The Long View Again
In a recent post, I was writing in what I hoped was a provocative fashion, about thinking long term. In that essay I concluded that stability and adaptability are two features which are identifiably necessary for a state which has any hope of lasting for a significant period of time, and by significant I mean more than a millenia. Stability is not a feature our state and government finds as an essential feature. It is not something on which we base praxis or our lawmakers policy.
Jefferson (and his co-authors) wrote in the Declaration that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was the end of government. Happiness in Jefferson’s mind, if not in our less well educated modern ones, meant eudaimonia, which he following Aristotle would have tied to virtue (and the pursuit of the same). Liberty today as well, has been corrupted in meaning. But I would propose that of the three ends of government noted just above are not equal in value for a nation which hopes to last for a significant period of time. Life for example, which many modernist/futurists look to a time when our life span escapes the three score and ten (give or take) that nature has allotted and would extend that indefinitely, which would of course as a consequence redefine “human” and human society and not very likely in a better way. Liberty as well, if liberty is freedom from restraint, will find itself in the mix betwixt the stability/adaptability tension identified earlier.
Three primary factions of our political discourse, the progressive/liberal, the libertarian, and the conservative all naturally hold the same ends of government as essential but prioritize them differently. The progressive values enforcing or “creating” equality as the most important end of government, the libertarian to enforce and protect our liberty and the conservative our Happiness. Part of the difficulty of our discourse between the factions comes when fails to realize this split in underlying assumptions, to address it in our rhetoric, and a failure of imagination. We fail to imagine the consequences and reasons for our opponents points of view and end up just spitting at the other side. In part this means, while I think that Happiness and its pursuit is the most important end of government, that isn’t universal. So, let’s look at elsewhere first.
One of the fundamental problems facing us right now, which is often “blamed” on the GOP as a failure, is the inability to trim or curtail our bureaucracy. In part this problem exists as our centralized government attempts to deal with a society which is rapidly gaining in complexity. Our lawmakers and our ever growing agencies fail, but struggle nonetheless, to understand and make judgments of technical and difficult moral issues. One obvious solution to this problem is decentralization. Instead of increased panic and attempts to centrally control things, let more people into the game. Central control and centralization is a problem which our government is facing which in some regards is might be seen as similar to the body’s allergic response (a histamine response which in turn is in irritant which triggers more histamines). In the government’s case, centralization causes problems which lead the government to urge more centralization. This leads of course for a somewhat dismal reason for supporting the progressive faction of our government (being the primary boosters of ever more centralization). The reason then to be progressive is by hastening every more centralization that it is then far more likely to bring about the catastrophic collapse requiring re-organization and a re-statement of how government is executed and to what end.
In a badly bound/published book, which was still however quite interesting, Have Fun at Work
But this sort of localization when put in the context of political theory, while well fit to solve some problems, leaves the stability question hanging. How can we imagine any sort of cohesiveness, of even a notion of pursuit of Happiness, Life and so on, in a highly localized society?
Suggestions?
Filed under: Ethics & Morality • Government • Mark O.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I largely agree with your final conclusion (or at least I think I do, still thinking on it…) but let me address an earlier comment first. You said:
The progressive values enforcing or “creating” equality as the most important end of government, the libertarian to enforce and protect our liberty and the conservative our Happiness
I don’t know that this is necessarily true. I don’t know of any progressives, at least, who would say they value equality more than liberty or happiness. Also, I might have thought you would have split the three groups up into “Life, liberty and (pursuit of) happiness” – how did equality get in there?
Of those three, I would say that all are equally important but all are not functionally equal. The person pursuing the Liberty to drink and drive or the Happiness found in driving excessively fast who endangers the Life of others, in these cases, I’d say Life would have a priority over Liberty and Happiness. Which is not to say that they’re not all great, just that they must be balanced and since Life can’t be replaced, it might hold some priority in the pecking order.
Rats. Lost a Bold closing tag in there somewhere…
Fixed.
Doug,
Equality snuck in there because that’s what I see progressives/liberals primarily speaking about. From enforcing equality by redistribution of wealth, to “equality of opportunity” notions, and equality as the primary driving principle behind their “rights” ideas.
But you a right to note conspicuous absence of equality in Jefferson’s list.
I don’t think eudaimonia has much to do with driving fast. Driving fast is “fun”. Fun is not Happiness … or at least the Happiness that I think Jefferson was talking about.
Still, you state, “The progressive values enforcing or “creating” equality as the most important end of government” as if it were a given. I disagree and, while I can’t cite any sources to back my position, I can cite myself and my friends for whom your point is untrue.
If anything, I’d suggest that progressives hold Life as the premiere ideal of the three (Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness), for the reason given earlier. Which is not to say that others (libertarians, conservatives) don’t also value life.
