prison right now. It's the luck of the draw.
This means that to a large extent, a person isn't responsible for his actions. Bin Laden became a terrorist because we violated Islamic law. People commit crimes because they were traumatized. It is a culture of gun violence that caused Timmy to shoot somebody. Therefore, ban guns. Instead of incarcerating murderers, send them to a shrink. Instead of invading Iraq, work on better relations with Muslims. Invite the imams to the prayer breakfasts. And so on.
The conservative however, believes that a person is responsible for his actions. That anyone can come up if he works hard enough. That no matter who you are, what you've been through, what's outside your window, you can succeed. Thus if you fail, you are responsible.
What does this mean politically? We believe America is the land of equality. Liberals believe that America is the land of equality too. Equality of Results. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. In other words, everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed. Liberals believe that equality means everyone should have the same standard of living. Why do you think socialism appeals to liberals? Why do you think Obama speaks out against the enormous disparity between millionaires and the middle class. Why do you think conservatives defend the right of the rich to be rich? It's not because Republicans are in the pocket of the special interests and big business. It's because, fundamentally, Republicans believe that by hard work, anyone can come up and that they are entitled to the fruits of their labor. If you are uneducated, it is your fault. The liberal sees that situation and says "Ah, it is the product of harsh environment, the culture around him, the media, etc."
That's why liberals believe in affirmative action - to remedy the bad environment that people are born with. That's why conservatives believe in flat taxes.
What we need to recognize is that the liberal attitude sells a person short. It makes you a victim, a reed in the wind of your environment. It is fundamentally pessimistic about your own inner strength. Conservatives are fundamentally optimistic. They believe that if you work hard, you can come up. That America is worth preserving because it is the land of opportunity.
Now, here's the caveat: I'm not denying that there are people held back by their circumstances. And I disagree with Republicans who have no compassion on those living in harsh circumstances within our midst. But it makes no sense for the government to help them. That's charity's job. That's the church's job. They can do it much better than the government. That's why I'm doing everything I can to help these people - not by asking the government to take from a millionaire and give some back to the poor. But by personally going out and helping.
Dinesh D'Souza writes about this in "Letters to a Young Conservative". He uses this analogy: If I'm walking down the street and a guy comes up to me and sticks me up and takes my money, because he needs money for a sandwich. I'd say that's robbery. But what if the guy comes up with a scheme. He comes up and he says, "Here's the deal. You have more money than me so you are required to share with me. I will sue you if you don't give me half of your money in order to be fair." What happens? He gets some money (after paying court fees) and I feel poorer and have less happiness. But what if I just go up to him and say "Here, take this money." Now everybody is happy and there is no middleman.
This optimism was Reagan's message. That it's morning in America. That you can carve out a great life for yourself. Without the government's interference. Obama's message was: Hope. You can't get it on your own so let the government be your Messiah. Let me save you. Give you healthcare, economic welfare, cure the disparities. Make life "fair" for you. Let me remedy the problems you were born with.
That's why I like guys like Marco Rubio. Mike Huckabee. Paul Ryan. Bobby Jindal. I don't see any presidential candidates who really represent Reagan's philosophy.
What do you guys think?
As requested, I copied my comment here (so you could get more pageviews, of course ;) ).
ReplyDeleteFirst, I agree with most of your latest post, but I'm not sure about the "liberals are fundamentally pessimistic" idea. I know they don't see themselves that way and it doesn't necessarily cause them to do or say pessimistic things. Liberal economic and socialist ideas may be called "lazy", but pessimism is expecting the worst. Conservatives expect the worst of many liberal positions, but I don't think that makes the positions themselves pessimistic.
Now, you responded to this on the HSD forum, specifying that you meant liberal thought was pessimistic because it gave up control to the government. This is quite an over-exaggeration, in my opinion. As our system currently is, many poor can live relatively comfortable lives while not striving to improve themselves. That is my main probably with socialism. But they still "control their destiny" and can improve their lives.
Now, take the idea of sharing the wealth to a greater extreme and consider Soviet Russia. Certainly, the poor lifestyle of most Russians then was depressing, and there was often little chance to improve themselves. But it was still possible (for example, working your way up the bureaucratic ranks in the government). So you can't really say that socialism/communism is absolutely "pessimistic".
