Is Liberal the New Conservative?
Political labels are often mere fashion statements, argues Roger L. Simon, who believes "old ideologies with withered definitions" leave no room for fresh ideas.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Ever since I “came out” after 9/11 as someone who “goes both ways” - pro-gay marriage and pro-War on Terror - I have been accused of being a conservative. As I have written elsewhere, that used to bother me a lot. But I got over it. I had been called a communist in other times and survived. As the old saying goes, call me anything you want, but just don’t call me late for lunch.
Nevertheless, I have the sense our society is increasingly trapped in old ideologies with withered definitions. Conservative, liberal, progressive, socialist, anarchist, libertarian, left, right-they seem to have lost much of their meaning and their punch, defined and redefined over decades, even centuries. This should be no surprise. The terms left and right themselves stem from seating arrangements from the French Assembly of 1791. Talk about ‘ye olde’.
Since we live in a world of media images, this has become even more confusing. In the current election, we have the spectacle of the leading Democratic candidates-who define themselves as “liberals” or sometimes as “progressives” to avoid the pejorative connotations of the former-competing with each other in their zeal to restrict a free trade agreement. Is this a “liberal” or “conservative” position?
Well, historically, it is liberal because it seems to side with labor, but in this case it really sides with labor bureaucrats (the high-paid leaders of local unions in endangered industries, an aristocratic elite of sorts), because the rank-and-file membership would more than likely suffer-at least in the long term-through the forced preservation of failing industries. Indeed, the larger working class beyond these local unions would suffer badly.
In another sense, then, Obama and Clinton are highly conservative, seeking to conserve at all costs a fading (labor) aristocracy that should long since have been consigned to the garbage heap of history. No wonder Obama’s economic advisor-in act worthy of the oldest of old politics-rushed to reassure the Canadian ambassador that the “candidate of change” was only joshing about reforming NAFTA. It was just another campaign fib for a gullible public. The image of ideology trumps the reality.
Meanwhile, “true conservatives” have lined up to vilify the putative presidential candidate of the Republican Party because he is not “conservative” enough, even though McCain’s voting record is well over eighty percent “conservative” (quotes deliberate because these definitions are ever fluid) according to most measurements. Again the image of ideology trumps the reality. McCain is seen by many as a closet liberal. Is he? Who knows? Maybe he’s a closet conservative masquerading as a progressive with libertarian and anarcho-syndicalist tendencies. Or maybe he’s just John McCain.
So is political ideology-as my title implies-all a fashion statement? Is liberal the new conservative, just as taupe or red might be this year’s new black. Of course not. But it is so more than we think it is. And ironically these same ideologies -our ideology-often dictate our employment, our social and family relationships and, worst of all, our self-image. No wonder, like Linus clinging to his blanket, we cleave to these very old, conventional and often sclerotic viewpoints more than we should-even though tend to blind us to the world in front of us and deny us the freedom to find a solution outside our little frames. Unconventional ideas become more threatening than they should because they don’t fit our received schema.
It’s not by accident then that the ideas being offered in the current campaign are almost as ‘ye olde’ as that French Assembly of 1791. Thus far we have not heard a seriously original thought of any depth from any candidate on either side, despite the umpteen debates and interviews that have taken place for lo these many months (or is it years?). Now I admit we don’t often see much originality in risk averse presidential campaigns, but in a world of fantastic innovation it would nice to see at least one candidate with a creative thought that might challenge the public. (No, “hope” and “change” don’t count.)
Now before you explode, I am not advocating the end of ideology or anything like it. Ideologies, theories of all sorts, are not only useful, they are part of the grand history of human thought. They are also part of our intellectual and emotional makeup. We all engage in the creation and disputation of ideologies. But if we let them always govern us, we are not free. We lose our mental flexibility and waste a great deal of time proving we are right (correct in our ideology) and that our adversaries are nitwits. We also decrease the likelihood of intelligent compromise and progress.
Instead, and corny as it sounds, I regard whatever paltry knowledge, whatever theories I have picked up or adopted in my life like arrows in a quiver. Most days I might be pulling the same arrow, but some days, when the prey changes, when the target shifts, as sometimes it does, I might pull a totally different arrow. I could be a capitalist for three weeks, but a Marxist for the fourth, a Freudian one day and a Zen Buddhist the next, a free trader for years and even–once in a while but not faintly in the case referenced above-a protectionist. But most of all I want to be free to contradict myself and to be wrong, because I am not always right. And when I look for a President, I look for someone with the same capacity.
Maybe what I am is an American pragmatist.
[But isn’t that a theory?-ed. Shhh….]
Roger L. Simon is an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter, novelist and blogger, and the CEO of Pajamas Media.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
17 Comments
Gringo:And the definitions of “conservative” and “liberal” have been so fluid over the years. Balanced Budgets? Liberal Democrats have been better in the last 30 years.