Just for a clarifying point.
Dan,
Progressives value Life the most!? Hence their strong anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia stances.
Of, Life, Liberty, Happiness, or Equality what is the basis of feminism, gay rights/marriage, or other positions? I’d argue it’s equality.
And you must be clear, I’m not claiming that any of the three groups, libertarian, progressive, conservatives don’t value the “other” items. This isn’t an exclusive list. It’s a prioritization. It’s what is the most important. As a conservative, it’s not that Liberty (or life or equality) isn’t and important end of government, it’s just less important than eudaimonia.
Progressives value Life the most!?
Yes, hence the strong anti-war, anti-pollution, anti-oppression, anti-torture stance.
You are free to think that progressives value equality the most, it’s a fine guess. A case can be made.
I just want to make it clear that it is your guess, not a given. And not true in my case or in the case of any progressives I know.
And, in your suggestion that progressives are for keeping abortion and end of life decisions in the hands of individuals, that would be an argument in support of the notion that progressives value Liberty the most, as neither of those are about Equality.
As to the meat of your argument, though, I think I agree. Mostly.
You state:
That all the hierarchical top down bureaucratic methods always fail. The only thing that works, and which is best exemplified by the Lockheed Skunkworks team/method. Centralized communication and control needs to be given up and people need to be given local authority to make decisions by talking directly to the people locally involved.
I agree that the best governing works at the local level. At that level, there is more accountability, better communication, more ownership and more community. BUT, I think one of the beauties of our system are the checks and balances built in.
We still need the larger (state/regional/federal/global) at times for appropriate purposes. If the local decides that slavery works best for them, and they decide that red-heads make the best slaves and thus move in that direction, it is at that point that larger bodies need to step in.
When the local deciders have crossed bounds of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, that is an appropriate time for the balance of federal or state to intervene.
So, I believe in decentralization, to a degree, but not totally, and I think this is at least partially what our founders had in mind.
Dan,
You know you really should find things on which there is a bit of difference between the positions between the camps. No faction is “pro-” any of those things even if you prefer to pretend they are.
How does that demonstrate that liberals value life? You claimed they do, my contention was the pro-abortion/pro-euthenasia stance of the progressives runs contrary to this. Noting that it is about Liberty does not support your argument that you are “for Life”. Furthermore “Liberty” is not a primary the reason, for example, on abortion. A primary argument made is that it is “fairer”, i.e., a way to bring women to an equal standing with men regarding pregnancy. That is it is about making women more “equal” to men, countering an “inequality” put there by nature.
Dan,
Explain to me how to coin late-term abortion in terms of a “Life” argument (or Liberty, or Happiness for that matter).
Don’t mistake that progressives disagree with you on an issue or two with thinking that they don’t value life.
I mean, if we play that way, then clearly conservatives must HATE life since they’re so quick to go to war, so slow to stand up against torture and human rights abuses. But of course, that is not true. It is a way of demonizing conservatives based on a caricature of their beliefs rather than what they actually believe.
Don’t make that same mistake with progressives.
Keeping abortion legal is, I’d suggest, a matter of Liberty for most progressives, just as it is for many libertarians. We want the People to be the ones to make end of life decisions for themselves rather than BIG GOV’T coming in and deciding what’s best for families. It is a Liberty issue, clearly.
How is it that you think it is at all related to Equality?
Well, I reckon with some you might make the case that abortion is a Pursuit of Happiness issue, in that it may be conceived to free up an individual from responsibilities – but that would be a horrible way of thinking about Pursuit of Happiness.
No faction is “pro-” any of those things even if you prefer to pretend they are.
Exactly my point.
No one is “pro-abortion” – they are pro-Liberty and having that sort of decision sorted out by family.
Again, don’t confuse that they disagree with you with they don’t value life. Even if you prefer to pretend they don’t…
How does that demonstrate that liberals value life? You claimed they do, my contention was the pro-abortion/pro-euthenasia stance of the progressives runs contrary to this.
It doesn’t run any more contrary to valuing life than the neo-conservative position on war runs contrary to valuing life. (I say “neo-conservative” to differentiate it from the more classical conservative view, with which I don’t disagree so much).
Dan,
Well, abortion might be a bad example because while in the discussions I’ve taken part with on my blog those supporters of abortion have not used liberty to base their argument but something more like equality (equalizing the effects of abortion between the sexes). But it’s a bad example because I fail honestly understand at all any argument for abortion except in the cases where the mothers life is proximately threatened. If you can make a principled case for abortion I’d be eager to hear it.
