I was having a discussion with a friend about the sharp demarcation of conservatives and liberals in the US polity and whether there is a single underlying quality that defines each section. For example, conservatives in the US prefer small govt, but would support a big army, support free markets, but want restricted sexual lives, etc. Interestingly, albeit anti-climatically, he summed up the underlying difference in one word – conservativeness.
I confess I had earlier just thought that the words conservatives and liberals had stuck on due to the corresponding views of the two sections on sexual mores. But apparently, even on other fronts – economic and otherwise – “conservativeness” defines the two camps’ views adequately. And even on the sexual mores and traditions front, the “conservativeness” ran deeper.
Apparently it’s all about a conservative attitude towards the fallibility of humans.
Consider “free-marketism” or even “libertarianism”. Why is this “conservative”?
I had in fact touched upon this in some previous posts where I argued that libertarianism seemed a bit “lazy”. “Laissez Faire” itself means non-interference.
If you’re conservative about trusting fallible humans to don the mantle of competent central planners, you’d obviously prefer a more distributed approach in
economics.
Consider patriotism and big armies. Here again, if you are “conservative” in the above sense, and have suspicions of any infallible virtuosity in humans, you’d want an extensive security force, and also rally together as a group, nation, etc.
And on the sexual mores and traditions front it is the same conservative attitude towards the fallibility of humans that makes them want to conserve traditional values. Apparently, the development of traditions and mores over the ages is a time-tested distributed way of developing a social contract as opposed to say dictats from legislators and intellectuals. Which explains the general disdain of conservatives towards intellectuals particularly of the humanities kind.
So, basically the underlying difference is the way they view humanity – with conservatives being hard-nosed and cynical and liberals being starry-eyed optimists. Well, I guess that makes me a conservative.
I now have a theory,
“Those who raise pertinent points in their comments are not neccesarily(and most often not) good bloggers themselves”
A sweeping generalisation? – Yes.
But seems logical 😉
Nilu, there are three components to writing – one is the insight/content, second is the literary style/verve, and the third is the entertainment value to the reader.
Most successful writers care about all three.
Good writers care about the first two.
Great writers care only about the first.
I consider myself in the second category.
Interesting thesis. I wonder if you’ve read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. He has a chapter in it called “Politics” devoted to just this distinction between liberals and conservatives. In it, among much else, he summarises ideas first laid out by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions, especially in distinguishing between what he calls The Tragic Vision and the Utopian Vision. Pinker writes:
Needless to say, conservatives believe in the Tragic Vision while liberals believe in the Utopian Vision. The real revelation of that chapter by Pinker is that these beliefs stem from our personalities and are, in a sense, hardwired in us from birth. He writes, “When it comes to attitudes that are heritable, people react more quickly and emotionally, are less likely to change their minds, and are more attracted to like-minded people.”
Isn’t that true? To go off-topic, I write a blog called The Middle Stage, do check it out.
The real revelation of that chapter by Pinker is that these beliefs stem from our personalities and are, in a sense, hardwired in us from birth.
I do not quite agree with the thesis that these things are hardwired at birth. I mean we are talking about cynicism and optimism here – and these things are as environment-determined as feelings can get.
For example there is this famous statement by somebody, with which I very much agree:
“If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain”
42 – The categorisation is interesting as Amit pointed out. However, there will always be people who will straggle the fence and might fall in a grey area – more like an intersection of venn diagrams.I believe it is this category that will be of more importance in times to come.At times, one can not be sure if a single ideology works in all situations.
Amit – 23 yards rocks – keep up the good work – and hopefully middlestage will be there soon!
Navin
I do not quite agree with the thesis that these things are hardwired at birth. I mean we are talking about cynicism and optimism here – and these things are as environment-determined as feelings can get.
Cynicism and optimism aren’t hardwired in the genes, seven_times_six, but our temperament, the kind of personalities we have, certainly are – and cynicism and optimism arise from that. That does not mean that the environment does not affect them – to use Pinker’s analogy, nature (our genes) gives us knobs and the environment turns them, and there’s a constant interaction between the two.