And maybe "fatalism" might be a better choice of wording. "Pessimism" is expecting the worst, not giving up control of your destiny and ability to improve yourself.
Second, you quickly mentioned flat tax. Do you believe a flat tax is better than a progressive tax? The usual counterargument goes along the lines of "a 10%/20%/etc. flat tax would hurt the poor and middle class more than the rich", because that percent of income given to the government is more needed by the poor than even the larger portion given by the rich.
This doesn't quite seem fair. It may encourage someone to "get richer", but would only make it more difficult if that person starts poor.
I really enjoyed the post, though I'm with Jeremy on the "pessimism vs optimism" thing; like he said, pessimism is more about always looking at the dark side, and liberals aren't necessarily pessimists any more than conservatives are necessarily optimists.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with you on bringing back Reaganite politicians, but I totally agree on the main point of the post. :)
@JeremyB and Veronica. Thanks for your comments! Well, the idea is that basically, liberalism is pessimistic about the human nature. The idea that you aren't in control of your life is pessimistic. I agree though that fatalism may be a better choice.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I'm being a little facetious to spark discussion.
I do think that liberals are pessimistic about people's ability to regulate themselves, our ability to take care of the earth, our ability to educate ourselves, etc. Socialism is the rejection of individualism if you think about it.
@Jeremy: I do think that a flat tax would be better.
@Veronica, why do you think we should not bring back Reaganite politicians? Considering his school of thought was very successful?
ReplyDeleteI'm all for politicians who emphasize that America is a land for opportunity and the Republican Party is that of freedom. Freedom to better yourself, to take hold of that opportunity.
"I do think that liberals are pessimistic about people's ability to regulate themselves, our ability to take care of the earth, our ability to educate ourselves, etc."
ReplyDeleteLike Christians are pessimistic about the whole fallen world. :P
"I do think that a flat tax would be better."
I think a slightly progressive system would be the best, with more cuts for the poorer someone is up to a flat rate.
No question Christians are pessimistic about the fallen world. That's why conservatives believe in consequences for actions. But we also believe in redemption, grace, and salvation. That anyone can get a second chance. That anyone can better himself with God's help and his own sweat.
ReplyDeleteI think I actually favored a slightly progressive system if you check the thread on HSD.
It is precisely that Conservatives have a pessemistic view of human nature, that distinguishes us from the Liberals. We realize that governments need to be limited because people are wicked, and so, concentrating power in any one source is not a good plan. Liberals by contrast think everyone is basically good, and are therefore okay with programs that are easily taken advantage of, but "help" the poor, on the assumption that the poor will never exploit loopholes.
ReplyDeleteAs a liberal myself I thought I would throw in my $0.02 about what I believe. I do not believe that people have no responsibility in their actions and I believe a lot of people would agree with me on this. I do believe, however, that the environment someone grows up in plays a huge role in shaping who they are and what their values are. If I had grown in up in the Bronx or even if I had just gone to public school instead of being homeschooled, I would be a fundamentally different person than I am today, I do not think that, if someone is a murderer, they should get off because it wasn't their fault. Obviously what they did was wrong and they should be punished, but I think we, as a society, need to be looking into the reasons why people commit these crimes. There is a reason that more crimes are committed in poor neighborhoods and it has a lot to do with the environment they grew up in.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to income inequality my opinion, and the opinion of my few liberal friends, is that the problem is not that there are rich people, because obviously some people will be better off than others. The problem happens when people are significantly richer by exploiting the system and the people who have less money than them. I also believe that, if you are well off, you have a duty to help those who are worse off then you. We were called to do this in the Bible even if we are not well off, but I see no excuse for the millionaires and billionaires of this world to not help those who are less fortunate.
Finally, when it comes to welfare, I don't think liberals believe that no people will exploit the loopholes in the system. Instead, at least I believe, that it is worth the risks of being exploited to help those who need help. Obviously there are always people who are going to be taking advantage of the system, but it is not fair to all the people who legitimately need the help to deny it to them just because some people choose to do the wrong thing.