What are the fundamental motivations that lie behind modern conservatism and modern liberalism? This question has been much explored by liberals, but not at all by conservatives, who have a ready answer: liberals are idiots. This reveals something very important about conservatives. Their refusal to treat liberals with respect demonstrates that they are not motivated by any concept of intellectual integrity. They do not think in terms of hypotheses, debatable issues, pro versus con, and so forth. They have a much simpler attitude toward the difference that separates liberals from conservatives: we’re right and they’re wrong. This, I think, brings us to the fundamental difference between modern conservatives and modern liberals: Conservatives are driven by loyalty to the party. Liberals are driven by adherence to universal principles. Chris Crawford ☀
I have been appalled of late by the antics of the far right. There seems to be a solid group — perhaps 20% of the electorate — who are adamantly, vociferously, and very conservative. These are the same people who think that Mr. Bush was a great president, that torture is a good thing, that invading Iraq was a great idea, and that Mr. Obama is a socialist. Their latest craze is the “birther” craze, in which they insist, despite documentation to the contrary, that Mr. Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen. The crazier members of this sect claim that the birth certificate in the records is not reliable; the brighter ones claim that, while Mr. Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, he is not a “natural born” citizen because his father was not an American citizen. All of which is utter nonsense. Chris Crawford ☀
On “Islamo-Fascism” ☀
An excellent post from squashed on usage of the term “Islamo-Fascist”:
Janet Albrechtsen wrote in The Austrailian, that the language police are oppressing her when they tell her to stop calling people Islamo-Fascists. She argues that the people she’s describing self-identify as Islamic and claim to speak for Islam. And their actions are decidedly fascist. Isn’t she simply calling it as it is?
Yes and no. There are many phrases she could choose—and if there wasn’t anything else at stake, I would tell her to have a ball. But when an extreme, vocal, and dangerous minority claims to speak for the entire religion, bolstering their claim helps them. In simple words, Ms. Albrechtsen is helping the terrorists and is too dim to realize it.
Let’s try a different example. We have a number of hate groups here who claim the label “Christian Identity.” They are white supremecist. We call them hate groups or white supremecists—because we’re not going to allow them to claim the mantle of Christianity. We don’t want to make people sympathetic with them. And when people attack them or criticize them, we definitely don’t want people to think Christianity is under attack. In the same way, we don’t want anybody to think the people speak for Islam—particularly in a country that is heavily Islamic and has largely rejected the terrorists. Al Qaeda would love for people to view it as the leader of Islamic resistance against the oppressive West just as our Christian Identity people would love to be the head of Christian resistance to whatever they see themselves resisting. “Islamo-fascist” plays into their hands neatly.
If Ms. Albrechsen doesn’t care about hurting people’s feelings or making them feel culturally marginalized, that doesn’t make her a particularly nice person—but the stakes are (comparably) low. But perhaps she can find a way a way to hurt and marginalize people without doing the extremists’ work for them?
Islamofascism is a coined propaganda word with the purposeful intent to inflame. It makes no sense — the Islamic fanatics who the label refers to are not advocates for fascist political programs. Their loyalties are to a fundamentalist view of religion, not to nationalistic supremacy. As Squashed points out, it’s not a constructive term; and at worst marginalizes an entire group for the actions of a few.
Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg on the oddness of describing theocracies as fascist:
But like “terror,” and “evil” before it, “Islamic fascism” has the effect of reducing a complex story to a simple fable. It effaces the differences among ex-Baathists, Al Qaeda and Shiite mullahs; Chechens and Kashmiris; Hezbollah, Hamas and British-born Asians allegedly making bombs in a London suburb. Yes, there are millions of people in the Muslim world who wish the U.S. ill, and some of them are pretty creepy about it. But that doesn’t mean they’re all of a single mind and purpose, or that a blow against any one of them is a blow against the others. As Tolstoy might have put it, every creep is creepy in his own way.
