conservative (adjective): disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change
That will be the working definition I use for conservative for this post. Often there is a confusion, and I am certainly guilty of carelessly contributing to the problem, because too often “conservative” is used as a synonym for views of one particular political party (usually American Republicans, though individuals manage to twist it into a plethora of other species).
Basically, saying someone is “conservative” is not so much a laundry list of issue-by-issue stances as much as it is a statement of attitude or overall intent. For example, I am a pro-choice conservative, because I don’t want things to change in the abortion department (at least from how things were when I was growing up… I think we should undo the thoughtless progressive regulations placed on abortion by “conservatives” of late).
Of course, it is also conservative to want to return to 1950’s conditions, when abortion was banned… or actually just driven underground and made more dangerous for the mother. Plenty of abortion happened, you just had more women dying from it. Wanting a return to that tradition (you know, “the good ole days”) is also conservative.
Conservatism is sort of all about perspective, and they say yesterday’s liberal is tomorrow’s conservative… though since so little is actually changing, I can’t imagine today’s liberals growing up and needing to defend any of their policies, since they’ll still be fighting to have them passed into law (well… not fighting, but asking politely and then being shocked when dismissed).
For me, conservatism has its roots in religion. Religion says that certain rules came down to us from gods, that these rules are perfect and unchanging. This is the ultimate conservatism, even given the fact that people manage to interpret the same religion a thousand different ways (this is largely a function of the imperfect nature of religion, which is as flawed as anything else man has ever created).
To me, conservatism only makes sense if you firmly believe that everything we have now or at some point in the past was perfect. Conservatism only makes sense if you don’t believe progress is possible.
One thing I pick up very quickly when talking to conservatives is that they don’t seem stupid or ignorant, they just seem like enormous pussies. We’re talking huge, gigantic, you-could-drive-their-SUV-through-it pussies. Conservatives are so unbelievably bland, boring and utterly afraid of risk. I’m surprised they risk opening the front door in the morning.
This comes through a lot in their media and rhetoric. Fear is a major driving factor. Fear of X means we have to take your freedoms for a bit, but don’t worry, you’ll feel safer. But the biggest fear of conservatives has a name: change.
Caveat: While I don’t have to define what change is here, I should point out I mean real change, not campaign slogans from the other conservative party, the Democrats.
For example, let’s look at gay marriage. The argument against gay marriage, once religion is stripped away, essentially boils down to “if it ain’t broken for me, don’t fix it.” The system is working for all of these straight people, so why should we risk screwing up a good thing and allowing fags and dykes the right to be legally recognized as a couple?
I mean sure, it’s self-centered and incredibly ignorant to think that, but there’s pseudo-reasoning involved here that is important to grasp. Conservatives seem to be acknowledging they’re too dumb to foresee the implications of an action, so since the world isn’t on fire … we must be doing everything right.
I don’t make this assumption based on my thoughts on the matter, but on conversations that invariably lead to this:
“So what possible problem would occur if gay marriage was legalized?”
“Well… I reckon people will want to marry their iPod.”
The old conservative crutch: the slippery slope. You know, because society is just one frivolous law repeal away from complete and utter chaos. My wife says that in Judaism, these rules are called “fences.” Silly little rules are put up and have you flirting with crossing over them, while the real danger is much further away.
But you know what, I’ll bite. Suppose you could marry your iPod, what then? Honestly, what horrible thing will occur if you could marry your iPod? You can already go to facebook, make an account for your iPod, friend it, and then set your status to married. I mean sure, the entire internet would crash and cause planes to fall from the sky… but you can do it.
Suppose planes do fall from the sky, couldn’t we just go back? Sometimes we try something that clearly doesn’t work. Prohibition wasn’t truly the end of legal alcohol sales, and I had to go back almost a century to even come up with an example of something that didn’t work out and had to be undone.
Ultimately, I think conservatives are too afraid too try, except on particular issues. Many conservative women I know support abortion rights. Gay conservatives I’ve talked to all support gay marriage. Atheist conservatives don’t see much need for the Christian litmus test the bulk of the conservative party upholds.
But I have to wonder… are these people really so deluded as to think Republicans as a whole will do anything but dismiss any and all of these nuanced conservative-lite views?
Atheism is itself a fundamental rejection of conservatism. It is no small coincidence that atheism was born out of the same ideology and in the same intellectual circles as modern liberalism. It’s a shame, really, that the conservative media machine has managed to paint Democrats as socialist, because if most conservatives realized how unbelievably Democrat they were, the Republican party would simply die. There’s really very little discernible difference between Dems and Reps economically, though Republicans are the bigger whore when it comes to for corporate and wealthy interests (emphasis on bigger, not only).
Maybe one day Republicans will realize they are just Democrats and the door will open for a new, truly liberal party. You know, a party that actually mentions major issues, like real socialized medicine, dismantling of the military, legalizing narcotics, limiting government’s intrusion on people… you know, the stuff no one is ever mentioning because those would all be changes from the status quo. Shange is what liberalism is: change in the pursuit of progress.
