In general, they try to preserve what exists. Many of today's conservatives were liberals decades ago. Here's an interesting essay on the general subject of liberals and conservatives.
Builders and Defenders
After September 11 I discovered an intellectual weakness on the left that I never noticed before. For some reason, perhaps for several reasons, liberals and leftists are bored by the outside world. Compared with conservative magazines, publications like The Nation and The American Prospect rarely feature articles about what happens in other countries. They'll do it occasionally, but almost always in the context of how it relates back to America. The Nation might report on the effects of Iraqi sanctions, but rarely does it publish anything about Iraq in its own context. If you want to learn about the history of the Ba’ath Party, Saddam’s human rights abuses, the fate of the Marsh Arabs, or Iraqi public opinion, you have to seek out magazines and journals of the center and the right.
Liberal blogger Gary Farber noticed something similar.
One problem I see is that only some leftists I know have actually engaged in a years-long course of education in the history of international politics (no, Howard Zinn isn't sufficient), or long study of military theory and history, or even, in many cases, long study of political history that isn't simply doctrinaire propaganda from a similar didactic point of view.
These two phenomena are, I think, very closely related. Those bored with foreign countries generally are less likely to study international politics and history.
Liberals think of themselves as more worldly than conservatives. This is true in some ways, but not so in others. It seems (to me) that liberals are more likely to travel, and are more likely to visit Third World countries in particular. (If you meet an American traveler in, say, Guatemala, odds are strongly against that person being a Republican.) Liberals are more likely to listen to “world music,” and are more likely to watch foreign films. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to study the negative consequences of American foreign policy. But that’s about it. If you want to find a person who knows the history of pre-war Nazi Germany, the Middle East during the Cold War, or the partition of India and Pakistan, you’re better off looking to the right than to the left.
I am astonished and dismayed to discover this. I’m a life-long liberal and I devour history like food. Not until after September 11 did I learn I’m a minority on the left.
This is a broad generalization and there are, of course, lots of exceptions. The New Republic and Dissent both publish excellent analyses of international relations and foreign policy. You can learn a lot about history and current events abroad by reading these magazines. And it isn’t all filtered through a partisan lens. But look at other left magazines like The Nation. Foreign policy is unmentioned except as an excuse to whack the Bush Administration. Read The Weekly Standard and National Review and you can easily find articles about, say, China or Iran. Many of these articles could easily have appeared in The Nation or other left magazines, and yet they didn’t. Presumably the editors are bored with the subject, or their writers don’t know enough to write about it.
It’s easy to find writers on both the left and the right who lack historical knowledge. But I find this far more often on the left. This is not a partisan point I’m making. I’ve been on the left forever, and I have no reason whatever to shill for the right.
Look at my links on the left panel. I included a list of what I call “good conservatives.” I did this for one reason only, the same reason I read them myself in the first place. I learn more about world history from them than I learn from the left. I have little interest in what National Review says about labor unions, taxes, abortion, the death penalty, or the environment. I read those articles occasionally because I need balance, and sometimes the magazine makes good points. But I rarely agree as a whole no matter how well-written the article. The pieces on Iraq, though, are indispensable. The Nation has nothing informed or accurate to say on that subject. Its writers usually ignore it completely. And because they ignore it, because they don’t study it, when they do pipe up they tend to get everything wrong.
Why are liberal intellectuals less interested in the history of foreign countries than conservatives are? I have never heard anyone ask this question, and I wonder if others even notice the problem. Maybe they do, but until recently I hadn’t noticed, and I assure you the left hasn’t noticed. I’m not talking about who is right and who is wrong about history. I’m talking here about who is even interested in the first place.
I‘ve pondered this for a while now, and I think I have part of the answer.
Liberals are builders and conservatives are defenders. Liberals want to build a good and just society. Conservatives defend what is already built and established. This is what the left and the right are for. What draws a person to one or the other is more a matter of personality than anything else.
