Liberalism vs. Conservatism

[thebigcheese]

While I do recognize that what I'm about to say is a ridiculous blanket statement, I want to hear some feedback on this opinion:

Liberalism is idealism.
Conservatism is realism.

Do you think this is an accurate portrayal of the two ideologies? Or do you think that this is just a bunch of crap?

[Marduk]

I don't think it accurately conveys either position. There are idealists and realists in both camps, perhaps just of a different sort.

I think a better expression might be:

Liberalism is realism about the past, idealism about the future.
Consvervatism is idealism about the past, realism about the future.

It seems that liberals are far more often guilty of being overly optimistic about potential social programs, whereas conservatives generally seem more capable of assessing potential pitfalls. However, conservatives also seem to generally operate under the fallacy that "back in my day" was somehow a more ideal situation.

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but as this is somewhat relevant, I'll throw it in. The argument that all "progressive change" has been evil strikes me as particularly specious and ignorant of history. Really, conservatives? You want to go back to the way it was? You think that things like child labor laws, slavery laws, emancipation laws, health codes, and wage laws are all bad things?

And another aside, mostly for Vorpal (although he hasn't been around much. Where ya been, Vorps? Did I scare ya off?) Really liberals? You think that socialized programs will magically cure everyone's ills? You think that increasing everyone's tax burden will not impede economic progress? You think that anyone should be allowed to do anything in the name of free speech, and that it won't lead to increased crime rates and other societal ills?

But yeah, I think my couplet is a bit closer to reality.

[thebigcheese]

Liberalism is realism about the past, idealism about the future.
Consvervatism is idealism about the past, realism about the future.

Oooh, I like it!

The argument that all "progressive change" has been evil strikes me as particularly specious and ignorant of history. Really, conservatives? You want to go back to the way it was? You think that things like child labor laws, slavery laws, emancipation laws, health codes, and wage laws are all bad things?

Personally, I try to be a realist both ways...but I'm probably just full of myself. I recognize that progressive movements are sometimes necessary, but they aren't always a good idea. I like to think of it this way: if everyone in the world was liberal (or everyone in the world was conservative), we would live in some whack-job society. We need both sides to balance each other out, so we don't end up too extreme either way. It's ridiculous to think that liberals have never brought about anything good, or that conservatives have never prevented anything bad.

So...I guess you could call me a moderate. And I'm often guilty of being a fence-sitter.

[vorpal blade]

You are right, Marduk, I haven't been around much. I think I haven't posted in almost two weeks. Thanks for noticing.

I travel for my job fairly frequently, and when I travel I don't get online. I'm really behind in reading the Board. I've also been doing a lot of research on the "wine in the sacrament" topic. So, lack of time.

I'm not scare of you, because I believe you are kind and would not want to hurt me.

I don't have time now to do justice to this topic. Let me just say that liberals and conservatives tend to have different versions of history, and different expectations of changes we make. I think we tend to polarize each other. If you want to make a change you have to convince everyone that things are really bad, at the crisis level. The opposition, for whatever reason is reluctant to change, and takes the position that things aren't really so bad as the progressives would have you believe. The more you argue about it, the better the past looks to the conservative, and the worse it looks to the liberal. Is it possible that both are mistaken or fail to look at the past realistically? I think so. But the victors tend to write the history books.

I really don't know much, if anything, about the child labor laws written a century (or so) ago. I think the liberal history says that things were really bad for children, but the evil capitalists wouldn't change because it affected their bottom line on their profits. So the heroic progressives had to step in and "save the children."

The conservative history says that as labor unions became more politically powerful they lobbied the government to reduce the competition they were facing from young people who were desperate to help support their families and were willing and able to work for less. The labor unions were particularly strong in the cities, were working conditions were especially bad for adults and children. The labor unions and their political allies sold the idea to the public on the basis of protecting children, who were then thrown out of work and pushed further into poverty and made to suffer to allow labor unions to gain more power and demand more money for their unskilled labor.