Mar 5, 2008 - 5:44 am dan:What would have been “liberal” foreign policy in 1960 is now considered “conservative.”
That bracketed comment is interesting to me - I was a philosophy major, and I remember finally getting to William James’ Pragmatism and thinking, “this - ‘what works’ - is a philosophy?”
Philosophy is a great major to have pursued in times like this: generally deemed useless - and certainly worse than useless if not pursued in a sincere, disciplined manner - it is the only kind of inquiry that clarifies the moral, ideological, cultural and sentimental jetsam passed on rather incohately by our parents, grandparents, general culture and often even teachers. To paraphrase Keynes, almost everyone is unaware of the actual nature and patrimony of the ideas - or, more precisely, sentiments - he espouses.
In my view, England has produced the most successful political culture - and America, like the New Testament tacked onto the Old. The English tradition evolved, though, toward, and was often guided by, simply a spirit of “what works” - the famous muddling through. Until quite recently, it was an effective prophylactic against ideological nonsense of all kinds (though, of course, not entirely effective). So I guess I, who voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004, and who will vote for McCain in 2008 on the basis of the obvious strategic requirements of our country, am a pragmatist. I think it is the most venerable of the political perspectives, personally.
Mar 5, 2008 - 6:00 am Tired of the "vote for Mcain, stupid rightwinger" daily tirade:I am with you in this one.
People should get rid of the old chicles of the bipartisan system, and vote for a party without presidential “80% conservative” candidates, who want the equivalent of a whole mexican state voting for the democrats in less than a decade.
That´s the idea in your article, isn´t it?
Mar 5, 2008 - 6:32 am Lem:I suppose you are right, I mean correct… for now
Mar 5, 2008 - 7:12 am A. N. Pierson:Excellent piece.
Mar 5, 2008 - 7:59 am Shannon Love:I think ideologies are important because they spring out individuals’ fundamental world view. We can tell this because the same people line up on the same sides of many different issues. For example, knowing a person’s view on gay marriage allows one to have a good chance of predicting that person’s view on the Iraq war. Our great political conflicts spring out these different world views. Different groups of people actually have significantly different ideas about cause and effect in the world.
What is meaningless is the terms we attach to these groupings of world views. Liberal, progressive, conservative, Left, Right, etc are all marketing inventions with as much validity as “New and Improved.”
Mar 5, 2008 - 8:21 am Sandy:Some ideas never lose their brilliance. See the U.S. Constitution. No matter how the times change, the guidelines a ragtag bunch of renegade free-thinkers came up with have never lost their luster. Call me a conservative now and forever.
Mar 5, 2008 - 8:40 am Huan:The presumption that any of these previously used political categorizations were ever consistent of the views held by any particular individual i think is faulty.
Mar 5, 2008 - 8:48 am Patrick S Lasswell:Sandy,
Many mediocre ideas are tied to brilliant ones. Enough unquestioned “refinement”, like barnacles accruing on the hull of a once-fine sailboat, will slow the brilliance to nothing. Part of this is the courage and integrity of the thinker in keeping themselves clear of adhesions. Distinguishing between positive feedback and sycophancy is hard as hell, but a critical skill.
Today, Barack Obama is probably getting an education in discovering that difference. Regrettably, this is too late for him to correct a course that looks to be more ballistic than ascendant.
Mar 5, 2008 - 10:53 am Kejda Gjermani:Interesting piece.
I think fanatic over reliance in any political ideology has become impractical and often absurd, because most dominant ideologies are not even internally consistent nowadays. What is Conservatism? A cobbled-together political mandate with dubious free-market roots and a melting pot for all sorts of reactionaries. The Conservative agenda is a collection of often ideologically divergent elements taken up for the sake of expediency. How can one talk of ideological purity when none of the ideological branches can even define themselves coherently for what they are??
Same thing with Liberalism. It’s merely a perversion of the language, forcing true Liberalism to be prefixed by “Classic”.
I don’t think the solution is to give up taxonomic boundaries, but rather to challenge wanna-be relevant ideologies to make lucid sense in non-contradictory terms. When everything turns gray though, it can be an even more dangerous state of affairs. Someone always will pop up as the self-proclaimed “truest” Pragmatist, shifting the scale of gray in all sorts of directions.
You could have voted for Carter (hope not!), then Reagan,.. then Clinton, then Gore, then Bush,… that doesn’t necessarily make you a pragmatist, but merely a non hyper partisan. Some things are absolute though, and we often tend to take them for granted. You do believe, don’t you, that in under any circumstances, you should not be denied the right to vote, be it for Hillary, Obama, or McCain?? Such rights cannot and should not just fly along with the winds…
Even pragmatism needs some politico-ideological foundations, minimalistic as they may be.
Mar 5, 2008 - 2:57 pm Yaakov Watkins:cute.
McCain’s score is tainted by the fact that the issues the conservatives wanted Congress to approve never came up for a vote.
