Who am I?
When I was young I considered myself a conservative. I spent a lot of time in New Hampshire and I really got behind their "live free or die" mentality. Also, every single person in my family is conservative. It just made sense.
Later on in life, after I had spoken with more people about politics and various social issues I realized many of my views were considered "liberal". I didn't care much either way because there's not really any reason to classify people into two ideological camps. There's more to the world than just liberal and conservative - MUCH more to the world than Republican and Democrat. I started referring to myself as a liberal, however, to appease those who are all about pigeonholing.
My wife is a "proud liberal" in that she doesn't even like the word conservative. She was born and raised in Boston - the unofficial capitol of liberalism. Our views are mostly the same. Does that make me a liberal? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Let's examine a hot-button issue, shall we? ABORTION. Typically, if you're a conservative you have to be pro life for some reason. I'm not sure why that is. In fact, I submit that the true conservative stance should be pro choice. Why should the government be involved at all in this decision? Keep the government out of my womb! This includes keeping the government from outlawing the procedure, of course.
Another hot-button issue: DEATH PENALTY. Everyone knows conservatives are all for the death penalty. The more killing of criminals that goes on the better, a conservative might say. I find it somewhat hypocritical that someone could be adamantly pro life yet pro death penalty at the same time. Personally, I'm for killing at both ends, but only when it's ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, and in the case of capital punishment, when there is absolute proof (this is becoming easier with DNA evidence and other technological advances). Does this make me a conservative or a liberal?
How about fiscal views? I can tell you I support welfare. Does that make me a liberal? I do think, however, that ALL such "government hand outs" should be highly scrutinized and made to be as efficient and effective as possible. I'm all for that. You see, I'm completely against our government wasting money - which it does in alarming amounts, but I'm all for government spending money on things that matter. Libraries, education, police & fire, closely monitored help for the less fortunate, campaign finance reform, all these things are meaningful to me and worth spending our hard earned tax money on. A useless war that costs billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of innocent lives is a colossal waste to me. Corporate welfare should be eliminated. And, yes, we should be taxed as little as possible. The government's number one priority, as I see it, should be to make these beneficial social programs as lean and mean, but effective as possible, not throw money away on themselves and other needless crap, and stick to a friggin' budget! We should NOT keep deficit spending. We should NOT incur more and more debt. We should have fiscal restraint where it matters. Does this make me a liberal or a conservative?
In short, I'd consider myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative - pretty much a libertarian, except not quite as paranoid. Our beloved president, as I'm sure most will agree, can be considered a social conservative and a fiscal liberal. The administration is the absolute antithesis of what I believe in. That is why I can never support them.
posted by Smorgasbord @ 3:47 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Hi Smorg!
Good post. The terms liberal and conservative are relative actually, and so it is necessary to have a starting point in order to define either. Conservative generally alludes to someone who is interested in current proven conventions, while progressive indicates someone who is interested in moving away from current coventions.
So conservatives can be completely different and have different goals dependent upon where they are politically. For example, Vladimir Zhirnovsky in Russia wants to maintain Communism in the form it had during the height of the Soviet Union. He was at one time considered a "conservative", although once Soviet Communism fell, his desire to move Russia BACK in that direction caused him to be called a "radical" or "right winger". What is interesting is that Communism is a "leftist" political system and a product of "liberalism".
So one has to have a starting point in order to determine "liberal" or "conservative".
Another concept that one needs to understand is the term "radical". Contrary to what most people know, conservatism is essentially about staying where one is, while radicalism is about a move to the right. This term is kind of illustrated by the fact that in order to dismantle leftward inititiatives oftn "radical" action is used. For example, if a leftward inititiative is to reallocate wealth by taking money from one person to give it to another, then the action of changing that (because dependence has been created, etc.) is to withhold it and therefore considered "radical". That is the reason that if the Republicans talk about cutting the foodstamp budget they are characterized as mean, uncaring, etc. So essentially moving back in a right direction is considered radicalism.
As most people have not taken political science in their lives (and few who do truly understand this concept)we tend to indiscriminately use the terms liberal and conservative with really little understanding or perspective.
