 |
| An Internet-based taxonomy via libertarian FB group |
Let me start by saying I disagree with this diagram. I intended to republish it in last night's post but couldn't find a copy of the image. Here was my brief critique:
This is a rather simplistic approach which doesn't do a reasonable job reflecting political differences; the Old Right didn't buy into FDR's policies.or international intervention. This diagram implies there are no major policy differences between progressives and conservatives except healthcare, and that's a departure from reality. I see a distinction between right-wing authoritarians and conservatives, who in this country are more classical liberals. We need to see more of a federalist construct and the size and extent of regulation in play."Conservative" is probably best described in context. Among the conceptual aspects (this is not meant to be comprehensive, but a conspectus of key elements):
- Tradition. For example, I consider myself a conservative, traditional Catholic. I was one of the rare altar boys who served during the entire transition of the Mass, from Latin to local language (English). I still remember the first Mass I served, as a cross-bearer leading the procession into church. I loved votive candles, holy water, Gregorian chants, the sung liturgy, burning incense, sermons based on spiritual vs. pedestrian issues), majestic cathedrals, various disciplines (eating fish on Fridays, sacrifices during Lent, fasting before communion, etc.) I had basically memorized the entire liturgy and know enough Latin by reading the English translations as a young boy; it seemed impossible that people older than me couldn't keep up; I also felt connected to the Catholic community globally sharing in the liturgy. I wouldn't say I was resistant to change (for example, I am quietly in favor of relaxing the priestly vow of celibacy and encouraging married clergy plus a more inclusive role for women through the hierarchy and the liturgy (not based on ideological feminism)) The nature and extent of Vatican II, especially on the paternalistic shoving of the liturgical changes down our throats, not even as an option, deeply troubled us traditionalists. Nuns or sisters started dressing to blend in, traditional hymns were replaced with folk/rock arrangements, and homilies transitioned from moral/spiritual development to secular humanistic topics where Jesus or spiritual themes were incidental to the discussion. Does that mean that as a conservative, the standard notion being resistance to change, I would oppose change such restoring a centuries-old liturgy? No. I simply want my fellow Catholics to have the alternative.
I do cherish our traditional American holidays, celebration, customs and culture. It is somewhat nuanced; for example, I'll honor the flag, stand up, hand over heart, during the national anthem. On the other hand, I respect the right of political dissent. The issue I've had with the anthem protest is the fact that the players signed a contract acknowledging league policies. But I've opposed the government (in particular, Donald Trump) intervening in the dispute.
- Locus of Control/Principle of Subsidiary/Decentralization. Government should be limited and more decentralized in favor of local autonomy and enforcement. In particular, we have social norms, civic virtue, religious institutions, voluntary associations/charities/philanthropies, open markets, and the private institutions of marriage and family.
We conservatives are wary of the unintended consequences of the government intervening against institutions of faith or public morality and morally hazardous public policy, such as the social welfare state.
- Egalitarianism/Law and Order/Public Safety. The guarantee of individual and free associative rights (including life, liberty and property) against government, the tyranny of majority or lawless individuals and groups, equally enforced, under the rule of law.
- A Limited Central Government. This includes reconciliation of conflicts among local, state or regional groups, including, but not restricted, to violations of open markets among the states, majoritarian restrictions on individual/group rights (e.g., discriminatory acts against a political minority or migration among states). In addition, a commensurate national defense provides scaleable resistance against external adversaries who would exert force to trespass and occupy or otherwise violate the unalienable rights of Americans. A limited government costs less and imposes less fiscal and regulatory burden on citizens and their voluntary associations.
No doubt that some conservatives would disagree with aspects of this discussion; in the context of America, our tradition is an economic liberal one with equal rights for all people, including the rule of law (no double standards in application). In Europe or elsewhere, you might see a traditional hierarchical class system (e.g., royal, aristocracy, bourgeois, worker class/proletariat, etc.) There might be economic nationalists (e.g., paleoconservatives) who subordinate individual rights to State economic interests with politically favored (crony) businesses or industries. The New Right expanded a more proactive anti-Communist foreign policy and military build-up.
I do distinguish between American conservatives and right-wing authoritarians and/or populists. Quite often they emphasize law-and-order and/or perceived economic security at the expense of the individual. They may feel vested in social welfare programs and tend to scapegoat certain groups, particularly immigrants, which they feel exacerbate program costs at their expense.
Modern (social) liberals expand on the negative rights under classical liberalism (American conservatives), i.e., things that government cannot coerce of the individual without due process of law. Egalitarianism does beyond equal treatment under the law; they argue because of differing circumstances, there is no real equal opportunity and government must provide related rights, e.g., the right to free education, unemployment subsidies, healthcare access guarantees, a social welfare net, and financial security for old age. (There is no real limit to how much government must spend in pursuit of this equality of opportunity, and social liberals are willing to spend whatever it takes from the pockets they feel are well off enough to pay the resulting burden.) They distrust the market and its perceived failures, including alleged externalities (e.g., pollution, where they see businesses socializing relevant costs) and hence justify regulatory intervention. They will subjugate individuals rights to higher-standing sociopolitical interests.
The Internet meme above totally ignores these nuances. Conservatives (at least American ones) have rebelled against the social welfare state, the expanding scope of federal programs. There is talk about decentralizing health programs to the states in terms of block grants, there's talk of abolishing cabinet level departments (e.g., energy, commerce, education), of narrowing criteria and limiting duration of eligibility for social programs (including food stamps), of imposing beneficiary cost-sharing (e.g., work mandates). There is still a social stigma for participating in government programs.
Let me point out that conservatives don't oppose helping neighbors in need. We know that the State is an ineffective and inefficient way of resolving these issues, at probably twice (or more) the cost with an overly expensive bureaucracy cutting its cut before beneficiaries see a penny. Not to mention State intervention impedes private sector initiatives to address these issues. Immigrants in the nineteenth century did not have a social welfare net. Before senior entitlements, elderly parents often stayed with families and got discounts for medical services. Fraternal societies, soup kitchens and mutual aid societies helped those down on their luck.
Left-wing and right-wing authoritarians tend to subordinate the rights of the individual to the State, which in the contemporary world is a form of fascism. We at the opposite side of the spectrum want to subordinate the State to individual rights, i.e., the consent of the governed. I tend to be minarchist, almost borderline AnCap (which the meme above identifies as volunteerism).
I may expand on these constructs in a future post.
