Right vs. Left as Seen at DU

The DU crowd has a pair of writers that they REALLY love who write a collection of crap called the “Crisis Papers.” These two regularly write material so far from the edge that it would be funny if only they didn’t believe it. One of their newest pieces can be found here. The author is attempting to do a worthwhile thing in creating talking points for his fellow leftists. To do this, he contrasts what he believes to be the beliefs of conservatives with his own. But his assertions about what it means to be on the right, or “regressive” as he calls it, fall painfully short. Following are his claims and my own thoughts:

1. Is society a collection of private individuals or is it a community?
The Right: Society is an aggregate of self-interested individuals. Associations within the society are personal and voluntary. Social progress issues from private, self-interested behavior. Strictly speaking: "there is no such thing as society – there are individuals and there are families." (Margaret Thatcher). "Good for each, good for all; bad for each, bad for all."
The Left: Society is a community: "a cooperative venture for mutual advantage [which] makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts." (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, p. 4) Common goods are achieved through individual constraint and sacrifice. "Good for Each, Bad for all; Bad for each, good for all."

Okay, there are some problems with this. First, the Thatcher quote is accurate in its syntax but taken horribly out of context. She was referencing economic policy and was speaking specifically about her views, known as economic rationalism, itself a by-product of economic liberalism. Thatcher was discussing the destruction of class society, not of society in general.

Second, the idea that “common goods are achieved through individual constraint” is not an American ideal. If this is what liberals wish to define themselves as, then they are on the wrong continent. Imagine if the original framers of our Constitution had said, “Gee, you know we have it really bad here but there are some people making a good living off of our relationship with England. Let’s forget this whole revolution thing and be loyal citizens for the sake of others.” You can argue right or wrong, but either way that isn’t how the American founders thought. The American project was founded on the idea that individuals struggling boldly against oppression would motivate others to join the cause, and it did. Individualism (for all the weakness inherent in it) is about the belief that one person can make a difference. Our history is the story of individuals rising to challenges and setting an example for others to follow. A stronger individual makes a stronger society. Conservatives understand this, liberals don’t.

2. Cui Bono? Who are the beneficiaries of the policies?
The Right: A "Master Morality" (the term is from Nietzsche). Policies and rules are designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful few who own and control national wealth at the expense of the masses who produce the wealth. For example: George W. Bush's 2006 Budget Proposal and his tax "reforms."
The Left: A Social-Democratic Morality. Policies and rules are designed to result in the greatest good for the greatest number in a regime of "equal justice under law." Examples: FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society.

“What is the good of it?” This one is so full of scarecrow arguments that it barely even rises to actual argument level. First off, Nietzsche? Please guys, let’s give it a rest. He’s so tired that it’s pathetic to even see his name pulled out anymore. It sounds more like Marx wrote section. But then, the left still loves Marx and all of his flawed theories that don’t work anywhere but in the fantasies of liberals.

The “Master Morality?” You know, I’m a fairly poor grad-student and I’ve received two tax cuts because of the President’s plan. If I’m one of the wealthy and powerful few, then our country is in serious trouble. All anyone needs to do is actually look at their tax returns to see what a worthless argument this is. Simple math refutes it.

Let’s talk about the Great Society. How’s that welfare working out? We’ve created a whole subset of our society trapped on government money. We’ve taught generations to not work for themselves but instead to rely on other’s money for their well-being. That’s not what I call a “Great Society.”

3. What is the function of government?
The Right: The function of government is to protect the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property – nothing more. "Government is not the Solution." (Ronald Reagan, 1981). "Government is the most dangerous institution known to man." (John Hospers). "Who is best qualified to spend your money? You, or the government?" (George W. Bush).
The Left: Government "of, by, and for the people" is a legitimate surrogate of the people's interests and a protector of the people's rights. "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government." (Declaration of Independence, 1776). Citizens must constantly be on guard against abuses of office. However, the answer to bad government is better government, not the abolition of government.

