Why Conservatism Fails
78There are 3 components of American political philosophies: social policy, economic policy and foreign policy. Modern conservatism is a theoretical failure in each. I say this as a former conservative, and as someone who has no sympathy for ideological liberalism (but that is another article).
I talk here of conservatism, as a political ideology or philosophy. Not the Republican party or its policies, which may or may not be truly "conservative."
Social policy
It is in social matters that conservatism most clearly seeks to "conserve" tradition and established norms. Often this effort at conservation is based not on any rational thinking, but on the perceived value of keeping tradition alive for its own sake.
This idea is destructive and necessarily inhibitive of human progress. Tradition does not have value in its own right. If it did, then the modern American conservative must explain why he supports women's right to vote, since this is a concept totally at odds with almost all human tradition, including his own society's tradition until the early 20th century.
Social conservatism stands for a close relationship between church and state, and a preference for Christian values in public policy at the expense of others. Public policy should:
- Restrain or outlaw abortion
- Legally favor heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones
- Not teach sex education to teenagers
- Give equal time to creationism and evolution in science class
- Restrict people's sexual behavior
- Financially and legally support churches and other Christian institutions
- Keep Christian references in taxpayer-financed monuments or documents, and so on
Each of these positions can be defeated in various ways. But the important point here is that the emphasis on traditional Christian values is flawed. Since there is no rational way to say this Biblical passage is "good" and that one is "bad," the Bible or Christian tradition is a poor basis for public policy, to say the least.
For example, 19th century slavers and Klan members justified themselves by pointing to the Holy Bible and Christian doctrine, while abolitionists used the very same book and the very same religion to assault slavery! Will the real Christianity please stand up?
Modernist Christians may say that their religion has generally come to support human rights, and eschew the opposite. But are we to subject public policy to the slippery "consensus" that some private religious group happens to believe today, but may not in 50 years?
Not to mention the intellectual inconvenience to the social conservative of explaining why she believes Christianity should be the basis of government, but not Islam or Buddhism.
Social conservatism is an abject theoretical and practical failure.
Economic Policy
Conservatism defers to the free market, against "big government," excessive regulation or high taxation, and in favor of "consumer choice" and "business freedom."
I have detailed many problems with the orthodox free market capitalist view, in the following hubs:
- 10 Things You Didn't Know About Economics: Numbers 1-3, and Numbers 4-6, and Numbers 7-10
- Capitalism: Myth and Reality: Part 1 and Part 2
The assumptions of modern economics are astonishingly unrealistic. This makes any free market capitalist dogma just as naive as Marxist utopianism. Any ideology that sees free market capitalism as the sole requirement for human prosperity leads to a pie-in-the-sky faith in the free market and an excessively negative attitude toward government action.
Case in point: I found this little pearl of wisdom on a conservative blog, in a discussion on some smoking ban:
Someone tell me why we are wasting our time trying to ban smoking? If it is profitable for a business owner to say “Come here we do not allow smoking,” then he will do that. If it profitable for a business owner to remove meat tainted with germs then they will do that. This is the free-market the market will provide the most efficient outcome.
Grammatical mistakes aside, this is an excellent example of the narrow-mindedness that is part and parcel of economic conservatism and libertarianism especially. Sure, "if it's profitable" for a business to sell clean meat, they will. And if it isn't profitable, they won't. Hence massive public health problems in late 19th century America, an age of laissez-faire.
Additionally, if there are no government regulators to check the meat, who will ever know if the meat was tainted? By the time the market discovers it, somebody will be dead.
Economic conservatism (not to be confused with fiscal conservatism or good fiscal management, which both Republicans and Democrats have failed miserably at in recent years) is a theoretical and practical failure.
Foreign Policy
Foreign policy conservatism is based on the fantastic premise that the US is such an inherently good country that any American military or diplomatic action abroad is ultimately to the benefit of the whole world. Basically, America can do no wrong. If this sounds like a simplistic characterization, I invite the reader to suggest one major military intervention that conservatives disapprove of in recent history (submit a comment below).