Another take from Chris Crawford, that I even like better:
Islamofascist is a word whose use characterizes Islamophobes. It’s a nonsensical word, because the Islamic fanatics to whom the word is applied are not at all fascist: their political program has little in common with fascism. I suppose that the term is applied in the general sense of “bad”. They could just as aptly have used Islamocommie or Islamobutthead.
These people will regale you with tales of Islamic evil. They love to talk about the ugly history of Islam: massacres, decapitations, and so forth. Of course, they ignore the fact that Christianity has an even uglier history. Once Muslims had conquered a country and wiped out opposition, they were much more tolerant of other religions than Christians ever were. There is nothing in Islamic history to match the periodic pogroms by Christians against Jews. Nor was torture a common feature of Islamic jurisprudence. Islamic law required some pretty ferocious penalties of those convicted of crimes, but there was nothing on the scale of the sadistic torture of suspects that was so common in Christianity. And during the Crusades, the Islamic treatment of Christian noncombatants was much less barbaric than the Christian treatment of Islamic noncombatants. But the Islamophobes won’t tell you about that — they probably don’t know.
They also love to provide blood-curdling quotes from the Koran in their attempt to prove that Muslims are out to enslave the world. The historical fact that Muslims have been on the defensive since about 800 AD (with the big exception of the Turks) seems lost on the Islamophobes. Again, compared with the imperialism practiced by Christians since 700 AD, the Islamic world looks almost pacifistic. Christians have mounted a lot more invasions than Muslims have. And certainly if we look at the twentieth century, the story is depressingly clear: Muslims having their lands taken from them, their governments and borders decided by Christians, and being massacred in huge numbers. Despite all the talk about Islamic terrorism, vastly more Muslims have died at Christian or Jewish hands than the other way around. That’s a historical fact.
The Islamophobes are on slightly stronger ground criticizing the backwardness of Islamic culture. Yes, they treat women badly. Yes, the very notion of honor killings is repugnant. Yes, their legal and political systems are medieval. So what? That’s their business. They find Western morals every bit as repugnant as we find theirs.
The Islamophobes are also somewhat justified in their fear of terrorism, although their fear is all out of proportion to the danger imposed by these people. The total number of Americans killed by terrorists since 1980 is far less than the numbers killed by cars, guns, ladders, roofs, boats, or airplanes. The images of the Twin Towers have been burned into the brains of the Islamophobes, but the facts of risk in America belie their fears.
If Islamophobes were merely quaint fools, we could smile indulgently, but these people don’t stop at being stupid — they want to translate their stupidity into policy! They want strong action taken against Islamic countries — which of course would only reinforce the fear among Muslims that the American War on Terror is really a War on Islam. And such an effort will surely backfire. There are a billion Muslims on this planet. If you wish to make war on a billion people, you better get used to the idea of losing.
And that’s about enough banter on Islamofascism and Islamophobia for one day.
I have profound respect for Christianity as a philosophy; it’s Christians that I can’t stand. In the same way, I agree that capitalism is the best overall economic system — it’s capitalists that I can’t stand. If we can just get rid of all the damn capitalists, maybe we can restore capitalism. Chris Crawford ☀
The Founding Fathers valued freedom of speech and of the press not because they saw some sort of inherent, God-given right to speak one’s mind, but because they knew that the only way to keep the Republic honest was to insure a broad supply of ideas and opinions. We have no sure way of ascertaining the truth; therefore, rather than attempt to censor falsehood, we must rely on a flood of opinion, a competitive marketplace of ideas in which only the most truthful ideas prosper. But conservative loyalty drives conservatives out of the competitive marketplace of ideas and into a small, uncompetitive corner, where falsehoods can go unchallenged. Chris Crawford ☀
Populations are increasing and noses are getting crowded more tightly together; that necessarily means that individual freedoms must be eroded. Americans tried to evade this squeeze by creating expansive suburbs that gave each person his own plot of land and private home. But the rising price of oil is pricing this strategy out of reach of the middle class, forcing people to accept higher density living — and with it, the conservative fantasy of the rugged individualist taking care of himself. The American frontier closed in 1890, over a hundred years ago, yet conservatives today still dream of the good old days when men were men and freedom was preserved with firepower. The problems of the 21st century are all problems arising from more and more people crowding together. This will necessarily drive our society further and further to the left. In this narrow sense, liberalism is the wave of the future and conservatism is the flicker of the past. Chris Crawford ☀
