A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Question of the Day: What is the Essence of a Conservative? Of a Liberal?

Michael Kruse quotes from an article by conservative commentator, Dennis Praeger in The National Review. The full article is here, but I am going to post the portions of the article that Michael posts as well because I think they get at the essence of Prager's argument. After the quote I will pose the question of the day.

The giveaway regarding presidential candidate Barack Obama's plans for America was his repeated use of the words "fundamentally transform."

Some of us instinctively reacted negatively — in fact, with horror — at the thought of fundamentally transforming America.

The "us" are conservatives.

One unbridgeable divide between Left and Right is how each views alternatives to present-day America.

Those on the Left imagine an ideal society that has never existed, and therefore seek to "fundamentally transform" America. When liberals imagine an America fundamentally transformed, they envision it becoming a nearly utopian society in which there is no greed, no racism, no sexism, no inequality, no poverty, and ultimately no unhappiness.

Conservatives, on the other hand, look around at other societies and look at history and are certain that if America were fundamentally transformed, it would become just like those other societies. America would become a society of far less liberty, of ethically and morally inferior citizens, and of much more unhappiness. Moreover, cruelty would increase exponentially around the world.

Conservatives believe that America is an aberration in human history; that, with all the problems that a society made up of flawed human beings will inevitably have, America has been and remains a uniquely decent society. Therefore, conservatives worry that fundamentally transforming America — making America less exceptional — will mean that America gets much worse.

Liberals, on the other hand, worry over the opposite possibility — that America will remain more or less as it is....

Here's the question of the day-- Do you think Prager has adequately captured the essence of political conservatism and liberalism? If so, why? If not, why not?

All liberals, conservatives, and others are welcome to comment.

Please comment on the substance of the argument only. No ad hominem attacks.

6 comments:

Robert Cornwall said...

Praeger says that America is a uniqe society and that to transform it would make it, essentially worse. Conservatives want to preserve America as it is. What he doesn't do, except to suggest that liberals are utopians, is to lay out what Obama meant by fundamentally transform America. Now, maybe he does this in the article -- but as one who is more on the liberal side, I'm not a utopian.

But, as we look back on our history, America has not been, and is not now, a perfect society. So, maybe the words "fundamentally transform" are a bit of an overkill, I think Obama meant that we need to move America to a place that is fairer, juster, and yes less sexist, less racist, etc. To say that this is a bad thing is a bit odd.

Chuck Tackett said...

I characterize my political leanings as socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Sometimes I'm not really sure what that means other than I want to change what is not working and I want people, not governments, to do it.

Praeger's comments seem a very narrow view from a particular vantage point. Using "fundamentally transform" as if President Obama actually meant it. I don't give that much credibility to any politician, or many journalists either for that matter, these days.

Pumice said...

The differences that Prager is making are explained well in a book by Thomas Sowell called "Conflict of Visions." Sowell traces the differences back to our founding fathers and the philosophers that influenced them. He does so in secular terms but the difference comes down to belief in Original Sin. People who do not accept that man is sinful and in need of God's grace feel that the problem is in society. If we can just take care of the social problems we can have Utopia. People like Obama are true believers.

On the other side are those who believe that man is a fallen creature and we will never have a perfect world. Sowell says these people (without the spiritual vocabulary) look for the best possible solutions in a difficult world.

It is a book with a lot of insight.

Grace and Peace

Bruce said...

Some descriptions that attempt to come up with the essence of a particular subject fail because there are too many factors in the reality of the subject to reduce to any kind of essence. The rhetoric of our political speech may attempt to name liberals and conservitives in a manner similar to the article. The reality is simply too complex. Too many factors are at play. The terms liberal and conservative mean less to me now than at any other time in my life.

PamBG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PamBG said...

Conservatives, on the other hand, look around at other societies and look at history and are certain that if America were fundamentally transformed, it would become just like those other societies. America would become a society of far less liberty, of ethically and morally inferior citizens, and of much more unhappiness. Moreover, cruelty would increase exponentially around the world.

What I want to understand is what they think "those other societies" are like that they don't want to become.

Europeans look at us and see more poverty than they have, more ignorance than they have and less freedoms for the majority than they have.

America stands, in my view, for the big and strong lording it over the small and vulnerable. American freedom is freedom for the rich to grow richer and the strong to grow stronger.

It's exactly what Jesus worked against. We are basically about bullying. How on earth this is more ethical than Europe, I can't fathom.

(I pick on "Europe" as a Western society and a closer model to what we would become. I'm assuming no one wants to be like North Korea although I suspect that's what a lot of conservatives think that I, as a liberal, want.)