Conservatives kill a society, so says this article from Japan Times.
What a liberal/conservative view means
By JOHN ROUSE
Special to The Japan Times
MUNCIE, Indiana -- The new year is a good time to examine current applications and definitions of liberalism and conservatism. Writers to the letters section of newspapers often pen their missives in absolutes with few illustrations of what their ideological pronouncements mean or imply for citizens, groups and society.
For starters, classical liberalism espouses freedom of the individual from interference by the state, toleration by the state in matters of morality and religion, a hands-off style of governance that emphasizes economic freedom so that the capitalistic invisible hand can work its will, as well as the belief that natural rights (procedural due process) exist independently of government.
Conservatism reflects principles and practices of citizens who advocate preservation of established traditions or institutions -- resisting and opposing any changes in these. (Conservatism is not the same as conservation -- the protection, preservation, replenishment and prudent use of natural resources, which indicates the planned use of public lands, forests, wildlife, water and minerals.)
A form of classical liberalism is libertarianism -- which is the opposition to government intervention in both economic and social spheres of American life. Libertarianism asserts that governments should do little more than provide police and military protection. Other than that, government should not interfere in the lives of its citizens.
Populists, meanwhile, adhere to traditional values, but advocate government support for providing economic security -- a safety net. This scenario is a bottom-line priority of the Bush administration.
Conservatives oppose an activist role for governments in providing economic benefits, but look to government to uphold traditional social values.
Authoritarianism is rule by an individual whose claim to his or her power is supported by subordinates. These supporters of government authority sustain control of the system by carrying out the ruler's orders. The public citizenry may be unwilling or unable to rebel against the ruler's authoritative controls. The ruler's personality may be crucial for balancing loyalty and fear toward his or her government's dictates.
These definitions have far less meaning if they are not placed in a societal context so that the roles of individual rights and the authoritative reach of community (government, the state, the greater good) are more precisely defined.
U.S. liberalism is defined by two presidents -- Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. FDR and LBJ advocated government programs for the welfare of individuals. They aimed for the collective good of society, not egalitarianism, en route to a unified sense of human equity.
The bottom line of the government safety net ideology is this: What does the state owe taxpayer citizens, and what do citizens owe the state? The Democratic Party, historically, gets credit for enacting legislation routinizing government programs in social security, housing, civil rights, education, gender, medical care and the environment. The Republican Party, historically, has opposed interference of government institutions in these community basics.
The Democratic Party, as the mobilizer of the effective, and sometimes ineffective, role of the state ended in 1994. One policy fumble that helped end the Democratic Party's congressional dominance was the failure of the Clinton health care plan. The national political consensus emanating out of World War II and Korea is over. Consensus for policymaking requires compromises and sacrifice. In George W. Bush's America, "everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die."
What has replaced the old political consensus is the individualism found in our current version of "the opportunity society." Technology, of course, enhances this liberalization of the common good. We are encouraged not to "drive and drink" -- but no restrictions hamper rights to drive and talk on cell phones.
Religion tends to follow secular culture. Most expressions of religion are authoritarian, which promotes the authorities. Presidents, CEOs, priests, parents, the wealthy and tradition-based power assemblies are best suited to rule, not the disparate voices of the masses. Power is found in private capital, government largess and democracy. The most fragile of the three is democracy.
Markets, corporate organization and the media dominate citizen efforts to "chase truths." Ignorance often becomes defensive, then turns to an arrogance of not knowing what to believe about issues of war and peace. Abuse of government policymaking, as encumbered in the government's deficit spending at present, is costly in the long term, if not as immediate fallout over what constitutes "sacrifice for the greater good."
In the post-9/11 culture, much, if not most, of Republican governance -- in the White House, the U.S. House and Senate, and the U.S. Supreme Court -- is grounded on the minimal employment of government authorities. The multilateralism grounded in the sacrifices of World War II and Korea has vanished from U.S. domestic and foreign policies. (Multilateralism is liberal, as it shares power. Unilateralism is conservative, as it limits the sharing of power.)
The dictum "violence begets more violence" is as old as the Bible. One would call it a conservative pronouncement regarding governing. The Republicans do not include the minority Democrats in domestic policymaking. They do not include the French in foreign policy agreements. The United Nations is dictated to, not consulted with. Minorities cannot control the actions of the majorities. Bullies continue to bully until other forces stop them.
If "violence begets more violence" is a conservative dictum, is "what goes around eventually comes around" more "liberal" in our realities? Not likely. Community, once destroyed, is very difficult to reconstruct, reformulate or replace at a level that used to be agreed upon, championed and cherished. It's not that life is too short; it's that death is too long. Repressive political systems kill the human spirit as well as people. One can be dead in the intellect before one is dead in the body.
John Rouse is a professor of political science at Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
The Japan Times: Jan. 5, 2004 |