I'm sure you can find whatever "proof" you want to support either history, if you dig deep enough.

[thebigcheese]

Let me just say that liberals and conservatives tend to have different versions of history, and different expectations of changes we make. I think we tend to polarize each other. If you want to make a change you have to convince everyone that things are really bad, at the crisis level. The opposition, for whatever reason is reluctant to change, and takes the position that things aren't really so bad as the progressives would have you believe. The more you argue about it, the better the past looks to the conservative, and the worse it looks to the liberal. Is it possible that both are mistaken or fail to look at the past realistically? I think so. But the victors tend to write the history books.

I like where you're going with this. I'd love to hear some more examples, when you have the time. Or if anyone else is a history buff, feel free to chime in...because I am clearly not.

[Marduk]

But the victors tend to write the history books.

This is so, so, SO true, it bears repeating many times over. You asked for examples, so I'll give you some.

The Boston tea party is probably the most readily available. These actions, if they had lost the war, would have been considered acts of treason and terrorism (if the term had existed back then). Since they did not, they are considered acts of patriotism (how silly, since they were then still British.)

Another prime example is that of Charles Beard. He published a work in 1913 called An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. This work, which attempted to analyze potential financial motives of the actions of various founding fathers, was widely criticized, largely because it went against contemporary views that the founding fathers were all entirely altruistic. This view predominated, since again, the founding fathers were the victors in the revolutionary war, so it made sense to venerate them.

Lastly, I'd consider the historical interpretations of folks like Vladimir Lenin, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot in their respective countries. They are largely considered villianous by most American historians/the populace at large, and yet these men are lauded as heroes in their respective necks of the woods.

These are just a few examples. Every event in history is colored by perspective. Understanding history is a lot like trying to solve a crime; everyone has different perspectives, and even the inanimate evidence can be construed in different ways. It takes a lot of analysis and a concerted effort to remain unbiased to even have a hope of arriving at anything close to the truth.

[ahem.]

Che Guevara

Really? The others, I grant you, seem to always play the villain. But Che in particular seems to have quite a bit of sympathy in America these days. At least from the people I am exposed to. Maybe it's just that I hang around too many RMs who served in Latin America (...except I don't think I do).

Maybe I just watch Evita too much, and find Antonio Banderas quite dashing.

[Marduk]

That tends to be a recent trend, which points out the other point; that is, our perspective of history is cyclical. We tend to see paradigm shifts over time. Che was far more vilified in say, our parents' day, and history is slowly starting to have some kind things to say about him. But he was absolutely considered a threat in the cold war days.

[ahem.]

Agreed. He just seemed to be the odd-man-out in your list.

I secretly think he's gaining sympathy solely because of the popularity of shirts with his face on them. Counter-culture has become pop-culture.



Also, I swear I read a board question once upon a time where the reader had received a free Che t-shirt and wanted to know who the icon was and what he stood for before werf would wear it. Werf is my hero.

[vorpal blade]

Since you asked, thebigcheese, here is another example.

Consider the “War on Poverty.” This refers to a set of governmental policies that were proposed to congress during the Kennedy administration and were enacted into law during the Lyndon Johnson administration in the early 1960s.

According to liberal history the country was in a state of crisis. Poor people were being neglected by society and becoming dependent on the government. More and more people were failing to become useful and creative citizens. What was needed was to “give a hand, not a handout” to these people to rehabilitate them and break the cycle of poverty. Massive amounts of taxpayer money were spent in a variety of social programs. The result was that “millions of people were lifted out of poverty during the period, or had their plight considerably alleviated, by government programs and public expenditures” (former Johnson White House aide Hodding Carter III). About 11 million students received loans for their college education by 1986.