The default position of conservatism is toward more American involvement in other countries, more military interventionism--not less.
A key position of conservative foreign policy is blind support for Israel. This has many roots, from apocalyptic Christian theology to a pathological obsession with anti-semitism.
The unquestioning support for Israel, in spite of oppression, theft and killing of innocents committed by the "Jewish state," is an example of simpleminded and destructive foreign policy backed by conservatives.
Above all, the presumption that "America is the greatest country" stands as one of the most simplistic and least-developed bases conceivable for a foreign policy paradigm. America may have many good qualities, but it has many bad ones as well. And certainly whatever its good qualities internally, that has little to do with its effect on other societies.
This mentality has contributed to an unaffordable global empire, buttressed by the dogma that America, that "shining city on a hill" is the "last, best hope of mankind." Nationalistic mythology may be romantic and inspiring. It is insufficient for a theory of foreign policy.
Foreign policy conservatism is a theoretical and practical failure.
Related
- Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage in America
- 7 Reasons President Obama May Win in 2012
- Church and State Separation
- America: A Christian Nation?
- Capitalism: Myth and Reality, Part 1... The American Tradition
- 10 Things You Didn't Know About Economics: Numbers 1-3
- 10 Things You Didn't Know About Economics: Numbers 4-6
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (2)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
Thanks, Jane. Yes, I should know, being a former economic libertarian myself.
Thorough, and perfectly put together. I very much approve.
Their conceptualization of America as all that matters, as a fortress of impermeable barriers, does not match trends toward outsourcing, or the nature of their economic ties to countries which they are keeping desperate, which make it clear that their way of life is neither sustainable on its own nor good for the rest of the world on which they rely.
Even if America was self-sufficient, the level of narrow-mindedness you've described is self-destructive as, sociologically speaking, it cannot abide itself... not only is such a course for a culture leaving it prone to stagnation and rotting, but the tearing apart of itself as well.
I fear that it's time has passed, and the seeds of a new age need to be sown... but I also fear that I'm a little on the paranoid side :)
Anyway, again: excellent hub.
Thanks for your input, Tchardo. I don't think necessarily the US is as done for as you seem to think--this country has gone through very difficult periods before. Just think of the Civil War, or the trials of the 1960s and 70s.
But at the same time, you are right to point out that flawed social and economic ideas have consequences. I think if the US can get its act together culturally, economically and politically (which is certainly a tall order, as it stands now), it can get back on track. But it likely will no longer be the biggest, baddest power around, with nations like China, India or Brazil coming up fast.
Well, I disagree. To see no value in tradition or custom is to think all who came before us—who collectively and slowly created these norms—were a bunch of backward fools and that we—the advanced people—are marching to progress. While technology undoubtably advances, the human brain does not. Maybe 1% of our population at best can even read Plato and understand what he means. There are no statesmen today with the integrity of a George Washington or the clear mind of a James Madison. Show me a modern day Michelangelo or Shakespeare.
Abortion is the willful killing of humans. The promotion of traditional families is a good thing—witness the demographic suicide of societies that think otherwise. A father and mother with children is vital to the health of a nation above any other arrangement. Sociological stastitics prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Many today fail to see the difference between liberty and license. What precious children are taught about sexuality should be the purview of their parents and grounded in morality. We are not animals. Evolution is a theory. How easily the postmodern deconstructionist dismisses revelation from men of God while easily accepting some scientist who claims to KNOW what happened 500 hundred million years ago—as if he were there, and is certain people came from apes—without a shred of hard evidence. Christianity invented hospitals, charity, and the modern university, not to mention the Protestant Work Ethic.
