“Man is not a circle with a single center; he is an ellipse with two foci. Facts are one, ideas are the other.” — Victor Hugo
HUGO’S NOBLE EFFORT, “LES MISERABLES,” speaks volumes. As he put it at the time, “I don’t know whether it will be read by everyone, but it is meant for everyone.” The book, addressing the misery of the times, extended not just to France but, again quoting Hugo, to “England as well as Spain, Italy as well as France, Germany as well as Ireland, the republics that harbour slaves as well as empires that have serfs.”
The opening quote, holding true today, is indicative of the focii of political thought: the political right being more “reality” oriented and the left being more “idea” oriented. This becomes clear when one sees that the left’s perspective envisions what can or “should” be, whereas those on the right focus on mankind’s actual behavior as demonstrated throughout history.
The differences between the “liberal” and the “conservative” mind are the subject of the book, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” by Jonathon Haidt, who wrote: “What distinguishes liberals is that they place great value on fairness, liberty and compassion — to the exclusion of the other factors. Conservatives don’t reject the liberal values, but they give equal or more weight to fostering loyalty, upholding authority and respecting the sacred.”
The assessment is validated by the fact that the hopes and ideas of the political right are often misunderstood and purposefully misrepresented. A personal experience some years ago put this into perspective for me.
During the 2004 presidential campaign I was in Tempe, Ariz., and one night found myself alone for dinner. I chose to sit at the bar — somehow one feels less alone there than at a table for one. Newspaper in hand, I was waiting to order when a gentleman sat down one seat away, even though we were at a nearly empty counter. He was in the mood for conversation, while I was not.
The conversation, which he instigated, soon turned political — the presidential campaign was the leading topic of the day. The occasional interactions from me confirmed us to be on opposite sides, with the gentlemen, a professor at nearby Arizona State University, proudly announcing his intention to vote for John Kerry.
As my meal arrived, I successfully extracted myself from the discussion by asking a point-blank question: “If you could have your ideal government, how would you describe that government and its role in society?”
He pondered, then began:
“Well, I would want it to allow a high degree of individual freedom, while taking care of certain necessities: police, water, streets, etc. I would want them to allow businesses a high degree of independence, while having sufficient laws to keep them honest, without overburdening them. I would want to see taxes be fair and reasonable. I would …”
In midsentence he stopped, then looked directly at me. Both of us had come to the same conclusion.
“My God,” he said, “I am describing conservatism, aren’t I?”
After stating my agreement he got up, paid his tab, then turned to me before walking away:
“You have really given me something to think about. Thank you.”
I saw that as he was verbalizing his answer to me his focii had changed, shifting from the ideal to reality. Conversions of this kind are not uncommon, as confirmed by the old adage, often misattributed to Churchill:
“If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no head.”
* * *
LIFE’S CIRCUMSTANCES INFLUENCE PEOPLE and their political transitions in different ways. For my parent’s generation, the two biggest influences were the Great Depression and World War II.
My grandfather, working as a conductor on the street cars of Los Angeles, was killed in 1932, leaving a pregnant wife, my 5-year-old father and four other children. The family utilized public assistance over the years and each child contributed any money they earned, or worked in other ways: paper routes when young, military checks when older, household or “farm” chores, and for my father, loading trucks at age 14 and by 16 driving trucks during the war.
The one value instilled in the entire family, more than any other, was a work ethic, which made public assistance strongly undesirable — a point driven home to me by Aunt Helen, the eldest of the siblings, on several occasions.
Today I know of no conservative who would begrudge public assistance where needed. But we have created generations of people for whom public assistance is a way of life. We need to care for those who can’t, and develop more effective methods to change those who “won’t” to those who “will.”
Americans in their heart are a generous people who have come to the aid of people in need many times in the past. But generosity should not be mandated by law, to then be used for political gain.
Today we hear that the divide between left and right is greater than it has been since the Civil War. That divide, created and inflamed by leadership in Washington to further their ideologies, has been a tremendous disservice to the nation.
It is clearly evident that wars, be it internal struggles or those between nations, are fought between “governments,” not between people, as all people have the same basic needs and killing fellow humans is not one of them. Governments, and those within who wield power, have different needs, which they seek to attain and strengthen despite the damage inflicted on the people.
Perhaps the greatest problem facing our country today lies not in a “liberal” versus “conservative” philosophy but in differentiating between those leaders who seek to exploit differences for furtherance of their own agenda.
Today the flames of ideological hatred are again being fanned as leadership in Washington petulantly acts out of pride, to “save face” or to impose doctrines on others by force of law. In my lifetime, I have never seen our nation more torn apart by leadership in Washington than it is today.
And that represents a real failure of leadership. One can hope for this demagoguery to end, but one should have no realistic expectations of it doing so in the foreseeable future.
Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.
Sharing is caring!
Conservatives deal in ‘realism’? Ahhh…like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Louis Gohmert, Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the rest of the loons running the party? ‘Realism’ in denying science? ‘Realism’ in questioning the President’s birthplace? ‘Realism’ in denying evolution? ‘Realism’ in denying the impact of crashing the debt limit? Conservatism in it’s current state resides in fantasy land.
Conservatives want to give business independence, while ‘having sufficient laws to keep them honest’? Really? Remind me of all the laws conservatives like that keep business ‘honest’? After the Wall St. triggered economic collapse, tell us what laws conservatives proposed to prevent another collapse from ruining our economy again?
You want a REAL difference between conservatives and liberals? Liberals believe in community. They believe, in essence, people are good…and we’re a better nation when we work together to make our country better.