The “best” argument offered was/is perhaps the “famous violinist” argument, however the conclusion of that argument is one with which I don’t agree. That is, I understand the argument and I think it’s wrong. However that argument is not based on liberty but again on equality of the sexes and/or some sort of notion that a fetus infringes on the integrity of self of a woman. However, the liberals who hold to that particular argument rarely are consistent, for they do not at the same time and for the same logic resist policies of vaccinations which also “violate the integrity of self” by programming the persons immune system against their will.
What war were conservatives quick to go to, btw? Vietnam? Do you then claim Kennedy is a conservative? FDR/WW II? Wilson/WW I? Clinton and Kosovo and Somalia et al? Please. “Conservatives” are no more quick to go to war than liberals, in fact are actually more likely to be isolationist. Iraq if you recall was voted for the war by an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberals alike.
Untrue. Obama is. Heck, you can interpret some of his statements to be pro-infanticide. And so are other liberals who are are definitely pro-abortion. Google for it and you will find them. But yes, not all liberals are “pro-abortion.” They’re just incoherent regarding their position on government oversight and regulation, desiring more of it in almost every walk of life except abortion.
Okay, so we will play that way.
Clearly, progressives are pro-Liberty in their views on abortion in that we don’t want Big Brother making our medical decisions for us.
However, since “conservatives” like Bush, McCain, et al have come out in support of torture; and, since “conservatives” are the only ones who still cling to the notion that targeting the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was NOT a war crime and WAS a moral good;
Then clearly they are not motivated by a value for Life.
Brother, just because you say it is not motivated by a concern for Liberty does not make it so. Just because you say people are “pro-abortion” and “anti-Life” does not make it so.
As to the off-topic abortion question, the reasoning for those progressives I know of, including myself, for opposing the criminalization of abortion is Liberty. I’ve never even HEARD of a progressive making a case based on “equality.”
It is a matter of liberty because, as I’ve already stated, we believe abortion to be a medical decision. We don’t want gov’t making medical decisions for families. It is an infringement of their Liberty for gov’t to decide how families should make their medical decisions and end of life decisions.
If you’d like a more detailed reasoning:
I think reasoning adults should be able to decide whether or not to receive medical treatment; It is not the gov’t’s role to tell me what treatments I should or should not get;
If I could receive a treatment that the doctors say would “save my life” (ie, extend it by a few years/months/days) and I choose to not take that treatment, that is MY decision;
If I were to become incapacitated, it would be my family’s duty to carry out my wishes to the best of their ability; They may not do so perfectly, but I want MY FAMILY to make my medical decisions for me if I’m unable to make the decisions myself – NOT gov’t;
An unborn child is in that same position – unable to speak for themselves. I want the family – NOT gov’t – to make the calls as to what is best for that child and mother.
Therefore, I do not want the medical treatment called abortion criminalized.
Now, I am wholly opposed to “abortions of convenience” (to the degree that they exist). I don’t think it right to abort a child merely because they don’t want a child.
However, what if there were a 90% chance that the mother would die from childbirth? I want that family to be able to make that decision – NOT gov’t.
What if it were only a 10% chance that the mother would die? If it were me and my wife, we would proceed with the birth. HOWEVER, I would want that decision to lie with my family, not the gov’t.
It’s a Liberty issue for progressives (or at least the ones I know and have read or heard) just as it is with Libertarians. I’ve never heard any other argument offered.
Dan,
The percentage of abortions that are actually about a threat to the life of the mother (and throw in incest) are vanishingly small, less than 2%. Nobody (especially here) are talking about “criminalizing” that. Do you realize that if you oppose (and in what way would you actually oppose them?) abortions “for convenience”, …. that is the canonical pro-life stance.
Pro-choice (Roe v Wade) holds it is legal (and the pro-abortion/pro-choice side would hold as righteous) to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason.
As I noted above, make (based on life or not) for late term abortion that does not involve threat to the life of the mother. If you think there is none … then we agree … and that is technically a pro-life stance.
I’ve argued that conservatives value (most) eudaimonia … not life (which is not so say they don’t value life).
One the off-topic notion of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (done btw by a Democrat/Progressive … that is Harry Truman), the contention (supportable by the history) was that Japan was gearing for a Iwo Jima style defense-at-any-cost of Japan. The digging in and hardening of the country had begun. Invasion would have cost many millions of lives lost and an almost complete destruction of the mainland in that case. You would prefer that to what happened? I”m guessing your answer is no. That means the difference is only semantic. That is the difference in only in the label of “a lesser evil” vs “good” as the only thing standing between what I see as your position on coining the bombing in those cases as good. It is a difference of label only not content.
If you would prefer instead that the US had not fought Japan at all … then I refer you to their treatment of the Philippines and to the book The Rape of Nanjing.
Dan,
There are almost 1 million abortions in this country annually. If that number were limited to those to save a mother’s life and cases of incest that number would be 20,000 which would not be an issue for anyone.