Free Enterprise raised much of the world above mere druggery and has created a world of such wealth and comfort that you can sit around and philosophise about demolishing its very structure instead of having to go out and hunt for food. People of only 100 years ago could not even dream of the prosperity the system of free enterprise has wrought. Just look at North Korea, or East Germany, or the USSR to see where the lack of free enterprise leads.
After the Holocaust the Jews were granted 1% of lands nomadic Arabs sometimes roamed through and they took a desert wasteland and turned into an incredibly modern democracy against all odds. The Muslims can only focus on destroying this when they ought to focus on doing something positive and useful for the world.
James, thanks for visiting.
1. Well, I didn't say that tradition has no value, just that it has no value in its own right. It’s like money. It has value only insofar as it contributes to human wellbeing. Therefore if a tradition detracts from human happiness or progress or prosperity, it must be discarded.
If 1% of our current population can understand Plato, with our modern education and prosperity, what was it in previous eras? 0.5%? 0.01%? Maybe people back then were indeed not as smart as we are today.
We know they had MUCH higher rates of racism, sexism, xenophobia, superstition, etc. Why would we give the benefit of the doubt to a social order that such people created?
2. An embryo isn’t a human being because it cannot exist outside of the womb. Studies show both homosexual and heterosexual parents can be good. If what you say is true, they why, when half of all marriages end in divorce, has American society not totally collapsed?
I agree that sex should be taught to young people in the context of morality. Just not traditional Christian morality.
Yes, evolution is a theory. So are countless other things--the theory of relativity, the theory of infectious disease, the theories of electromagnetism, the theory of the atom, etc. Why are creationists not critical of those “theories”?
Evolution doesn’t say people came from apes. No scientist KNOWS what happened millions of years ago. But they do have the best idea possible, given the evidence and logic. Neither science nor religion have all the answers. Science admits that, but religion does not.
The superiority of evolution over creationism is seen whenever the two meet in court.
Why should we rely on the “revelation” of ancient people who lived in primitive societies, and did not know anything about science? Why should we defer to them on anything, when their belief systems have failed to explain almost everything they have ever tried?
Yes, Christianity has done many good things. So has Islam. So has Buddhism. Why not base public policy on those religions?
3. “Free Enterprise… has created a world of such wealth and comfort that you can sit around and philosophise about demolishing its very structure instead of having to go out and hunt for food.”
I don’t know where I ever advocated “demolishing” the structure of free enterprise. Did I not say in the article that Marxism is destructive? Our prosperity comes from both the market and the state, as I demonstrated in my other hubs. And that prosperity allows you to entertain the idea that it all came from the market.
4. Not sure how people who lived in permanent cities can be called “nomads.” So Israel has the right to steal land from Arabs, even though the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust?
Brilliant! I really agree with what you have written here and commend the clarity.
In my mind one of the worst aspects of US foreign policy is that it has been for so long based on the threadbare and shallow premise of "My enemy's enemy is my friend." Thisn has led to the anomaly of the "greatest democracy" crassly and unquestioningly supporting some of the biggest, anti-democratic thugs in history like Pinochet, like Mobutu Sese Seko, like the gangster annointed "Freedom Fighter" by Reagan, the late ungreat Jonas Savimbi.
Amazing too how the anti-evolution lobby would prefer the "revelation" contained in a collection of books centures old, with no supporting evidence, to the painstakingly, and meticulously, collected data used to support the theory of evolution.
Thanks for sharing.
Love and peace
Tony
Tony, you are very welcome. It's that kind of hypocrisy from so many American administrations that has turned so much of the world off to the US--where once upon a time (around WWII for example) it enjoyed much greater prestige globally.
Great article Secularist. I would think conservatives would want greater freedom in social policy than they normally allow. I also believe this stems from Christian fundamentalism. The Laissez Faire religion that economic conservatives pray to would be wonderful in a utopian world where everyone worked for the common good. But when it is for pure personal profit, it eventually runs off the rails. I do believe foreign policy conservatives really came to the fore after the first Gulf War. Neo-conservative theory sprang up after this successful war to throw back Sadaam's aggression against Kuwait. I believe they felt this could be copied in many other areas to eliminate whomever they deemed evil. This is always dangerous as we have seen this past decade. I do feel that many conservatives believed in isolationism before this. Thanks again for this insightful and thought provoking hub.