Ultimately, if you’re an atheist and you vote like a conservative, congratulations: you’re voting against your own interests. You are living proof of the flaw in democracy. This is an inevitability when ignorance is not stamped out, especially in a nation where education has been moved to the back seat, then to the trunk, and appears to be poised to be dragged behind the country on a rope.
Honestly, being an Atheist conservative who holds “conservative” views that occasionally flirt with liberalism makes you a Democrat. Voting Republican in that situation would be as foolish as being a liberal and voting Democrat.
And them’s the facts.
The problem with the label "conservative atheist" is the false premise of plotting rationality on a left vs. right continuum. If you want to get a better idea about conservative atheist viewpoints, you might want to read http://www.secularright.org.
ReplyDeleteAn alternate definition of "conservative" is "tending to be moderate or cautious." Many people who call themselves conservatives today are not part of the monolithic Christian Right; they simply advocate caution - in government spending, in relinquishing national sovereignty to international organizations, in immigration policy, in replacing private industry with social programs, etc.
Atheist conservatives tend to support capitalist economics and realist diplomacy, ideas which are more compatible with atheism than with Christianity.
"To me, conservatism only makes sense if you firmly believe that everything we have now or at some point in the past was perfect. Conservatism only makes sense if you don’t believe progress is possible."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The following are true:
Almost every change is a change for the worse.
Every improvement is a change.
It is possible to believe these statements without believing in past perfection.
Leftists tend to pretend only the second is true, rightists tend to pretend only the first is true.
"legalizing narcotics"
Gary Johnson
Matt: I was afraid comments like this would be made... notice I didn't say "right" or "right-wing" in the post. I understand full well that one can hold right-wing views and be an Atheist. But again, there are two right-wing parties in America, one is just a radically liberal right-wing party (namely the Republicans) while the other is a moderate right-wing party (Democrats).
ReplyDeleteAnd no I didn't mix those up. Liberalism means extreme change, and there's no doubt Republicans wish they could change a great deal about America (and they're full of shit if they have anyone thinking their vision even mildly resembles what America ever used to be). Meanwhile, Democrats are who you elect if you want things to stay very much the same (Republicans are who you vote for if you want things to return to how the minds of drug-scorched baby boomers vaguely remember things might have been).
Brian: I just couldn't disagree more with your oversimplification. "Almost every change is a change for the worse" only makes sense if you include every possible change. Sure, legalizing cannibalism is a bad change, so is making public kissing illegal... but those aren't really being proposed, nor are they in the spirit of liberalism (or conservatism, for that matter, except maybe a little on the latter example).
Again, I think you (like Matt) failed to grasp the fact that I was trying to separate conservative/liberal from left/right. I should have made that more clear, as I even managed to have the foresight to see that difficulty, but I was too lazy and probably too quick to post.
I would like to renumerate that most changes are not for the worse if you are only culling possibilities from general political ideologies. The bulk of even sterotypical liberalism is not change for the worse. I think the only way one could hold such a pessimistic view of change would be if one held a sort of hostility for the ones proposing change (as the old so often harbor for the young).
I would also point out (though I know this is not what you said, but I have seen it written elsewhere) that liberals don't see all change as improvement. I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that we haven't had change in a long time, and that it's been long overdue in a great many cases. I think Americans need to stop being pussies and give change a chance... and no, electing a black guy (or more accurately a half-black guy) who changes nothing isn't an acceptable facsimile.
"The bulk of even sterotypical liberalism is not change for the worse."
ReplyDeleteOn pornography, do we listen to the feminists? Are they leftist enough?
On immigration, do we listen to the environmentalists? Are they leftist enough?
On gay rights in Iran (or the right to eat food in North Korea), do we listen to the pacifists? Are they leftist enough?
There is not really a coherent stereotypical liberalism, and that which one could reasonably say exists might barely - barely - be better than the status quo.
It is no where close to optimization of anything, or even a local peak, and its weakness is obliviousness to the notion of unintended consequences.
"I think the only way one could hold such a pessimistic view of change would be if one held a sort of hostility for the ones proposing change (as the old so often harbor for the young)."
I'm impressed that you prefaced that sentence with "I think". Many others would simply have phrased something like that thought as a bare argument from ignorance. You, on the other hand, did not deflect attention from the fact that this is a statement about your imagination more than it is one about reality. I'm sure you recognize the tenuousness of your conclusion.
"...we haven't had change in a long time"
There are important similarities between the effects of changing one society's legal regime and having one society become a different one while maintaining an old legal regime. You perhaps imply too strongly that there are only important differences.
"electing a black guy...who changes nothing isn't an acceptable facsimile"
I generally agree with you that he is a somewhat good Republican, for a politician. Few do. I am therefore very likely to vote for him (even though my vote is worthless because of the electoral college), but this is indicative of a smaller distance between us than there is between us and most other people (who see him differently).
Oy, where to begin...
ReplyDeleteOn pornography, do we listen to the feminists? Are they leftist enough?
Every feminist I ever met owns porn, and I have never even heard anything remotely close to a call for "banning porn" coming from an elected Democrat in my lifetime... close from Republicans, but not Democrats. I think this example is decades too late to be relevant.
