How does a Conservative differ from a Libertarian? Part 1

In this series I’d like to explore some of the common misconceptions about the differences between conservatives and libertarians. In particular, misconceptions that arise from the famous 5 Dimensional Political Compass or the related 5 Dimensional Political Quiz.

We’ve probably all taken the “quiz” at some point that supposedly tells us where we fit on the compass: liberal, authoritarian, conservative, libertarian, or centrist. The quiz askes various questions designed to measure our preferences in the balance between freedom and security around the broad categories of social and economic issues. The libertarian-leaning Cato Institute even has a page that asks “Are You a Libertarian?” followed by the quiz. It is my belief that this quiz and the compass are based on two faulty principles which suggests to many right-leaning individuals that they are libertarians when, in fact, they are conservatives.

What Conservatives Believe: Bias is a Four-Letter Word – Part I

“

The conservative adheres to CUSTOM, CONVENTION, and CONTINUITY.”  Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles

*

If we played a word association game around the word conservative I’ve little doubt some imaginations would conjure up a crotchety, elderly, balding, Caucasian male spouting derogatory obscenities while complaining about the minorities down the street.  Conservatism has an image problem.  The intellectual godfathers of the conservative movement were predominantly white males; even to this day the movement is dominated by wrinkly, white men.

To the Millennial generation—the most diverse generation in American history—this alone creates a significant barrier in adopting conservatism as a worldview.  It can be difficult for minorities to fit in with a group that looks so very different from themselves.  Generations have always found things to squabble about and occasionally a defining historical advent will highlight the different mindsets between them, such as the election of Donald Trump.  The majority of Millennials—conservative or not—were aghast that older generations would elect a candidate who—while not overtly racist—frequently said things that were cringingly bigoted.

What Conservatives Believe: Life, Liberty, & that Other Thing – Part IV

“Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.”  Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles*

In Part I of this series we discussed capitalism as the ideal protector of an individual’s natural right to the pursuit of property.  We also touched on the competing economic system of socialism.  In Part II we discussed the allure socialism has over Millennials in particular.  In Part III we discussed the difference between the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, and the idea that people have a right to something as nebulous as free healthcare.  If you’re reading this series for the first time be sure and check out Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Some Objections to Private Property

Legions, volumes, mountains of books have been painstakingly written both extolling and condemning capitalism and the possession of private property.  I am under no delusion that this tiny post is up to the task of settling the matter once and for all.  Nevertheless, in this final post I’d like to offer some rebuttals to some common objections to capitalism.

What Conservatives Believe: Life, Liberty, & that Other Thing – Part III

“Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.”  Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles*

In Part I of this series we discussed capitalism as the ideal protector of an individual’s natural right to the pursuit of property.  We also touched on the competing economic system of socialism.  In Part II we discussed the allure socialism has over Millennials in particular.  If you’re reading this series for the first time be sure and check out Part I and Part II.

Positive and Negative Rights

In part II, I quoted Bernie Sanders expressing his belief that everybody in this country should be entitled to health care as a right.  Former president Obama took this a step further in insisting Americans had a right to health insurance.  If this is the case—if healthcare and health insurance are aright—then a certain level of governmental intervention would be acceptable and necessary to provide for this right.  But is healthcare or health insurance a right in the same sense as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property conservatives uphold?

An Open-Letter to Grown-ups on Political Discourse

Though a Millennial, I’m old enough to remember an era when those town hall question-and-answer events intended to connect an elected official with their constituents weremostly orderly, civil, and informative.  The first town hall I attended with former Senator Dr. Tom Coburn was so civil that the he took questions from the audience by asking us to raise our hands.  No one talked over one another, jeers and cheers erupted but quickly faded so that everyone could hear what was being said, and the questions came directly from the audience in real-time instead of carefully pre-screened on index cards read by a moderator.

Best of all, without the backdrop of an audience constantly looking for something tobooandhissat or an occasion to rise to their feet in thunderous applause, the elected official provided actual information instead of platitudes and red-meat catch phrases.  People were there to learn, not to express passionate and thoughtless emotions.  People feltheardby simply stating their opinion using a tone and volume appropriate for the size of the room, not by drowning out the naysayers in a chaotic mesh of angry noise.

Sadly, those days of civil political discourse in large groups are a distant memory.  Last week I attendeda town hall with my Congressman, Jim Bridenstine.  It was unlike any town hall meeting I’d ever been to in terms of jeers, cheers, and near-constant disruptions.  I am told Representative Markwayne Mullin, from the congressional district next door,canceled his town hall meeting scheduled for the following day, citing security concerns.

This problem of a corporate lack of decency is hardly confined to Oklahoma.  Earlier this week news that United Airlines had forcibly removed a passenger from their plane went viral in one of the worst negative PR debacles in recent memory.  Writing for National Review,David French details the chain of eventsthat led to the violent removal and then concludes:

“And so here we are, a series of events that seems to compress our loss of manners, kindness, and honesty into a single viral story.  Imagine if just one—just one—of the individuals in this entire chain of affairs had stopped obsessing over their rights and power and instead had asked themselves, ‘If I was in their shoes, how would I like to be treated?’  Only Twitter thrives in a culture of pettiness, unreason, and malice.  Our nation surely does not.”

Must it be this way?  Is anyone made better off by this?  Do we actuallypreferto communicate like this to one another?  Could we not stop, if only for a moment, and admit that closed-minded, hateful speech is not married to any one political party or worldview but that we’re all capable of this sort of base behavior?  And that we’re both capable of and responsible for behaving otherwise?  Imagine what might happen if one “side” of the political divide simply chose to behave like grown-ups.

