From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri May 16 2003 - 06:22:56 MDT
Damien S. writes
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 07:23:24PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > 3. Drugs: new modes of consciousness and new thoughts
> >
> > Yes. Liberals are indeed almost as much in favor of abolishing
> > laws against drug use as libertarians tend to be.
>
> Well, I'd like to say that. Back when I was more libertarian I tend to think
> of myself as "classical liberal", thanks to Friedman and Hayek and to
> 'libertarian' being too f-ing long. And we've got the wave of
> decriminalization going on, yay. But most elected politicians called
> "liberal" wouldn't say they were for legalization.
If you say so; here in the Bay Area, it's too hard to tell! ;-)
But even so, isn't it still true that there is a strong correlation
between being conservative and being in favor of drug laws?
> > 5. Pornography: new modes of sexuality besides the heterosexual missionary
> > position within a traditional family unit
> >
> > Yes. Liberals favor freedom on this one too (in general, liberals
>
> Except for some twisted but vocal offshoots of feminism. Or the Soviet Union,
> for that matter, for whatever that might be worth. I really do think
> 'liberal' and 'left' can be usefully disassociated, even before we properly
> break things up onto multiple axes (is socialist-left the same as Green-left?
> No.)
Of course, the very existence of the words themselves (e.g. left vs.
liberal) has always been a sign. Guilty of an urge to reify even
when I was in junior high school, I supposed that leftists were to
the left of liberals, and rightists to the right of conservatives.
I am also pretty certain, however, that there is a huge correlation
between "socialist-left" and "green-left", even though (especially
on a list like this) there are bound to be plenty of exceptions.
> A crude divider might be "liberal is about individual freedom, plus these
> days some governmental monetary policy and safety nets, which arguably
> increase real freedom by increasing stable growth" vs. "left is a bunch of
> idealisms variously about increasing some idea of fairness or justice, usually
> free of ethnic or traditional bigotry, but often willing to sacrifice
> individual choice and freedom".
That sounds pretty good for me, especially as characterizations---
and not (heaven forbid) definitions!
> I'd be happy to grant, nay encourage, a distinction between 'conservative' and
> 'right-wing', although I'm not sure what it'd be. "Conservatism is about
> small government and individual freedom while right-wing is a bunch of
> idealisms variously about religious rules or ethnic bigotry"?
That's about as good as your previous characterization, IMO.
> The fact that certain definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal'
> back into each other is something I've observed for years, and
> might actually make sense if you think of a tree of politics
> diverging from Revolutionary times.
Quite interesting; after all, a certain "liberal" direction on
the political compass certainly became predominate in 1783 in
the newly formed U.S. All of "conservative" Europe at the time
looked quite askance at what was happening here.
> > go for social freedoms, except for freedom of association, and the
> > freedom to discriminate).
>
> The second one is affirmative action and bans on workplace racial
> discrimination, is the first anything else?
I had in mind associating with whom you want at your privately
owned golf club, or renting rooms to those that pleased you
(and if you didn't like Irish, or gays, then that was just too
bad for them (and you)).
> > 7. Environmental Laws: new restrictions based on the idea that the
> > environment is being changed
> >
> > Hmm? But liberals *like* the laws to prevent environmental change, and so
> > keep the status quo. Conservatives are much more in favor of economic
> > development (i.e., change).
>
> The root of environmentalism isn't about preventing change, although I'm sure
> that's around too now, but about preventing damage. Or conserving ecological
> capital, in economic terms.
I'm either not following you or I disagree. As for preventing
change, I've known nature lovers who would hate a desert area
to become forested "because all the desert life would die",
(showing that the increase in total life didn't appeal that
much to them). What is "ecological capital", in economic terms?
Sure---you can characterize it in terms of "damage" --- but then
ancient conservatives were all about preventing social "damage"
by allowing too many people to vote, or express opinions, etc.
> > be forced to be civilized by a petulant and irascible U.S.
> > Here, it's the conservatives who are all for change!
>
> Neo-cons, I think. US conservatism has tended to isolationism
> more than anything else.
No, I don't think so. Ever since the 1940's, isolationism has
been a fringe movement among conservatives. One could go back
and read Barry Goldwater's books of the early sixties ("Why not
Victory?", and "The Conscience of a Conservative") to find almost
the *definition* of late 20th century political conservatism.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 16 2003 - 06:34:58 MDT