Let’s move on with an observation that, in effect, shatters the underlying principle on which conservatives base their position. Let’s ask the conservative, would you refuse to share some of your wealth to feed a starving child? Of course, nobody is monster enough to insist that property rights are more important than the life of an innocent child. And that admission pulls the rug out from underneath the conservative’s claim that property rights are sacred. This example establishes that property rights must be subordinated to some sense of basic human decency. So the issue here is not any sacred principle, but drawing a line between two principles. Where should we draw that line? How much money should a wealthy person surrender to provide food, clothing, shelter, and education to a poor person? We have already established that the answer is not “zero”. And since the idea of taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor constitutes socialism, we come to the conclusion that all non-monstrous conservatives have already accepted the principle of socialism. “Garsh, I thought I was just writin’ stuff, but now it turns out that I’ve been writing prose all my life!” Yes, even Rush Limbaugh, I would guess, is a socialist. Chris Crawford ☀
…we cannot use moral precepts as fundamental principles that brook no contradiction. Pro-life people claim that the sanctity of life is absolute — but most of them have no objection to violating the sanctity of Islamic lives. Advocates of small government try to apply grand principles to show that government should not tax the people. I’m reminded here of the classic tale of Winston Churchill offering an English aristocratic woman 5 millions pounds to sleep with him. When she expressed a willingness to contemplate the idea, he then asked if she would be willing to sleep with him for 5 pounds. She responded rather huffily “What kind of woman do you think I am?” To which Mr. Churchill answered “We’ve already established that, now we’re merely determining the price.” Advocates of small government have already conceded the principle that government is necessary and desirable; beyond that, it’s only a matter of determining the price. We cannot dodge the complexities of policymaking by taking refuge in absolute moral principles, because there aren’t any absolute moral principles beyond the Golden Rule. Whenever we consider tax policy, legislation, public spending, or anything else that government does, we must rummage through all the implications and give each of them due consideration. There’s no shortcut to these answers. Chris Crawford ☀
Congress passed the economic stimulus bill, despite the Republicans’ many efforts to torpedo the bill. I am disgusted with the blatant partisanship demonstrated by the Republicans during this episode. There is absolutely no question that an economic stimulus is necessary, nor is there any question that the bulk of the stimulus must take the form of government spending. But the Republicans put all of their energies into cutting taxes. The Democratic majority, under pressure from the White House, compromised repeatedly; the final bill is 60% spending and 40% tax cuts, a pretty fair compromise considering the fact that the Republicans are in the minority. Moreover, I think that, in strictly economic terms, the bill has too much tax cut and not enough spending — and this seems to be the thinking of many economists. Yet the Republicans were obsessed with tax cuts and demanded more and more tax cuts and less and less spending. In the process, billions of dollars for education and infrastructure were cut out of the bill to satisfy the Republicans — and STILL they fought!… …Remember, these were the same Republicans who spent wildly during the Bush years. They spent $500 billion on prescription subsidies because that was a Republican bill. They spent a trillion dollars on the wars in the Middle East. They pushed through, with very little scrutiny, a bill to throw $700 billion at financial institutions to prop them up. Chris Crawford ☀
When it comes to foreigners, American justice is not blind; it actively discriminates against foreigners. If you’re an American citizen, then we apply the 100 to 1 rule to you. But if you’re a foreign Muslim, then that figure is more like 1 to 100. We’d rather incarcerate 100 innocent foreign Muslims than release 1 guilty foreign Muslim. You think I exaggerate? Look at the numbers. We’ve released about 500 prisoners from Guantanamo. Of those, the Department of Defense claims that some 60 have “returned to terrorist activities”. Their definition of “returning to terrorist activity” includes “having your lawyer write a letter of protest”, because that’s the basis on which one person has been so categorized. In terms of actually participating in violent activity, there are only two cases that have been publicly announced, and perhaps five cases that have been mentioned. These numbers are squirrelly; they seem to change every month, so I won’t attempt to document them. Whatever the real numbers are, they’re obviously tiny. So I think it fair to say that, in actual practice, our “guilty to innocent” ratio for detaining foreign Muslims is about 1 to 100, the exact reverse of our ratio for American citizens. Chris Crawford ☀