Traditionally American conservatives were dedicated to the ideals that the country was founded on--a huge emphasis on freedom coupled with a strong sense of responsibility and accountability. Let's look at your abortion question in this light. Even though conservatives are advocates of freedom they do not condone freedom from responsibility. A conservative recognizes that there are consequences to action, and that this is a necessary evil to curb corruption and negative behavior. A conservative would say that it is ok to have sex in any form or fashion you wish, but as an adult you should accept responsibility for its outcomes or should not engage in it irresponsibly. The consequences of sex is often conception, and so sex should not be engaged in lightly because the consequences are not light. Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for their actions, and abortion is not doing that. Conservatives also value innocent life and until science can prove otherwise, what is in the womb of a woman is a human life. Therefore the rights of that human are just as great as the rights of the woman bearing it. When my child was born she was just as dependent on others for existence as she was in the womb, and her location had little to do with her status as a human being.
Then you ask the question: why would conservatives think the government should be involved in this decision. Well, that is because conservatives think that all innocent human life should be protected by government because that is one of the primary reasons for government (remember government is "force" and force should be used to protect the innocent and those who can't protect themselves).
Now many liberals, on the other hand, deny (and I must say without an ounce of scientific evidence) that what is inside a woman is not a human life. Therefore they think that they should have the say over whether it dies or not. (I find that liberals more often think that they know what is best for others a lot--considering their positions on euthanasia, etc.)
A true conservative will always champion the innocent, the weak, and the unprotected.
Let's move on to the death penalty. Now personally I don't believe in the death penalty at present because of our inadequate and inequal justice system. I DO believe in capital punishment under a just system (which is fantasy now). That being said, lets go back to what I said about responsibility. When a man rapes and murders a child a conservative believes there should be a consequence. Not only that, but a conservative believes that he has empowered the government to protect the innocent from those who would prey upon them. Capital punishment is viewed as a deterrent (which we know it not always is) but also a means of removing threats from society via force. I myself am a firm advocate of permanent life imprisonment at hard labor, not the jokes we now have as prisons.
So the two positions are not really inconsistent with each other given what most conservatives believe.
I've written enough, but if you want I can touch on fiscal issues also, Smorg.
Regards,
-Jack
Good comment, Jack. If I take to heart the concept that "liberal" = "progressive" and progressives want to move away from status quo, while conservatives want to keep it then it helps me define my stances.
By that logic, my stances on abortion and the death penalty are conservative, no? I think we should pretty much keep things the way they are (death penalty needs to be tightened up, but that should be easier with technology).
I hear the point you made about "liberals" thinking a fetus isn't a life a lot, but in my experience it's not true. Now I'm deviating from the true spirit of the post, liberal vs. conservative, but I like talking about this because I think the pro choice view is often misunderstood.
Our society struggles with justifying killing every day in many, many ways. Euthanasia, death penalty, war, shooting down a hijacked plane, etc. Is abortion killing? Absolutely. Anyone who says differently is deluding themselves. The real question is whether or not the killing is justified. We draw specific lines for ALL types of killing to determine whether they are justified or whether they are murder. "Meat is murder", some say. Most people, of course, disagree with that assessment but it depends completely on where you draw the line. It can certainly be argued that the way cattle is treated is a hell of a lot worse than the way an aborted fetus is treated. Of course cattle isn't human - we draw the line there I guess, but if we were talking about cats it would be "cruelty to animals". A person would go to prison if they operated a cat slaughter house.
With abortion we draw the line at birth. That's just where it is now. I'm not against pushing it back to, say, the end of the first trimester, but that's just another arbitrary line - just as conception is an arbitrary line. If we draw the line at conception we could just as easily draw it before there and say "masturbation is murder", which some people do. If we draw it at conception, what if a woman doesn't know she's pregnant, gets powerfully drunk three nights in a row and has a miscarriage? Is that murder? It wasn't premeditated, but it could be considered manslaughter or negligent homicide if we draw the line too narrowly.
I've heard many "conservatives" argue that the pro choice stance is cavalier with human life, that it presumes to know what's best for the unborn child, that it's killing an innocent life... but I've known several people who have gotten abortions, and it was the absolute hardest decision any of them have had to make. When I was seventeen, my fifteen year old girlfriend had an abortion. That decision was by no means arrived at casually. I often wonder what the child's life would be like if he or she were alive today. I have achieved a modicum of success in my life, but that ball didn't get rolling until many years after I was seventeen. I come from a family with rage issues and substance abuse problems. I was able to steer clear of a lot of that because I didn't have the pressure of a family when I was too young to know how to handle it (as my father and mother did). "Personal responsibility" might dictate that I "deserved" to have that child because I was a stupid kid who didn't know how to use a condom properly, but I don't think the child "deserved" to be born into a life of hostility and abuse. That's where my girlfriend and I drew the line.