“A clear, steady trend away from the majority’s long and shameful disregard of the other, hidden America of hard-core hopelessness” was instituted (according to Hodding Carter). Mrs. Johnson talked about the “sense of caring” and the “exhilaration” of her husband’s efforts. It was claimed that things would have been worse without the war on poverty. “The question is not what the bottom line is today—with poverty up—but where would we be if we didn’t have these programs in place” said Professor Sheldon Danziger, director of the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Research of Poverty, in 1984. “I think we’d have poverty rates over 25 percent.”

According to the conservative history “the number of people who lived below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since 1960, and was only about half of what it had been in 1950” (Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed). “On the more fundamental issue of dependency, the situation was even more clearly improving. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level without counting government benefits declined by about one-third from 1950 to 1965 In short, dependency on government transfers as a means of warding off poverty was declining when the ‘war on poverty’ began.”

In the conservative history the “war on poverty” was promoted by the liberals as a way to reduce dependency and not just take money from the haves and give it to the have-nots. John F. Kennedy stated that “We must find ways of returning far more of our dependent people to independence.” “Its emphasis must be directed increasingly toward prevention and rehabilitation—on reducing not only the long-rage cost in budgetary terms but the long-range cost in human terms as well.” President Johnson remarked in August 1964, when the legislation passed, “The days of the dole in our country are numbered.” In the conservative history this is important to note because the conservatives believe that the liberals redefined the initial goals of the government programs, years after the programs were shown to be ineffective, in order to make the programs look successful. Another initial goal was that these social programs were a way of heading off urban violence.

In the conservative history “the percentage of people dependent upon the federal government to keep above the poverty line increased” (Thomas Sowell). “Official poverty continued its decline for some time, as massive federal outlays lifted many people above the official poverty line, but not out of dependency—the original goal. Eventually, however, even official poverty began to rise, so that a larger number of people were in poverty in 1992 than were in poverty in 1964, when the ‘war on poverty’ began.” “The number of people receiving public assistance more than doubled from 1960 to 1977. The dollar value of public housing rose nearly five-fold in a decade and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than ten-fold….Federal spending on such social welfare programs not only rose in dollar terms and in real terms, but also a percentage of the nation’s gross national product, going from 8 percent of GNP in 1960 to 16 percent by 1974.”

Urban riots were particularly bad during this era of government programs, but declined sharply after the beginning of the Nixon administration, which was opposed to the “war on poverty.” During the Reagan presidency major urban riots became virtually extinct.

So, in the conservative history the results of the “war on poverty” program was directly counter to what the liberals said would be the results when they first proposed the program. However, by changing the history of what they said would be the results, and redefining the meaning of success, or using new criteria so subjective that it can’t be refuted, they were able to claim success.

Much of this comes from the book “The Vision of the Anointed,” by Thomas Sowell.

[vorpal blade]

Another example, taken from Sowell.
According to the conservative history of sex education the Office of Economic Opportunity began making grants to Planned Parenthood in 1964 and rapidly increased the expenditures for “family planning” every year thereafter for many years. The cost went from $14 million in 1968 to $279 million a decade later. We were told by the National Education Association that the children needed information to avoid unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease. These problems were seen by the liberals as a crisis, but the conservatives cite statistics that the “fertility rates among teenage girls had been declining for more than a decade since 1957. Venereal disease was also declining. The rate of infection for gonorrhea, for example, declined every year from 1950 through 1959, and the rate of syphilis infection was, by 1960, less than half of what it had been in 1950.”

Conservatives warned that increased “sex education would lead to more sexual activity, rather than less, and to more teenage pregnancy as well.” Liberals asserted that a boy “will find decreased need for causal, irresponsible and self-centered experimentation with sex.” The new York Times declared that “To fear that sex education will become synonymous with greater sexual permissiveness is to misunderstand the fundamental purpose of the entire enterprise.” As in other cases, the intentions are seen by the liberals as the important point of the history.

