“From a perspective founded on sphere sovereignty, the progressive communitarian’s basic flaw is his willingness to invoke the coercive power of the state in ways that deny the right of mankind acting individually or collectively through voluntary associations to order society. In contrast, conservatives are unwilling to sacrifice ordered liberty at the altar of community. A conservative properly insists that individuals be left free to define for themselves what conduct shall be deemed trustworthy or honorable, rather than being forced to comply with, say, Geoffrey Stone’s definition of what makes for a good community”. –Steve Bainbridge, discussing the difference between modern day liberals and classical liberals
And so, given this definition, what is the correct conservative stance on the issue of abortion?
If abortion is murder then, like all murders, to use the state to coercively stop it. If abortion, on the other hand, is like removing your tonsils, then like removing your tonsils, leave it up to each individual person.
Of course the answer turns on whether abortion involves taking the life of another innocent human being or not but even here, conservatives are still defending “that individuals be left free to define for themselves what conduct shall be deemed trustworthy or honorable”, it is just the unborn childs rights we are defending.
For me it’s just easier to admit that I oppose abortion (in the later stages of pregnancy) because I think its wrong and I’m perfectly willing to impose my values on others. That seems more honest, even if it doesn’t jive with what Bainbridge believes is “conservative philosophy”.
In other words, I respectfully disagree with Bainbridge. I don’t think the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Liberals try to impose their values on others, and Conservatives do not. I see that happening in both directions in abundance. I suspect that the actual difference is that Conservatives strive mightily to make this distinction between the two, whereas Liberals generally do not. Ask yourself: Have you ever heard a Liberal who openly admits to subscribing to the “nanny-state” philosophy? Who states unequivocably that he would like to mandate his own value system on the entire country? I’m sure there are some, but not many.
A conservative properly insists that individuals be left free to define for themselves what conduct shall be deemed trustworthy or honorable, rather than being forced to comply with, say, Geoffrey Stone’s definition of what makes for a good community”.
This quote is pretty much the opposite of reality when it comes to individual liberties. Conservatives are all about individual liberties. Republicans including religious conservatives are lining up to strike down drug laws, they are fighting tooth and nail to legalize physician assisted suicide and right to die laws. They try to avoid forcing their interpretation of morality and definitions of life in their attempts to outlaw abortion and oppositon to stem cell research. They never impose their morals when denying consenting adults the rigth to marry.
Pretty much the motto of conservatives especially religious conservatives is live and let live.
What color is the sky in this guys planet. This alternative reality that conservative mouthpieces are constantly trying to spin out to the public is garbage and the voters are sick of it.
LaurenceB,
I do think that liberals generally, not always but generally, subconsciously or not promote policies that push their view of the world onto others — seeing the citizenry as not smart enough to make decisions for themselves, I’ve blogged on this view before here and here. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the links.
Michael,
I agree that conservatives morally view the world differently, but this is different than trying to impose that view on others. Aside from physician assisted suicide (a legitimate counter example, I admit, but only one compared to the many on the liberal side), it is liberals who are trying to impose their view on the citizenry against the citizens will. Take abortion and gay marriage as just two examples (more examples provided by links above), nobody voted for either yet they have both been passed by legal fiats, forcing the liberal view on the rest of us even when polls clearly showed citizens were against it. This wasn’t just a fluke either, abortion and to some extent gay marriage, are such hot issues for liberals, that it has become a litmus test on Supreme court and appeals court judge nominations.
The liberal message is simple - if these judges will not enforce our view of morality on the citizenry, they will not get our endorsement. Conservatives, on the other hand, are fine with leaving those issues to the voters via legislative branch of government.
Its funny how we both look at the opposing party and feel like they look down upon the citizenry. I posted yesterday how the Bush Amdinistration thinks Americans are retarded with their change in message on stay the course and their denials of things that are caught on tape.
Your point about abortion and gay marriage is not valid. Nobody is going to force a woman to have an abortion or an individual to marry someone from the same sex. Its about giving the individual more freedom to run their own lives.
An example of how the right forces their interpretation of morality on me. It involves todays hot topic - stem cell research. My wife and i did IVF 7 years ago and we were given a form regarding what to do with any unused embryos. There was a choice to freeze them, put them in an adoption bank, destroy them or dontate them to scientific research.
We selected to give them to medical research. I thought this was a good deed we were doing helping others. Well about two years later president Bush tells me this is evil what we are doing, and it is now illegal. To this day it is illegal despite the majority of americans supporting stem cell research and the majority of both houses of congress. Just one moron in Washington imposing his morality on me.
As far as resperct fopr legislature. Who are you kidding if democrats controlled congress Republicans would be pushing their bills through the courts. As I pointed out before Scalia and Thomas are the two justices who have historically overturned an act of legislation most frequently.
Don’t kid yourself about Republicans not supporting judges who are not on their side on morality. Republicans held up a lot more justices for Clinton than dems did for Bush. Also, it was right wingers who were most upset about Harriet iers, many of them felt they could not be sure about her standng on abortion and other issues given some conflicting past statements.
Gay marriage and abortion both involve two completely different moral structures, and they both infringe on the rights of others. The question is whose ‘morality’ is to dominate, and with that I prefer it to be decided by voters.
As far as stem cell research goes, you have things confused. Stem cell research is not illegal, nor is it banned in anyway, the only thing that the ’stem cell debate’ is referring to is embryonic stem cell research, and even then, the federal government does not ban it, it only refuses to spend federal dollars on it - but in no way does it prevent the private market from doing so.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224157,00.html
If they could get away with it, Republican congressmen would ban all gay sex. You know they would.
To claim that the Republicans are not actively imposing their values on others is just incorrect. Now, if you want to argue that Republicans of today are not Conservatives, then I might buy that one. But it’s just ridiculous to argue that Conservatives/Republicans are not just as interested in imposing their value system on all of us as the Democrats are. Its just not going to fly with me.
Some might, just like some (many!) liberals would fight to keep abortion legal up to nine months and even after (if the child was intended for an abortion, see the Born Alive Infant Protection Act).
I gave examples of what I base my views on above. The only (convincing) counter example I have seen is the one already mentioned - the right to die.
Did you not follow the link I provided? How could you not see that the recent Republican “moral values” legislation regarding online gambling is not an obvious example of the Republicans imposing their values on the country as a whole? What am I missing here?
And, of course, when you state “some might” when referring to both Republicans and Democrats, you are essentially making my point. I think the Republicans are just as good as imposing their value systems as are the Democrats. That’s my point!
The reason I don’t count it as an example is twofold, 1. If polled, the American public would probably support such legislation, and 2. The legislation was done by legislators, but the examples I gave are from unelected judges. One is democracy, the other is not.
For the record, I still disagree with what Republicans did, personally, I’m more libertarian on those matters, and think that if you don’t like internet gambling, you shouldn’t do it, but let others decide for themselves.
OK. So, in summary, we are in agreement that the idea that Conservatives are less likely to impose their values on others (Bainbridge’s original assertion) is just not correct. But you make the distinction that Liberals tend to do it with the courts, whereas Conservatives tend to do it with the legislators.
OK. I can agree with that.
..and the added part that conservatives tend to do it with ‘values’ that are consistent with the general public, liberals, don’t.
…I don’t strongly disagree with that qualifier, but neither do I see it is the case as clearly as you seem to believe it is.
Consider: Liberals pushed Civil Rights legislation, and the American public was generally behind that. Liberals continue to push safety standards, the minimum wage, embryonic cell stem research, public health and education, social security, food and drug regulations, etc. All of these I think are fairly popular with the general public. (Whether or not you and I agree with them). Right?
Good point.