So, I understand the pro life stance in that they only see an innocent life being ended. But often pro lifers are a heck of lot more "cavalier" in their assessment that a good punishment for the parents would be to have a kid, or that the kid will be fine in foster care (a whole other story). These people are typically a lot more self righteous than those who choose abortion as the best alternative for their own child's welfare, or those who simply want to be able to make that decision for themselves.
I will be back a, Smorg to fully digest what you say. Just a quick comment though--I draw the killing line at self defense. Any other I see as murder. Guess that's one issue I'm kind of black and white on.
Also just a quick note on the child welfare point. I have friends that waited for 2 years to adopt a baby. I have another who waited a year and a half. There are plenty of people out there who will take in unwanted children and give them a chance in life. United States orphanages are the sparcist in the world, and for a reason. Not being judgemental in any way, but had your son or daughter been given the chance to live wouldn't you be happier if they had been given a shot at life with someone who would have loved and cared for them? If this is being too personal of me asking then please don't answer, Smorg. I don't want to tread on territory that is none of my business.
Kindest regards,
-Jack
Drawing the line at self defense is reasonable on the surface but, like most tough issues, it is hard to define what is truly self defense.
I guess you would argue war is self defense and the killing of innocent civilians is justified because it is generally an unintentional side affect.
How about gang killings then? Many times a drive by shooting is a self defense reaction. One would probably argue they shouldn't be in gangs in the first place or they should leave the punishing up to the cops and courts, but people typically join gangs because these institutions have failed them.
What about shooting down a hijacked plane? That brings about the argument that the life of few is worth less than the life of many, but rarely (probably never) can the people who make those decisions be certain that sacrifice is not in vain.
I assume from your comment that you oppose euthanasia because it is not self defense, but perhaps it could be considered that if the person is battling a terminal disease.... Defending one's self from cancer, for instance.
I'm obviously just throwing hypothetical situations around, but my point is these matters are never black and white. Just as an argument can be made that a pregnant mother shouldn't presume death is better for a child than life, those of us who are not involved in the decision should not presume to know anything about it.
Your question about adoption leads into a larger world. I'll just skim the surface by saying I had four adopted cousins. I now have three because one killed himself. Suffice it to say adoption, despite how kind and loving the parents may be, brings with it innumerable psychological issues. Does that mean no adopted children live normal lives? Of course not, but this is yet another factor that needs to be considered when a couple is making this deeply personal decision.
I am sort of an existentialist and I do not view death as anything negative. Pain and suffering in life, are negatives. They are inevitable, but should be avoided as much as possible. I am confident the decision my girlfriend and I made so many years ago was the right one. While it is true that we took away the child's potential to experience love and beauty, we also took away any suffering, and we made our lives and the lives of our families - the lives that had already been started - better off in the process.
Of course I don't have to justify the decision to anyone, and I don't think you're asking me to, but I offer this personal experience only as evidence that nothing is black and white.
Smorg,
I guess I need to continue. Conservative/liberal are adjectives defining many things. But the terminology shifts due to circumstance. Yes, a conservative position would be to continue supporting abortion, but a contemporary American conservative position would not be.
I believe in using hypothetical situations because it is the measure of remaining consistent with principle. For instance when Shea posted an article about torturing terrorists as being absolutely wrong. I presented this hypothetical:
Jack Mercer said...
Shea, let me pose an interesting scenario. I would like all of the Neo Libs to weigh in on this one if they can:
Your 10 year old daughter has been kidnapped by a group of men. You are sent pictures of her being repeatedly raped, tortured, and you are told that she will be killed in 24 hours. You manage through much heroics to apprehend one of the accomplices who knows where your daughter is being held within one hour left in the 24 hour deadline. What are you going to do?
7:34 AM
SheaNC said...
This post has been removed by the author.
9:33 AM
SheaNC said...
I would awaken from the dream containing the hypthetical scenario to realize that it is not real, whereas the tortured and murdered CIA victims' families can't wake up from their nightmare.
Not being disrespectful of Shea, but notice that he dodged my question entirely. The only variable I changed in the equation was thousands possibly millions of people being killed versus his child. I will never know if Shea's principles are consistent on this one because of his refusal to answer the question in a straightforward manner.
So I will tackle each hypothetical based on the model I provided to begin with:
"I guess you would argue war is self defense and the killing of innocent civilians is justified because it is generally an unintentional side affect."