In the conservative history it is said that “as early as 1968 nearly half of all schools in the country—public and private, religious and secular—had sex education, and it was rapidly growing. As sex education programs spread widely through the American educational system during the 1970s, the pregnancy rate among 15- to 19-year old females rose from approximately 69 per thousand in 1970 to approximately 96 per thousand by 1980. Among unmarried girls in the 15- to 17-year old bracket, birth rates rose 29 percent between 1970 and 1984, despite a massive increase in abortions, which more than doubled during the same period. Among girls under 15, the number of abortions surpassed the number of live births by 1974. The reason was not hard to find: According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the percentage of unmarried teenage girls who had engaged in sex was higher at every age from 15 through 19 by 1976 than it was just five years earlier. The rate of teenage gonorrhea tripled between 1956 and 1975. Sargent Shriver, former head of the Office of Economic Opportunity, which led the early charge for more sex education and ‘family planning’ clinics, testified candidly to a congressional committee in 1978:’Just as venereal disease has skyrocketed 350% in the last 15 years when we have had more clinics, more pills, and more sex education than ever in history, teen-age pregnancy has risen.’ Such candor was, however, the exception rather than the rule among those who had pushed for sex education and birth control (‘family planning’) clinics.” (Thomas Sowell)

In the liberal history all of this just proved the need for even more sex education. Opposition to sex education continued to be dismissed as a “simplistic view.” Congressman James H. Scheuer of New York claimed the growth of teenage pregnancy only “highlights the need for strong leadership by the Federal Government in solving this problem.” The idea that “strong” federal “leadership” might have made the situation worse is not mentioned in the liberal histories. Furthermore the liberal historians claim that the sex education was not widespread prior to the jump in pregnancy and abortions in the 1970s by restricting the term “sex education” to compulsory sex education, which was in general mandated later.

In the liberal history the primary goal of most sex educators was not to reduce unwanted pregnancy rates among teenagers (which was just a way to sell it to the public), but to encourage healthy attitudes about sex and sexuality. As the Journal of School Health put it the sex education crisis provided “an exciting opportunity to develop new norms.” This is the real reason “sex education” was advocated to take place from kindergarten to college, because it takes a constant indoctrination to change attitudes.

[Marduk]

I was going to post several points of view where the conservative think-tanks tend to construe history to support their particular narrative, but I'd rather make a different point.

That point is that we tend to over-simplify trends in history to support a specific argument. Unfortunately, the events of history are necessarily an amalgam of the entire zeitgeist surrounding that particular event. This is what makes it particularly difficult to pin-point causes of historic trends, and lends itself to a fair bit of over-stretching (and sometimes tearing) the threads of history.

[C is for]

Unfortunately, the events of history are necessarily an amalgam of the entire zeitgeist surrounding that particular event.

...Let me copy that down real quick to submit to the College Board as an AP Essay question.

(Who uses zeitgeist anyway?)

Carry on with your serious and intelligent conversation.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Unfortunately, the events of history are necessarily an amalgam of the entire zeitgeist surrounding that particular event.

...Let me copy that down real quick to submit to the College Board as an AP Essay question.

(Who uses zeitgeist anyway?).

He does. All the time.

[thebigcheese]

Huh, that's interesting. I wish they would teach more history this way because it's usually portrayed as being fairly black-and-white without really exploring the intricacies of the beast. It's often oversimplified, as Marduk pointed out.

But frankly, I guess I'm not really surprised by this. Generally speaking, I think it's obvious that people usually try to emphasize their finer qualities and diminish their flaws. This is also true of the things we produce, enforce, believe... Nobody wants to look like an idiot who failed at something. And nobody wants to be the guy who lobbied for a flawed system, especially if you want to get elected again next year.

[vorpal blade]

I think it has been noted many times that generally speaking, with notable exceptions, certain political and social beliefs are correlated with certain professions. Journalists, for example, tend to be far more liberal than, say engineers or farmers. In my experience history teachers (and often teachers in general) seem to be motivated by a sense of the necessity to change things in society, and hence are more liberal. They are not motivated to give students alternate threads or interpretations of history which contradict their core values or what they are trying to accomplish in life.