HSchneider, thank you, glad you enjoyed it. And you raise some good points.
Yes, it is interesting that military action has taken a new significance on the right. When one looks at Reagan (that supposed right-wing saint), one sees less trigger-happiness, relative to the modern right. And going all the way back to Eisenhower, we see a very different worldview, indeed.
I think September 11 and the terrorist threat has played an important role in that development. And we still--even in the face of massive deficits/ debt looming--have yet to see a viable shift among conservatives toward more skepticism of military action.
You made very good points about item # 1. I must commend you for that.
On # 2, Are you implying that it is not OK to kill humans in the womb if they can exist outside the womb? This is decidedly at odds with the pro-death camp. As you may know, modern technology can now save the lives of babies born way premature. And it is advancing. What if the day comes when babies can live outside the womb at day one? Not OK to kill them?
American Society IS collapsing. The theories of electromagnetism, et al., are provable. That men came from apes, or that any species EVER evolved from another species is not. In over 6,000 years of recorded, not one thing has ever changed into something different.
Children should be taught sexuality within the context of THIER OWN parents world view or belief system or morality. The family has natural rights above those of the state and that is one of them.
What have the belief systems of ancient Christianity "failed to explain? Nothing I can thing of. What science there is in the Old Testament is correct. Not one fact in the Bible has EVER been proven incorrect, making it the most infallible of all ancient books by far. That should tell you something, oh seeker of truth.
4. The Israelis didn't steal any land. Rather than repeat myself, you can find the facts about this subject here (in three parts):
http://hubpages.com/hub/History-of-Israel
James:
1. Well, thank you for that.
2. Who said anything about a "pro-death" camp? I'm not pro-death. If I was, I probably would have committed suicide a long time ago.
This is my personal belief on abortion. The "womb" is just an intellectual tool; the real issue is whether the thing is inherently capable of surviving on its own, without any physical assistance. The embryo cannot, the premature baby can, and is therefore a person.
American society collapsing? Think of the Chinese cultural revolution, or the fall of Rome, or the world wars--THAT is what social collapse looks like. America is doing just fine, by comparison.
I reiterate, evolution does not say that people came from apes. Electromagnetism is a theory, James. You indicated you don't trust evolution because it is a theory. By the same logic, you should not trust any of those other theories.
Yes, evolution has been observed.
"Children should be taught sexuality within the context of THIER OWN parents world view or belief system or morality."
Ok, but what if my morality says that learning history is bad? In that case, I can lobby my public school to not teach my children history, according to this rule. If parents don't like what is taught in public school, they can go to private school, or homeschool.
"What have the belief systems of ancient Christianity "failed to explain?..."
This is easy: The Bible says that the earth, sun and moon were created in the span of 6 days. In reality, the process took billions of years! Yes, James, that does indeed tell me something about the truth.
4. Your articles have some interesting info, but some big errors, too. I have great respect and admiration for Jewish people, as I do for many people, and have had many Jewish friends.
In any case, Israelis have been and continue to annex land from Arabs every day. The nightclubs and farms they build on that land is irrelevant--property rights is about who owns what, not who can do the most cool stuff with what.
But we weren't talking about learning history. Or not learning history. We were talking about sexuality. As far as history goes, the public schools teach a false history, as part of the "self-esteem" movement.
You don't know if the earth was created in six days or a billion years.
"But we weren't talking about learning history. Or not learning history."
The history thing was an analogy. Whatever the public schools do or do not teach about history is not the point. The point is, if a parent has the right (as you say) to demand the public school adhere to his beliefs on sexual morality, then another parent has the right to demand the public school adhere to his beliefs on history morality. And so on, ad infinitum.