"War" is not a "nuanced" word and yet the situation often is. War can be and agressor and defender, two agressors, and if there are misunderstandings even two defenders. There is never a circumstance where killing innocent civilians is "ok", but in circumstances where people are defending themselves innocents can get killed. In the case of defence it would never be premeditated or it would be murder. It is hard to draw a connection between war and abortion when abortion is a premeditated act. The only one that someone may be able to draw is that the person trying to end the life is the agressor and the innocent is done away with without defense from anyone. So drawing a comparison with this issue is a little difficult.
"How about gang killings then? Many times a drive by shooting is a self defense reaction. One would probably argue they shouldn't be in gangs in the first place or they should leave the punishing up to the cops and courts, but people typically join gangs because these institutions have failed them."
I think you answered your own question here. Violence breeds violence and the decay of society and morals leads to the death and destruction we witness from situations such as these. So the overall ethical breach has already taken place giving rise to the circumstances that cause the destruction. Two wrongs never equal a right.
"What about shooting down a hijacked plane? That brings about the argument that the life of few is worth less than the life of many, but rarely (probably never) can the people who make those decisions be certain that sacrifice is not in vain."
Again we leave the issue of premeditation, and deal with a circumstance that is fairly mutually exclusive. What decision I would make under such circumstances is really unknown even to me, Smorg. I wonder what I WOULD do?
"I assume from your comment that you oppose euthanasia because it is not self defense, but perhaps it could be considered that if the person is battling a terminal disease.... Defending one's self from cancer, for instance."
Euthanasia, like abortion, does not consider self-determination. I am a firm advocate of self-determination. I think that all adults should be left to make their own life decisions, and be given the freedom and opportunity to do so. Euthanasia is someone making a decision for someone else. In the matter of life and death I think only the individual facing such should be able to determine it. This also goes for abortion. I think it is totalitarianism in society when people become so god-like that they can determine the destiny of another. When we as human beings determine if innocent human life lives or dies we usurp our jurisdiction.
Smorg, I am all about equal opportunity. Not equal outcomes. Life does not provide equal outcomes, but I think that opportunity should always be equal. A child should have the opportunity to determine whether they want to live or die, regardless of the circumstances they are in. Our job as humans is to preserve life, not destroy it. This is something I don't understand about liberals as many talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but they are quick to deny it to others they consider an impediment. This is just my limited understanding, mind you. I may be missing something.
"am sort of an existentialist and I do not view death as anything negative. Pain and suffering in life, are negatives. They are inevitable, but should be avoided as much as possible. I am confident the decision my girlfriend and I made so many years ago was the right one. While it is true that we took away the child's potential to experience love and beauty, we also took away any suffering, and we made our lives and the lives of our families - the lives that had already been started - better off in the process."
I believe that if someone chooses to commit suicide they should be allowed to. But because I am not omnicient I have no idea whether someone is better off dead than alive. I think that question should be answered by them. And...I don't think the exception should be the rule. I realize there are isolated incidences that occur one in a million times, but I don't think that this should justify the majority of circumstances. Such is my feeling on abortion.
Let me share a story. My grandmother passed away on Monday. The funeral was this last Wednesday. Grandma had rhuematoid arthritis and has been bed-ridden since she was thirty. We did not have her embalmed so my last look at her was as she died. Smorg, my grandmother was a brilliant woman--many many people attested to this on Wednesday. The last thing I looked at on Grandma was her hands, and they really could not be recognizable as hands. They almost looked more twisted little sticks--she has been unable to use them for about the last 30 years.
Grandma experienced unimaginable pain for most of her life, but there were over a thousand people there from the town she lived in who stood in a cold cemetary to pay respects to a giant of a woman. Smorg, we were at the cemetary for almost 4 hours because people wanted to come forward and talk about her.
I guess the reason I tell you this is that to most people who look at life as being about happiness or self-gratification they would have thought that Grandma would have been better off dead 50 years ago. But Grandma wanted to stay in spite of her pain, and in so doing touched the lives of literally thousands.
No, Smorg, I don't think that I can make those decisions for someone else because I can't tell the future. I could never have predicted what that shriveled little woman could have accomplished from her bed all those years.
"Of course I don't have to justify the decision to anyone, and I don't think you're asking me to, but I offer this personal experience only as evidence that nothing is black and white."
No, Smorg--I don't think you do. Neither would I judge you or anyone else for such. I do want to thank you, though, for sharing something so deep and personal. There are few things that are black and white.
Hi Smorg,
I have posted an article over at the Snipet on an abortion issue. Would you like to weigh in on it?
Would value your opinion.
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home