[Marduk]

Vorpal, that has not been my experience. I'm not saying it isn't the case in a larger sense, but my history teachers/professors have always given me a more conservative view of history. It is only through my study of other disciplines, as well as my personal study, that has led me to believe that the history I was given wasn't necessarily an accurate one.

[ahem.]

I honestly don't think you can typify what historians are going to do or say about the past, because each individual has their own interpretation. They have lenses through which they see the world, and it is nearly impossible for them to strip those while teaching about the past. The best teachers are those who recognize and acknowledge those biases, but it is a difficult task. The field is wrought with contradiction on almost every subject. Which is perhaps why people get frustrated. I think the key in understanding history is to listen to opposing viewpoints.

LBJ was a terrible president because he surrounded himself with Yes Men who wouldn't challenge him.
LBJ was an excellent president because he did the best with what was on the table.
LBJ only seemed like a terrible president because the nation idealized Kennedy and would have vilified any who followed.
LBJ was a bad president because he failed to adapt his good intentions to the needs/moods of the nation.

I could follow each of these statements with an entire essay outlining and supporting that point of view. What I can't do is write a single essay explaining and supporting these points of view. Because while each view has merit, they ultimately contradict each other because they identify a single cause and effect relationship. The problem with history is that you can't just look at a single event or series of events and come up with a single all-encompassing thesis statement. Well, you can, but it oversimplifies important relationships.

So history teachers have the challenge of trying to distill all their collective knowledge on a given subject to students who generally don't deal well with contradiction. Beginners like things all tied up with string so they can easily digest the tidbits of knowledge at a reasonable pace and feel like hey know more about the world. As you get more advanced in any area of study, you begin to see the nuance and become more aware of the gray areas surrounding what you originally thought to be black and white.

I"m not sure this connects in to what you all were talking about, but oh well.

[thebigcheese]

So history teachers have the challenge of trying to distill all their collective knowledge on a given subject to students who generally don't deal well with contradiction. Beginners like things all tied up with string so they can easily digest the tidbits of knowledge at a reasonable pace and feel like hey know more about the world. As you get more advanced in any area of study, you begin to see the nuance and become more aware of the gray areas surrounding what you originally thought to be black and white.

I think that's a fair assessment. If you're just learning about the Emancipation Proclamation for the first time as a 5th grader, your teacher is probably going to say that "Slavery was BAD!" and that's it. That's all you really need to know at that age, right? Well, the first time I heard my high school history teacher talk about how southerners actually wanted/needed slaves for their economic well-being, I was shocked. Everyone had always told me that slavery was BAD, and that was the end of it. As it turns out, the issue was quite a bit more complex. I felt like I had been lied to.

I think most kids are smarter than we give them credit for...so it shouldn't be oversimplified as much as it is, even in the younger grades (for more on this subject, I recommend reading a book called "Teach Like Your Hair's On Fire"). Maybe I would have actually enjoyed history if my teachers had highlighted the complexity and nuances of it. As a kid, I thought history was the dustiest, more boring subject in the world. Who cares about what a bunch of dudes in white wigs and tight pants did 200 years ago? Weirdos...

All I can say is, thank goodness for my AP classes in high school. I got to taste the depth of history, government, and economics. Nowadays, I only wish I knew more. I just feel so ignorant sometimes...

[vorpal blade]

Vorpal, that has not been my experience. I'm not saying it isn't the case in a larger sense, but my history teachers/professors have always given me a more conservative view of history. It is only through my study of other disciplines, as well as my personal study, that has led me to believe that the history I was given wasn't necessarily an accurate one.

If you mean that your history teachers have always given you a more conservative view of history than, say, Karl Marx, then you probably haven't been exposed to professors in the big liberal arts colleges. If your teachers were slightly more conservative than you it doesn't surprise me. Would you say that your teachers/professors than always been more conservative than me?