The Republicans will likely continue their destructive behavior, spewing their bile and slandering everybody who’s not part of their tribe. That Rovian crap worked for ten years, but it has burnt out the American public. There are still millions of hateful and hate-filled Americans who will continue their negative, cynical antics. They will cheer on Ms. Palin and who knows — she might even win their nomination in 2012. If that happens, the Republicans will suffer the most ignominious defeat since McGovern’s disaster in 1972. Let them revel in their sewage. The jig is up, the American people finally recognize how bankrupt that whole style of politics is, and the Republicans have no hope until they learn to purge those partisans from their ranks. I for one will be glad to see the Limbaughs, Kristols, Roves, Palins, and Cheneys sent back to their caves where they can gnaw on bones and growl at the world. Chris Crawford ☀
These moralistic arguments don’t solve anything; they just further the violence. After all, killing Bad Guys must be a good thing, so all we have to do is prove that the other side has some Bad Guys and voila! — we have a simple solution to the problem. This is precisely the thinking that is going on among many Israelis and Palestinians. They have seen the suffering and they see the other side as the Bad Guy, and they just want to bash the Bad Guy. So Israelis kill Palestinians, Palestinians kill Israelis, and the cycle of violence goes on forever. If we’re ever going to stop the killing, the first step must be to dispense with these pointless arguments over who is the Good Guy and who is the Bad Guy. Those are zero-sum arguments; they can only lead to the conclusion that one side must win and the other side must lose. And neither side will sign up for a deal that they think they are losing. The only deal that will work is one that is win-win: something that each side sees as a victory. The two sides do not have mutually exclusive objectives. Israelis want security; Palestinians want their own country. These are not incompatible goals; a win-win solution should be easy to design. But the moralists on both sides of the conflict refuse to accept a win-win solution: they insist that the other side must lose. Chris Crawford ☀
Here is a simple political concept that deserves discussion: should not all children be provided complete care by the state? I do not mean to suggest that children should be taken away from their parents, but instead that the cost of their upkeep should be borne by the state. Note that I am talking about the cost of their upkeep, not any luxuries. We already provide educational upkeep at state expense; should we not extend this principle to all forms of child care: feeding, clothing, health care, and education behind secondary school? The moral principle behind this is simple: children cannot be held responsible for their lack of earning power; they cannot provide for themselves. Therefore, should they not be provided for by the state? For all of human history, the financial burden of raising children was borne by the parents, and there was a strong financial incentive for parents to do so because children provided their support in their old age. But the economics have completely changed. Children are no longer taking care of their parents in their old age; indeed, older people are wealthier than the young. Old people are sustained by the state (through Social Security and Medicare), so they don’t need the support of the young. Chris Crawford ☀
The conservative movement has been infiltrated by anti-rationalism, and that attitude will poison your movement. You have a core of about 25% of the American public that is fiercely loyal to the conservative cause, and some portion of that group is ferociously anti-rational. But the fact remains that a far larger number of Americans are pretty rational. They really do listen to the facts. When people on your side claimed that Mr. Obama is a socialist, many Americans concluded that your side is crazy. Chris Crawford ☀
But conservative loyalty insured that conservatives stayed in their own corner of the marketplace, never straying into other areas. Nowadays a conservative listens to Rush Limbaugh on the radio while driving, watches Fox News on television, and reads any of the many conservative blogs for conservative news and opinion — without ever being exposed to opposing points of view. The end result is that these people live in an alternative reality of their own creation. Ideas bounce around in this “conservasphere”, picking up more and more momentum until they have reached absurd proportions — and there’s no reality to hold them in check. Chris Crawford ☀
A GNT creation ©2007–2010