Now here the author has taken a few very good quotes and jumped to the most extreme conclusion possible. “Conservatives think that government isn’t the solution, they must want to abolish all government!” Then, in between two of the most prominent conservatives of the past several decades, he adds John Hospers to the mix, obviously because the quote is supposed to be inflammatory and reflect how much conservatives hate the government. But he fails to mention that Hospers is a libertarian and does not reflect mainstream conservative thought. That’s why he was forced to run as a libertarian. It would be the same as if I said Ralph Nader said something, therefore all liberals believed it.

Conservatives make no secret of the fact that people are the answer, not the control of people. The bedrock belief in conservative thought is that if you aid people in common good, give them defense against aggression, and stay out of their way, they’ll do something good. Liberals believe that you must create programs in order for people to accomplish anything.

The author also attempts to buttress his argument with the founding fathers. The problem is, there is that there is nowhere in the Declaration that he’ll find anything similar to what liberals associate as government. The very selection he highlighted argues against his own point. The government exists to protect and ensure basic rights. Nothing more was written into the works of the founding fathers.

4. What are the justifications for taxation?
The Right (i.e., the Libertarian faction): Taxes for any purpose other than the protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property, are a theft of personal property. (But for the religious right, tax revenue may also expended to compel private morality).
The Left: Taxes are legitimate dues that we pay for civilized society. (Oliver Wendell Holmes). Taxes can be legitimately levied to support such community goods as education, the arts, national parks, basic research, and physical infrastructure. In general, to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." (Preamble, Constitution of the United States).

Again, the author attempts to portray his views as being in line with the founding fathers. This is fraudulent and not accurate. He uses the words of the Constitution and simply reads onto them a liberal understanding. But there is no proof to indicate that when our founders wrote these lines they had any belief that it would mean massive social programs. General welfare, after all, does not translate to Welfare State.

And, virtually no one argues against using tax money to work on infrastructure, parks, research, etc. While I’m at it, perhaps the author should consider that “common defense” clause and think about it before he blasts the President for increasing defense spending. What conservatives argue over tax money being spent on are things like: abortion on demand, wretched government subsidized art, a massive nanny state, etc.

Finally, the author argues that the “religious right” argues that revenue can be used to “compel private morality.” And the baseless attacks continue. I would be interested in just one example. Surely, there are many? And can we honestly say the left doesn’t do the same? What else is welfare if not the use of revenue to compel one to give to another? Shouldn’t this be a matter of private morality, whether I chose to give money to the needy or not?

5. What is the function of free markets in society?
The Right: Social problems can best be solved through the unconstrained action of free markets. Private initiative and privatization of property produces results superior to government action. (Maslow's Rule: to a carpenter, all problems can be solved with a hammer. Corollary: to The Right, all problems can be solved by the free market).
The Left: Privatization and free markets, while valuable ingredients of society, must not be absolutes. They must be regulated for the common good by agencies of popular government. Unregulated free markets are self-eliminating, for their natural tendency is toward monopolies and the end of competition. Thus the necessity of anti-trust regulation.

If that were truly the view of the left, then there would be no disagreement at all. Most conservatives have no problem with some regulation of business. Anti-trust regulation is not a conservative/liberal idea. The issue is that liberals, again, believe that people are not able to make proper decisions when it comes to money. Therefore, more regulations must be made.

Again, the author puts up an extremely libertarian argument and labels it as the view of “the right.” Therefore, since Michael Moore argued that Saddam’s Iraq was a paradise, all liberals believe that Saddam’s Iraq was a paradise.

6. Is wealth generated in society from the top down ("trickle down") or from the bottom-up ("percolate up")?
The Right: "Trickle-down." Prosperity results from investment by the wealthy. "The rising tide lifts all boats." "I never was given a job by a poor man." (Sen. Phil Gramm).
The Left: Wealth "percolates up" from the labor and innovation of an educated work-force.

It worked for Reagan and it worked for Clinton. Even though liberals are loath to admit it, Clinton was a lassie-fair President when it came to the economy. His view was that a free and open market would increase business that would make us all wealthier. Can you say NAFTA? The poster child of Democrats was a fiscally non-liberal economist.