The first priority of builders is the immediate surrounding environment, starting with the home and moving outward from there. Next is the community, followed by the city, the region, and the nation. The other side of the world is the lowest of all priorities. “Think globally” but “act locally” is a bumper sticker for the left. That we shouldn’t meddle in other countries if our own needs work is also a liberal idea. It partly explains why Tom Daschle focused on prescription pills for old people in war time.
Defenders, unlike builders, are on the lookout for threats. This is what conservatism is for. In the absence of civil war or revolution, threats exist abroad. Canada isn’t a problem, and Mexico isn’t really either. The biggest threats are on the other side of the world. Conservatives don’t write about China and Iran because they’re into Taoism or because they swooned at the Persian film festival. The interest is there because these countries are dangerous.
Conservatives are more likely to study pre-war Nazi Germany because they’re watching out for a repeat. The right side of the blogosphere laughed uproariously when anti-war protesters carried placards that said “Peace In Our Time.” The left just didn’t get the reference. It’s not that the left is stupid. Rather, because liberals are builders not defenders, liberal intellectuals focus on internal problems rather than threats from outside.
I think this explains other phenomena, too. In other pieces I’ve noted an annoying equivalence between the far-left and far-right. The far-left says Republicans are Nazis. And the far-right says Democrats are socialists or even Communists. It’s an annoying habit for people on the margins, but the reason it happens is very different for each side.
Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They haven’t studied the rise of the Nazis. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler.
Far-right conservatives have the opposite problem. They understand Lenin perfectly well. It’s the Democrats they don’t understand. A hyper awareness of threats leads to hallucinations of banshees in the bushes. Joseph McCarthy had a deep understanding of Communism. And he did find some Communist spies. But he saw the tentacles of Communism everywhere, whether there were adequate grounds for it or not.
An anonymous radical leftist at Indymedia recently posted something to this effect: If Iraqis hate life under Saddam, just wait until they find out what it’s like to live under George W. Bush. This is paranoid like McCarthyism, but the cause is quite different. This person knows very well what it’s like to live “under” George W. Bush. He lives in America. What he doesn’t understand, very unlike Joseph McCarthy, is what it’s like to live in the other country. McCarthy knew Stalin well. The Indymedia poster knows nothing about Saddam Hussein.
One of the most common criticisms of liberals lately is that Israel is held to a Middle East double-standard. Every Arab state is guilty of far worse than anything Israel has ever inflicted on Palestinians. I’ve made this criticism many times myself, but there is a defense of the left here. Liberals, as I’ve said, are builders. And Israel is inside the sphere of liberal influence. The Arab regime in Sudan enslaves black Christians. This indeed is odious. But it’s far beyond the ability of liberals to affect. A protest against Sudan would be utterly useless. The regime wouldn’t listen, and everyone knows it. So what looks like hypocrisy and a liberal double-standard is partly a result of perfectly rational priorities.
Conservatives are myopic in ways that look hypocritical, too. Take a look at Uzbekistan. Here is a Muslim state with a Stalinist dictator. Conservative writers hardly ever complain. The reason for this is simple: Uzbekistan helps out America. The regime is secular, and it takes out Islamists root and branch. It doesn’t pose a threat, or at least it doesn’t seem to, so the right shrugs when the left criticizes. The Uzbek regime is our “ally.” But it’s the same sort of filthy ally Saddam was when he took on the mullahs in Iran. This can be explained by “realism,” and there is a case to be made for it here. But it sure looks hypocritical, and it weakens the case on the right against other dictators.
It’s a big world out there, and we can’t all study all of it. The left and the right each have their own strengths and weaknesses. It behooves us to understand and appreciate what the other side offers occasionally.
Everybody needs to get out of their rut. Start small.
Liberals: Read about Iran. Don’t just read about American policy there, read about Iran. Find out what happens when America isn’t looking.
Conservatives: If you live in a major city, next time the Persian film festival comes to town, buy yourself a ticket. Some of the best films in the world are made in that country. The outside world is greater than the sum of its threats.
michaeltotten.blogspot.com |