On immigration, do we listen to the environmentalists? Are they leftist enough?
I don't even know what the hell this means and I urge you to get tested for syphilis after having read this several times. I guess my response is... there shouldn't even be such a thing as "illegal immigration" because there shouldn't be immigration quotas and waiting lists for entering the country legally. I'm also on board with most environmentalists, and I'm not sure what they have to do with immigration.
On gay rights in Iran (or the right to eat food in North Korea), do we listen to the pacifists? Are they leftist enough?
While I think I get what you're trying to say... I believe you're not understanding that we can't just start a war with someone because of their internal policis. I mean... we have and we probably will in the future, but it's always been a failure and it's generally a bad idea.
I'm impressed that you prefaced that sentence with "I think". Many others would simply have phrased something like that thought as a bare argument from ignorance. You, on the other hand, did not deflect attention from the fact that this is a statement about your imagination more than it is one about reality. I'm sure you recognize the tenuousness of your conclusion.
Yeah... um thanks?
It's one thing to say that out of all possibilities, most change is bad. It's another to then assume that most change suggested by other people is going to be wrong. That's like saying, "Well, out of all numbers, the odds of randomly guessing which is the answer to a math problem is remote. Therefore, asking someone who can do math what they think the answer is will probably ield an inccorect answer." I guess you can have zero faith in your fellow citizens... but I have to wonder why you would bother to stick around if this were the case.
Your guesses as to what I advocate (and/or why I do so) are very, very frequently wrong, and this seems to be related to the particular problem we are discussing here: unintended consequences and humility.
ReplyDeleteThe environmentalist angle has a eugenics aspect too, but I was just referring to the immigration bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club#Population_control_and_immigration.
One of my points is that there isn't always, or even often, a clear liberal position. This is especially true in a political arena in which tradeoffs and tactical self-limiting may be ideal (e.g., in the face of a cost to the country of going without a budget, people can reasonably hold different opinions as to how much they should hold out for in a standoff, even if they agree on *all* matters of what goals are).
I happen to vote in a district represented by one of the most secular and financially corrupt Republicans in the House. My vote will be either for him or whatever brand of crazy the other parties put up...I never know which it will be, but I've never had (noticed, to be fair) a good candidate to even write-in for. You can't tell me the meaning of my voting for the guy or against him, (it's for the religious Rethuglicans! It's for corruption! It's for a less religious republican party! It's against his more religious Democratic opponent! It's for fascism!) - it's a symbolic thing of little importance (hint: in America, the incumbents win).
Back to the point about conclusions...it really lowers your ability to persuade me (you can claim not to care, fine) when you tell me I (am wrong to) think something, when actually I conclude as you do.
"I believe you're not understanding that we can't just start a war with someone because of their internal policis."
You think likely I advocate waging war on Iran and North Korea for their internal politics...wrong.
"...I urge you to get tested for syphilis after having read this several times. I guess my response is... there shouldn't even be such a thing as "illegal immigration" because there shouldn't be immigration quotas and waiting lists for entering the country legally."
So, assuming that means after you read it several times, you think I should get tested for Syphilis (and not that you think I should read it several times and then get tested)...my point was not to take a position on immigration. My point was that there are multiple reasonable positions. I'm not sure how the testing fits in. If it means you infer I hold a strongly anti-immigration position, that's not reasonably true. It is the case that I have only moderate confidence that what you enthusiastically advocate is ideal, so one might (unreasonably) consider my generally left-wing agnosticism too restrictive.
I think it is reasonable for me to guess that for all the times you explicitly and incorrectly express what you think are my views, there are other cases in which your assumptions go unshared.
Regarding voting: I don't think you should just vote for someone to vote for someone. I won't vote for any candidate if I support none of them, and it's obviously up to you to do whatever you want, but you're not helping by just casting a vote instead of holding your vote and showing there are people interested in not participating in the current situation. I just go to vote for local ordinances, personally, and they can take my decision to not vote for a Republican or Democrat however they wish.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you believe, clearly, and I won't unless you tell me. The best I can do is infer from what little you're giving me. If you're like me, you don't get too insulted when someone misattributes ideas to you. When it happens to me, I just try to clear it up, and frankly I still don't know what you're talking about... so some clarification wouldn't hurt.
I don't need to persuade you, blah blah blah... though since I don't even know what you think, that makes trying to change your mind like putting the cart before the horse.
If I foolishly thought you would actually go to the trouble of using examples that might act as some useful model for ideas you truly support... I guess I apologize. I don't know why you would use examples that have no connection to your own views, but whatever. I mean, if I came on your site and started posting comments about how the KKK is being smeared in the media, I wouldn't think you were nuts if you came back at me with comments about how racism is wrong. I wouldn't be like "I don't hate black people!!! I just wanted to bring random attention to an issue I care nothing about!"
Sorry, I'm just really used to people making sense.
To answer the question posed in the title of your post, it's quite easy. I'm "politically conservative" and I don't believe in the supernatural. No contradictions and not complicated.
ReplyDelete