It would be wrong to say that politics in this country have never been this divisive.  We have only to look to the Civil War in reminding ourselves that things could be much worse.  Yet the Civil War didn’t fester overnight.  It took years of bitterness between divided factions and people who’d convinced themselves nothing could be gained by open debate and instead were incited to use force before things eventually spilled over to bloodshed.  Political divisiveness waxes and wanes throughout our history.

And yet, it would be equally wrong to conclude that we are immune from further internal destruction.  Is there any doubt that divisiveness has grown worse over the past couple of decades?  I still recall the allegations of Bushstealingthe election from Al Gore in 2000.  The Left smeared him with the epithetCommander and Thief.  After eight years of the Left’s unhinged aggression towards the Bush administration, the Right was all too happy to return the favor.  Not satisfied with objecting to his policies only, Obama was chastised by some for being anti-American, secretly Communist or Muslim, hellbent on destroying the country, a foreign-born citizen with no legitimate claim to the presidency.  I needn’t elaborate on the visceral loathing of our current president—deserved or not—as it’s evident daily.

And what is the likely outcome of perpetuating these narratives?  What is theappropriateresponse to a president whostole the election, or wants todestroy the country, or isin bed with the Russians?  At what point do the masses abandon even the pretense of a civil debate and begin to believe that force and violence are the only recourse left?

Thinking back, I suspect the disruptions at the Bridenstine town hall were inevitable.  I had attended multiple Republican gatherings in the months leading up to the town hall where Bridenstine staffers addressed the audience and invited them to the upcoming event.  In each of these meetings it was revealed that rumors had been circulating that liberal and progressive groups were hard at work recruiting people to come to the town hall to angrily voice their dissention.  Just in case the point was lost, the staffers then asked that “our side” make the effort to attend to “show their support” for the Congressman.

Both “sides" were recruiting people to attend a meeting for the express purpose of showing which side has the most support.  The results were similar to a grade school pep rally in which opposing sides are told to shout, “We’ve got spirit, yes we do!  We’ve got spirit; how about you!”  It’s quaint and harmless enough when it involves children in randomly assigned groups.  When it involves adults supposedly engaged in a politicaldiscussionit’s alarming and pathetic.

In spite of hours of continuous noise, Congressman Bridenstine handled the disrupters like a champ.  He didn’t let them rattle him and occasionally laughed at their antics.  At one point he made mention of the Boy Scouts in the room who’d participated in the opening ceremony and said something to the effect that they should take note of the fact that they were witnessing something they could be proud of: Americans voicing their opinion without fear.

That’s true in one sense and false in another.  If Bridenstine meant only that it was worth celebrating that we live in a country where this sort of behavior won’t get you locked away then—yes—thank God for that.  If, however, he was suggesting there was something praiseworthy of what the grown-ups were doing, or that this is an appropriate way to engage in political discourse, I strongly disagree.  We don’t encourage children to behave like adults by offering them adults behaving like children as role models.  And celebrating our liberty to voice dissent does not require that we celebrate those who chose to use their liberty to behave as fools.  We can express gratitude for a country that protects our freedom of speech and still compel our fellow countrymen to behave as the sort of people worthy of free speech.

Perhaps you’d think me a bit reactionary or overly straight-laced.Haven’t politics always been fraught with disorder and name-calling?  But the freedom to enjoy a peaceful political assembly should not soon be taken for granted.  Civilization isn’t something we pass from one generation to the next through our bloodstream.  Civilization is a conscious decision that must be made by each successive generation to behave with civility.  The only thing separating civilization from barbarism is our choice to reign in the appetite.  What will you choose?

from savingelephantsblog
via http://ift.tt/2n5KJgC

What Conservatives Believe: Life, Liberty, & that Other Thing – Part II

“Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.”Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles*

In Part I of this series we discussed capitalism as the ideal protector of an individual’s natural right to the pursuit of property.  We also touched on the competing economic system of socialism.  If you’re reading this series for the first time be sure and check out Part I.

How Do You Take Your Socialism?  Latino or Scandinavian?

In Part II used the term socialist to describe someone who advocates the means of production belong to the state as opposed to the individual.  In other words, companies are nationalized and controlled by the state, regulating everything from how much a company will produce to how much it must pay its workers.  While this may accurately describe classical socialism advocated by the likes of Marx, the Castro brothers, Mao, and the like, it doesn’t encompass everyone claiming the socialist moniker.

When asked in the Democratic presidential debates of 2016 whether the heavy-handed socialism of Latin American strongmen regimes was what we could expect from a Bernie Sanders administration, Sanders assured the audience his would be a kinder, gentler approach:

Re-igniting Conservatism for Millennials

Millennials defending and expressing conservative values

  For the millennial generation, liberty has never been in a more precarious predicament.  As the left undergoes a resurgence in socialism the right is experiencing a rise in populism, nationalism, and authoritarianism.  Once the champions of conservative values, the Republican party is in danger of devolving into a group of self-serving career politicians and a small but influential minority seek to replace conservatism with blatant bigotry and reactionary fear.

  Saving Elephants is a blog devoted to saving the Republican party as it faces the twin threats of its demagoguery from within and looming extinction at the hands of demographic trends from without.  It’s time the party got back to its roots.  It’s time to re-ignite conservatism for Millennials!