7. What is the role of language in society and politics?
The Right: Language is a political weapon, to be "shaped" to the advantage of the ruling elites. "Newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984 shows the way. (See "Newspeak Lives!" and "The Language Trap.")
The Left: Language is the primary ("keystone") social institution. The distortion of language leads to social disorder, public alienation from politics, and economic inefficiency. In other words, the left takes an authentically "conservative" view of language.

Yeah right. Consider the following terms:
Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion.
Fundamentalist Christians and forced morality.
It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Now tell me the left doesn’t use language every bit as much as the right. This one’s just too stupid and if the author actually believes that his side doesn’t use language to suit their goals, then he’s a bigger idiot then most at DU.

8. How are human conduct and society morally evaluated?
The Right: Simple, dualistic view of human nature, morality, society and social problems. ("You are either with us or against us." G. W. Bush).
The Left: Complex view of human nature, morality, society and social problems. Rules and principles often conflict and must be "bent" to accommodate circumstances. (The Religious Right derides this as "situation ethics" and "moral relativism").

The Religious Right aren’t the only ones, read a philosophy book. But this one’s easy too, if the left really wants to play this game. Consider this quote:

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

That’s strikingly similar to what President Bush said isn’t it? So it must be some Neo-Con bent on destroying the world, right? Or not.

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001

So I guess that Hillary is part of the Neo-Con revolution who only see things in “black and white.” How about Dean’s recent comments that Republicans are the “evil” ones in contest between good and evil? What the liberals fail to understand is that there are certain situations when you simply must call evil by the name of evil. Sure, there are lots of grays. But when you’re talking about terrorists who want to kill civilians because of their religion, then it’s fair to call someone EVIL

It’s not evil to kill thousands of unborn babies every day but it is evil to kill a murderer for his crimes. My own thoughts are that both sides are full of hypocrites concerning social morals. But to argue that the left has the better position is as laughable as to argue that the right must be correct all the time.

9. Political methodology.
The Right: Dogmatic approach to policy. "Top down:" unyielding principles applied to particular circumstances. "Unconfused by the facts."
The Left: Pragmatic and empirical. "Reality based:" i.e., willing to be "instructed" by the real world. Principles adapted in the face of newly discovered facts and newly invented technology. Policies are tried, and if they fail, are revised or even abandoned.

“Policies are tried, and if they fail, are revised or even abandoned.” So that’s what is behind Howard Dean’s rise to DNC Chair? He failed to even make a good run, never even gaining first place in a race, and you elect him as the head Democrat?

Reality based? You mean how you can’t stop complaining that Al Gore won in 2000, even though the most liberal papers in the country went ahead with the recount and confirmed that there was no way he could have won? Or how about how you think President Bush is Hitler. Yeah, that shows a real grounding in reality. The real funny thing here is this; if the Republicans just keep doing the same things and the Democrats keep trying new things, shouldn’t that say all that you need to know considering the results of the last three election cycles since 2000? Oh but wait,

I forgot. Diebold stole the election for President Bush. It’s not the Democrat’s message that is lacking, it’s that their opponents are evil.

10. Moral perspective:
The Right: Egocentric point of view. Society viewed and evaluated through "the mind's I." The interests of the individual are supreme.
The Left: Moral point of view. Society viewed and evaluated from the perspective of the "ideal observer" of the society as a whole, without advantage accorded any individual unless that advantage works to the benefit of all. (Equal opportunity, blind justice).

I’m sure those millions of slaughtered babies are happy that the left views the world in such a thoughtful way. But what is affirmative action if not “advantage accorded any individual unless that advantage works to the benefit of all?” You can argue that a multi-cultural workforce is a plus, and almost everyone would agree. But is hiring based solely on skin color really advantageous to the workplace? Shouldn’t skill and knowledge be more important? Not to a liberal. Ability is second in their world. And so their justice is not blind.