McCain reminds me of McGovern. McGovern was the official Democratic candidate but he didn’t represent what the Democratic party believed. Therefore he had no support and lost.
Mar 5, 2008 - 3:38 pm Webutante:Wonderful piece.
Count me a conservative with conservative principles to aim for, but not annihilate those who fall short. Reagan is a case in point.
Mar 5, 2008 - 4:09 pm tanstaafl:Labels don’t facilitate understanding, they obfuscate understanding.
You should go for the content and not get stuck at the label.
Today’s version of liberal (or, as Hillary prefers, “progressive”) argues that big and bigger government is the key to enlightened, fair and balanced society.
Today’s version of conservative thinks smaller government, free enterprise, individual initiative and personal responsibility are the keys to a happy and fruitful human condition.
(this has not always been the case, since each of these terms, historically, has meant the opposite of what it stands for today)
Today’s liberals, generally, seem to favor the nanny state as a replacement for structure and caring in their lives. Would be liberal/progressive “leaders” are happy to oblige in the name of their own personal grasp for power.
Today’s conservatives are far more in keeping with the original intent of limited federal government which so preoccupied (nay, obsessed) the minds of those who conceived this American experiment.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
~Thomas Jefferson
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
~Winston Churchill
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Mar 5, 2008 - 8:01 pm jodetoad:~P.J. O’Rourke,
On a personal level, I found comparing myself to the standard definition of a conservative helpful in thinking more coherently.
I only recognized myself as a conservative when cognitive dissonance while exposed to MSM became overwhelming in 2004. Asking myself questions about my positions on the various social and fiscal issues has brought some clarity. No, I’m not a 100% grade AA conservative, but I now know where to get information without feeling like a Martian, and why trying to inform myself felt so bizarre in the past. So perhaps I don’t wear the label, but the concept is valuable.
Groupthink is probably a very basic human tendency. For those of us swimming against the stream, at least for me, it may be less a label or definition than reassurance that we are not crazy or unique.
Mar 6, 2008 - 12:03 am Steve, UK:Good article, and there’s the same confusion this side of the pond. During the recent war in Lebanon, liberal, well-scrubbed middle-class people were to be seen carrying placards saying ‘We are all Hezbollah’. Weird.
Mar 6, 2008 - 4:00 am Bonded:In France ‘liberal’ means right-wing, in the sense of laissez-faire, let-it-rip capitalism.
In Britain, ‘progressives’ oppose more police powers and ID cards, but also support highly restrictive gun laws. They don’t see that a disarmed population is obliged to require more elaborate security measures. They’re too busy dreaming of a perfect world, where freedoms don’t have to be defended.
Pragmatism is a good baseline (English ‘what works’).
This kind of linking up is great, Jodetoad, you’re right, though of course all sorts of wackos can find reassurance on the net too.
Left and right labels have different connotations in different countries. But in the American sense, I subscribe to the explanation that left and right is measured by the involvement of the government on the affairs of its subjects. So if you had a line of measurement, you would place totalitarianism at the left end of the spectrum and anarchy at the right. All other labels would follow in between; liberal being left of the conservatives on the right.
Using this measuring stick, it is interesting to note that nearly all European politics are left wing, even those that are labeled as “right wing” such as neo-fascism. I think you can say the same of “right wing governments” in South America.
In Mr. Simon’s article, he notes that many described liberals and conservatives share views that could be described as having roots in the other camp. And he would be right because most of America is moderate with desires to have government intervention in some areas but not others. These desires are shifting with the times, but the yardstick doesn’t change.
Let’s take the example of border security. A truly right wing/libertarian position under this measurement would be the advocating of open borders, yet border security is a position supported by people who call themselves conservatives. In Mr. Simon’s article, his question about trade protectionism is clearly a liberal one and fits consistently into the Democratic presidential platform. Yet, even a self-described conservative like Pat Buchanan supports protectionism.
The confusion results when people try to prescribe ideology to American party politics and platforms or worse, to dictionary definitions such as when Mr. Simon says that “Obama and Clinton are highly conservative, seeking to conserve at all costs a fading (labor) aristocracy.” When this happens, the terms become messy and results in Mr. Simon’s confusion. But the reality is that the terms of this model are static, party politics are not. Conservatism is not an ideology of conserving the status quo. Under this prescribed definition conservatism is supporting the minimizing the intervention of government action. The government support of labor through protectionist law cannot be described as conservative.
Again, the middle ground is where most people really reside and it is just a matter of deciding how much intervention you support that determines whether you are more liberal or conservative. Few people are so committed to the extreme that they would fall on the outer edges say like Ron Paul or Barry Sanders.
Mar 6, 2008 - 9:35 am joebedk:This column might be taken a proof of Plato’s thesis about democracy. Yes, we are,indeed, back to wondering about that.
Mar 8, 2008 - 8:37 pm