Strictly speaking, “conservatism” only plays for a tie.
In American conservatism, there’s a bit of revanchism, but only so much of a rollback is even possible: overturn Roe and the question reverts to the states as a matter of policy rather than constitutional right.
Of the New Deal and Great Society, the only question is how to save Social Security and Medicare, not abolish them. Of the record 46.7 million now on Food Stamps, how many will one day come off them, and how many who just got on them will simply stay on them, that’s hard to say.
Conservatism’s greatest enemy is “the ratcheting effect,” where bad ideas or temporary fixes tend to become a permanent way of life.
As for drugs, I just don’t see it in the polls. Like illegal immigration and prostitution, I’m more of the see-no-evil persuasion, neither formally endorsing them by legalizing them* nor in favor of draconian enforcement. Me, I can live with gray areas and the use of a little wisdom: These things are only a problem when they become a problem, and you need the tools to deal with them when they do become a problem.
As for fiscal conservatism, free markets, economic liberty, low taxes and a constitutionally limited state, that doesn’t even seem to be the topic here. I would say as a thought I read somewhere else, that we actually tend to vote for what we believe will be good for the other guy, not ourselves but the great suffering masses out there whom we conceive of in our mind’s eye.
Sort of the “fellow-feeling” of the 17th century British philosophers, that empathy is part of human nature. I rather agree with this, and it’s a way of viewing the conundrum without assigning base motives to either side: One can think “fairness” via politics is the best way, one could think that creating wealth and plenty via markets and competition is the best way to achieve the same desired end—a society optimized for “human flourishing.”
I think there are some people who vote for government handouts for themselves and some who vote for lower taxes for themselves. But I think most of us vote for what we think is best for the next guy, and for our nation as a whole. I don’t think there’s anything the matter with Kansas OR the Upper West Side.
______
* Yes, “legalizing” does carry a level of societal, even moral, endorsement or at least acceptance. That’s what drives a lot of the gay issue culture war—on both sides. As it’s sui generis, it’s often not very applicable to the rest of the picture. Indeed many of its advocates insist that it’s sui generis and NOT the top of a slippery slope that descends to polygamy, etc.!
“But I think most of us vote for what we think is best for the next guy, and for our nation as a whole. I don’t think there’s anything the matter with Kansas OR the Upper West Side.”
Missed this the first time I saw this comment but I agree wholeheartedly. Our differences lie in which next guy we’re looking at or what metric we seek to improve or what we tend to think qualifies as improvement. Sure, there are cynical voters and angry voters and bitter voters, on all sides, but they are far from the majority. Or, at least that’s what I hope…
As a former resident, I will say that there are a number of things wrong with the UWS… none of them having to do with voting patterns… 🙂
Glad you caught it this time, then. I thought that was the best part, and why I reprinted it here.
I think earlier I jumped to the footnote and saw my own thoughts echoed and responded and then failed to go back and finish the comment. But a great comment indeed and well deserving of the attention you are garnering here with it.
This is a great post Tom.
Thanks for reading ’til the end, Tod. As you yrself know, it’s really not worth doing any other way.
Allow me to pick a nit, with your footnote. I don’t see a lot of agitation on the part of SSM advocates for what you dub “ratcheting.” I’m much more willing to give credence to the idea that a slippery slope has been embarked upon than others in that realm than most are — the fact that “slippery slopes” are classified as a fallacy in symbolic logic classes does not mean that politically they are not real phenomena. But where other kinds of incremental change are within the reasonably-inferred desires of some incrementalists (e.g., marijuana decriminalization incrementally leading to marijuana legalization) I just don’t see that most SSM advocates are all that intrigued by the idea of polygamy.
Friend Likko: “Slippery Slope” is valid argument. As is the reductio ad absurdum.
My argument, then, is actually yours—that gay marriage must be [and indeed is] argued as sui generis and not as a general principle—for the general principle leads to the obliteration of not only all gender distinctions but of the number of persons in a “marriage.”
Behold the future, for it is already here.
Maybe, but we’ve gone from SSM to 3+ parentage due to SSM. I didn’t see that one coming – didn’t think about it, really – but that is a step along the trail. What happens if a gay married couple wants to extend marital privileges to the mother of their child? Is it bigoted to say “no”?
As long as polygamists are mostly a bunch of people in Utah and Arizona all right-thinking people despise, I don’t see it going anywhere. What happens if it gets a sympathetic face?
“Me, I can live with gray areas and the use of a little wisdom: These things are only a problem when they become a problem, and you need the tools to deal with them when they do become a problem.”
Once upon a time I agreed with this. After reading Radley Balko for 10+ years, I don’t trust government agents to use (or even have) ‘wisdom’.
Co-signed.
This encompasses my feelings as well.
The slightly more aggressive dissent would be that it all sounds well and nice as long as you believe it’s not going to be you or your loved ones that gets arrested, property seized, or the victims of assorted indignities and violence.
Exceptions make for bad rules. Balko has a cottage industry on police excess and God bless him, but even the Dutch have decided that turning your country into a combination opium den and whorehouse probably ain’t the way to go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/3777696/Holland-scrapping-liberal-policies-on-drugs-and-brothels-to-clean-up-image.html
Nice post, Tom.
Of course. I love conservative Republicans. They’re the sort of three-sheets-to-the-wind, straight into the eye of the storm fools who got busy this year sabotaging their own presidential campaign.
Under the assumption that such power to decide for the next person is legit…
As for drugs, I just don’t see it in the polls. Like illegal immigration and prostitution, I’m more of the see-no-evil persuasion, neither formally endorsing them by legalizing them* nor in favor of draconian enforcement. Me, I can live with gray areas and the use of a little wisdom: These things are only a problem when they become a problem, and you need the tools to deal with them when they do become a problem.
The Drug Wars currently overwhelming Mexico and other Latin American countries are the direct result of drug consumption in this country. Drug use is not a victimless crime. It is an international plague that tears at the fabric of civilized behavior and destroys countless lives. The daily deaths are largely the result of American drug policy here. Because the deaths of traffickers and innocent by-standers alike happen on foreign soil does not make them any less our responsibility.
Illegal Immigration is also an American responsibility. Our borders are porous. there are significant benefits to employers willing to employ undocumented workers and little enforcement of the scant prohibitions against doing so. On the other hand enforcement is already draconian for the illegal immigrant. They have few rights, there is no limit on the time they may be incarcerated, and the number of deportations is currently at an all-time high. There is a thriving industry in the legal profession charging exorbitant fees from these people who can least afford them to wring every last dollar from them before they are deported. The arbitrary nature and arrogance of the entire process is (or should be) an embarrassment to Americans but most choose to be blissfully unaware. Our country has an obligation to establish an enforceable immigration policy that includes consequences for Employers who violate it.
So I can’t really ascribe to a see-no-evil position. It is only possible to see-no-evil if you refuse to look.