It's simply applying the same rule of thumb to a different issue.
"You don't know if the earth was created in six days or a billion years."
Well, James, come on. Technically you don't know *for sure* if the computer screen you're looking at is really there or not.
But if it has been independently confirmed countless times by thousands of people over many decades, working on different questions, in totally different scientific fields (geology and astronomy mainly)... I'd say it is safe for a reasonable person to go ahead and assume the earth is as old as they all say it is.
James: >"Sociological stastitics prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt."<
No. Actually they don't "prove" anything. They are statistics. They show tendencies and provide projections that may actually fall short. The gathering of statistics is an inductive reasoning process, and inductive reasoning never proves anything, let alone something that is "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Statistics show that all swans are white. Because every swan you've ever seen is white, then supposedly the next one you see will be white as well. So that proves that all swans are white. Except they aren't. We found Black Swans in Australian. No theory is ever proven James. They can be disproven however and that's how we arive at some degree of Truth.
Adagio, thanks for coming. Yes, statistics are rarely rock-solid, especially the kinds of statistics James is using. Moreover, there are plenty of studies, statistics and common sense that completely contradict what he saying! If James' values were so essential to everything, then countries like Japan, France, Germany, Holland or Spain where things are very different economically, socially and culturally would have been reeling into massive collapse by now. Looks like they're doing just fine.
@ Adagio - you wrote "No theory is ever proven" thanks for that. It is so important. We constantly see the creationist ideologues demanding "proof" of evolution while claiming "truth" for the utterly unproven stories of the Bible! What a crock!
Love and peace
Tony
Ah, but Tony, didn't you get the memo? "Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven wrong"
Haha!
Great article it is because of the things you have mentioned that conservatism continues to fail and the left continues to advance.
Thanks, Josak. Indeed, historical and anecdotal evidence continues to pile up that conservatism is not viable or productive as an organizing philosophy for human societies.
Regarding your comment on economic policy and the meat seller, I would have to disagree with your statement. Regarding the condition of the meat, the blogger more than likely stated his scenario is a "perfect world" scenario. What is allowed in the free market and how much the government regulates within the market are 2 different points. The absence of government or federal regulation would set the stage for chaos in the market. But with little intervention, and a system of checks and balances developed, a free market could and would work.
Brandon:
Precisely, the assumptions of libertarianism and traditional orthodox economics are indeed based on a "perfect world" in which consumers have perfect information, and individuals and businesses operate solely with the purpose of increasing their own material wellbeing. These are unrealistic assumptions, and therefore the entire edifice of the beliefs and policies they produce are faulty.
What is allowed in the free market is *determined* in large part by how much the government regulates in that market.
It seems you support government regulation/ intervention, just to a reasonable degree so that it does not stifle economic activity excessively. I certainly agree with that.
The idea that less regulation is always better, lower taxes are always better, less government activity is always better, etc, and other beliefs of economic conservatism are clearly mistaken. They are ideological positions based on fairy tales that do not pan out in reality.
I have really enjoyed your articles. As a former fundamentalist Christian who became liberated from believing the bible as the literal word of God as an adult, I enjoy reading the statistics and correlations that you have drawn from the available data. It is wonderful to have the freedom to use my rational brain to consider the relationships between indicators of social well being and religion. The separation of the church and state is so important to ensuring a high level of education and also the future of democracy.
Thanks, Carolyn. I appreciate that. Great to hear you've come out of that way of thinking. One more for the side of reason, critical thinking and open mindedness.
The data and statistics certainly have the power. I always encourage my opponents to provide relevant data if they disagree with my points. It rarely happens though, unsurprisingly.
Jane Bovary Level 1 Commenter 2 years ago
Talking to a hard-core Libertarian is very much like talking to a religious zealot..they have too much blind faith in the *market* when anyone with half an eye can see that the interests of the market and the interests of people dont always coincide.
Brilliantly put together.