Brother, I am well familiar with the pro-life arguments. I held that position for 35 or so years until I changed my position for reasons of Liberty, which is what the topic was about and how we got started down this path.
Again, I’ll say that IF you wish to believe that Progressives value “equality” more than Life, Liberty or the pursuit of Happiness, you are more than free to believe that. Just know that you’re doing so based on nothing more than your hunch.
Which is fine, I was just suggesting (in your original commentary with which I agreed mostly) that you ought not state it as a matter of fact, when it is, in fact, a matter of opinion.
From the National NOW Times, Summer, 2003:
Fair enough. You found one quote from NOW that uses the word “equality.” So there is someone out there using that word in an argument.
Seems to me, in that context, they’re talking about Liberty – the liberty to be full equals – but that’s my take on it. You can take it as you wish.
In my case and my progressive friends’ cases, it is about Liberty.
Without the legal right to have an abortion whenever they want, women would never be equal? This isn’t equal pay they’re talking about. They’re taking someone’s life, an unborn child who you noted cannot speak for him- or herself, to assert this liberty. I don’t find those two issues — equal pay and abortion — as morally equivalent as you seem to.
I personally would agree with you about the decision about abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. But, as Mark pointed out, to use the straw man about banning all abortions, and hand-waving away the 980,000 lives lost to convenience is to elevate what the Left’s loudest voice on abortion says is all about equality, at the expense of the liberty of almost a million lives every year. In my mind, the Christian Left must deal with this holocaust long before getting loud about a war that hasn’t killed nearly that many people in 5 years.
I don’t find those two issues — equal pay and abortion — as morally equivalent as you seem to.
? Who said that I find those two morally equivalent? I never brought up equal pay. As I said, for me and anyone I know, it’s a liberty issue.
Just a liberty issue. Indeed.
Not “just” a liberty issue. As the point of this post noted, sometimes we place one of the three ideals above the others. In the case of drinking and driving, someone is placing Liberty (to do as they wish) over life (the risk to life and limb they pose).
In the case of abortion, some are placing Liberty (the right to make their own medical choices) over life (the life of the child for which they are responsible) – or, in some cases, they’re choosing life (of the mother) over life (of the child). Or, in some cases, they are choosing life and liberty (of the family/mother) over unborn life (which some people apparently do not consider fully “life.”)
But the reason for keeping it legal is for reasons of liberty, in this very difficult circumstance. For the people I know.
But it is NOT because progressives devalue life, any more than neoconservatives devalue life when they support torture or war or other questionable policies.
Dan,
Well, we’re drifting off topic. I still don’t see any way around the notion that where liberals, conservatives and libertarians part ways in the main, liberals tend to push equality/fairness, conservatives virtue, and libertarians freedom.
In the above argument on abortion, you stated the pro-life position quite well in comment #17
So, in the context of framing our differences that isn’t a very useful example because, well, we agree. If you want to call that pro-choice/pro-abortion, go ahead, but be aware that the majority of the pro-choicers don’t agree with that statement and that statement is not upheld by Roe v Wade which holds that it is righteous for a woman to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy and for any reason.
Liberal/progressive social policies are a point of departure between conservative and liberal. Liberals support these things arguing for “fairness” and “equality”. Conservatives depart from libertarians on pornography for example, citing eudaimonia or virtue where the libertarian wants freedom.
A way to counter this argument is to point out a point of departure between the three groups and cite that the main argument is not aligned the way I suggest. Unfortunately a single counterexample will not disprove my statement as my claim is that this is a general trend not an absolute claim.
What do you see as a distinguishing meta-ethical feature marking the three groups?
I don’t know that I agree with the premise. Sometimes (perhaps most times) I’d suggest that progressives side with giving Life priority over the others, but not always. Sometimes (as in the abortion question), we may seem to side with Liberty.
I’m also not sure if I see “equality” as a separate ideal from the other three, but rather implied within all three, perhaps especially in Liberty.
Similarly, I don’t know that conservatives or libertarians always weigh one ideal higher than the others. I think perhaps Libertarians come closest to consistently choosing one ideal – Liberty – over the others.
I think neoconservatives (today’s conservatives as represented by Bush, Reagan, Rush, etc) sometimes emphasize Life (at least in the abortion issue), more often Liberty (when it comes to a free market and not wanting many boundaries on that – but decidedly NOT on other issues like drugs and marriage) and I reckon I’d have to think on them as it relates to the Pursuit of Happiness.
In what ways do you see that (“human flourishing”) as a dominant Conservative ideal?
On the progressive side, I see a mix of all three, depending upon what topic we’re talking about. Certainly in environmental issues, I see Happiness and Life receiving greater focus over Liberty in the progressive mind. Similarly for war/human rights issues. I don’t think I could say that one ideal has priority in any Progressive mind of which I know.