It’s a bit simplistic, also, to say conservatives are cynical and liberals are optimistic. You could be cynical about the way things are, and about the limits of humans, and still be optimistic in your approach towards things. That optimism would just just be tempered by a recognition of reality, and, thus, better directed.
Since you ended with a quote (a mangling of something Clemenceu said, I think), so will I. Gilbert and Sullivan:
Ps. Navin, thanks.
On the other hand, consider this:
Another view of the liberal p.o.v is that liberals like big government solutions precisely because they are cynical about the individual’s ability to regulate oneself (civil rights, ADA, what have you). Whereas a conservative is cynical about the noble purposes of big government, but is optimistic about the power of the individual.
This gets even more murky if you consider an issue like gay marriage: clearly the (social) conservatives want the government to pass a law protecting heterosexual marriage, but this is not what would be a traditionally conservative position, since the idea of civil marriage itself is not something libertarians (or ideology-conservatives) are particularly happy about.
I think the conservative ‘label’ is misleading and means different things in different contexts really: although both fiscal and social conservatives have been part of the Republican party (and hence are lumped together as conservatives), free market policy adoption is almost referred to as liberalization !
Thus, the ‘conservative = cynical, liberal = optimist’ view, although having some merit, really only works if you also specify with respect to who/what the cynicism/optimism is being directed.
Amit, Suresh:
I agree that conservatives = cynical and liberals = optimists is not enough.
It is cynicism and optimism applied to the way one views humanity, as the the last line of the post summarized.
Suresh: You cant take the converse of cynicism against central planners and equate it to optimism about the individual. In fact, if one was optimistic about the power of the individual, one would be even more optimistic about the “best” individuals manning things centrally right? The liberal case you argued does make sense – you could be optimistic about “best” individuals manning things centrally, but you could also be cynical about “not-so-best” humans not being able to regulate themselves. But, though I’d very much like to diss the liberals, I must admit that one can’t reduce the motivation of liberals to contempt against the “weak” human.
Also, you ask why would “pure” conservatives want more sexual regulations if they are cynical about the “other humans” govt.
There is nothing hypocritical because the optimism/faith is not on the govt, but on the very nature of the thing that they are regulating – the
traditions and values which have prevailed over many generations.
Both in free markets and traditions, respecting a non-designed distributed evolution of ideas and values is in fact showing LESS respect/optimism towards human design.
I guess all I am trying to point out is that it is too convenient to interpret conservatives and liberals that way, a point that you stipulate as well in your response.
as for the later issue of natural selection/free market design/intelligent design, that is another kettle of fish
Why Indians are socialists?
The reasons are varied.
Partly cultural and historic reasons like the caste sytem, social system(protector-client system), repeated invasions from foreign hordes etc creating a defensive collectivisation for survival. These sytems have crystallised over two millenia, so much so that even the so-called Indian libertarians show aspects of it.
Second, a society that is mostly poor and in some cases desperate for survival. This prioritises short-term solutions for the sake of survival in the present rather than incentives that will come in the ‘long run.’ Socialism talks about good things in the long run but also promises sops in the short run mainly some form of wealth transfer.
Thirdly, a lack of comprehensive land reforms. Every capitalist society had moved from feudalism to a capitalist society through land reforms. This happened gradually in Western Europe but more drastically in countries like S Korea and Taiwan. The US itself redistributed large tracts of land to new immigrants.
There are more reasons. But I think the ones I stated above are enough.
Going to Amit’s post. Recent psychological studies make me feel that both liberatrians and socialists share a ‘Utopian Vision.’ The only ones possessing ‘Tragic Vision’ are politicians and the hapless poor.
I am sorry I posted in the wrong comment section. I will post it in the relevant comment section. The webmaster may delete my post above.
Conservatives believe that life is like a box of chocolates…just that you can’t have any!