Conservatives believe, in essence, people are bad, and must be feared. Take what you can before someone else beats you to it. Conservatives live politically by instilling fear in the nation. Fear the commies. Fear the Arabs. Fear the brown people crossing the border. Fear the gumment coming for your guns. Fear the black guy taking your job. All fear, all the time.
Benician, we’re on the same side, but our problem is the same as Dennis’s, here. The people you name are “conservative” in ill-applied name only. They are a new breed of radicals so out of touch with any reality but the one in their guts, from which they’ve spun up huge disinformation bubble around themselves, with helpful support and self-serving guidance (or agitation) from fringe friends of Fox, Koch, etc.
[Oh, I stopped short: to continue,] …etc., that they have become a Pied Piper leading all the vulnerable children into the mountain cave of no return, and doing so without the moral justification held by the Pied Piper of Hamelin, whose townsfolk were left childless, whereas we have been left with a government shutdown, or worse, a hamstrung Congress.
RMS…I agree in re the people identified. Still…they’re what defines today’s ‘conservatism’. Who today represents what DDL tries to describe as ‘real’ conservatism…particularly in elected office? Who amongst ‘real’ conservatives push back against those who have taken over? Further…DDL, himself, seems quick to defend what has become of the GOP, while continually taking personal shots at liberals, particularly those in power (witness the Faux (guardians of the ‘new’ conservatism) meme of Obama’s ‘petulance’ that he found space to insert into the column). This goes beyond a simple difference of ‘ideas’ and points to a churlishness he’s quick to decry.
I believe what you just said is very strange. How you desribe Conservatives is the thinking of most countries at war now. The duty of America and Conservatives is to not allow that kind of behavior not tolerate it as Liberals do. You say Liberals work together. Is President Obama and the Senate working together with the house? Yes for their own ideals. Liberals in their current state live in a make believe place. Blame racisim on Conservatives when in fact the most racists areas are in Liberal cities and of course right here in California. The poor and low income are Dems and get no help from the Liberals just words of hope which means no hope. All your other descriptions of Conservatives are over blown and just your narrow opinion. I do not mind that coming from a full blown for left leaning Liberal. I understand how you may feel but that does not mean everyone fe3els that way. Just the divided Democratic party and believe me it is dividesd.
Bob said: Is President Obama and the Senate working together with the house?
Probably the President who best worked together with both sides of the political spectrum was LBJ. His party did have the advantage of control of both the houses of Congress.
In Doris Kearns Goodwin’s biography of LBJ, she discusses the three ring binders that LBJ kept, throughout his career, on all members of both houses, as well as other people whom he needed to court for various causes.
Each person was noted with personal info including wife and children’s names and birthdays, anniversary, college, etc. etc.
When he needed a vote from someone (of either party) on a specific issue he would study the file and might, as an example, find out that the person he was courting had breakfast every Thursday at a specific restaurant. LBJ, would then ‘happen’ to be there and engage in a very personable discussion.
As always the key to any compromise is communication.
Good point, Dennis. LBJ was one of the great masters of political wheeling and dealing. Your conclusion is entirely correct. It feels good to find agreement with you on something.
Let’s see…on the night Obama was inaugurated, top Republicans met to discuss how best to make Obama a one-term president. This, at a time when the nation was suffering it’s worst economic calamity in 80 years. They agreed they’d oppose EVERYTHING the new president would try to get done. Exactly how do you work with people like this?
Still, in Obama’s two big legislative pushes, he tried hard get GOP involvement. The stimulus package was 60 PERCENT tax cuts! Still, he got virtually no GOP support. The AFA is derived from a plan from the Heritage Foundation…proposed in Congress by Bob Dole…and enacted in Massachussetts by the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee. And it got NO support from the GOP.
It’s obvious Obama made the effort. It’s more obvious the GOP didn’t. It takes two to tango and the GOP, to this day, refuses to dance.
“the GOP, to this day, refuses to dance.” That’s because they have no rhythm.
Dennis, I find this latest effort by you less offensive than some others have been. There is considerable substance in it and your presentation is valid so far as it goes. You were perhaps satisfied too soon, for it did not go quite far enough.
You write: “… the focii of political thought: the political right being more “reality” oriented and the left being more “idea” oriented.” This may have seemed true at one time, but coming up to date reveals that the political right is fractured. The “old guard” or mainline people are fairly pragmatic, hence, reality oriented. But these new, Tea Party radicals are more idea oriented than the left has been for a century. This fracture results in a kind of internal terrorism for which, of course, most Republicans blame Obama as a matter of strategy ignoring or twisting the facts to suit themselves. Parties out of love with each other have always done this. Nobody wants responsibility for bad behavior or looking lousy. But the two sides have got to find enough fellowly feeling between them to make government work. The right is voicing more demagoguery these days than is the left. Yes, the administration is not acting properly in all matters, but the President is quite correct in not bowing to extortion.
RMS Stated: I find this latest effort by you less offensive than some others have been. There is considerable substance in it and your presentation is valid so far as it goes. Thank you Robert.
You were perhaps satisfied too soon, for it did not go quite far enough. An astute observation. The piece originally would have been about 1800 words had I continued in the direction originally conceived. But that was not workable and a 180 turn was made, I was hoping it would not be so apparent.
This column makes me very sad, because it reminds me of what conservatism really is, and how far the formerly great Republican Party has drifted away from it. Tea Party Republicans and Christian fundamentalists have taken over the party, and they are radical, insisting on huge amounts of change, with no respect for authority or history or even (for religious fundamentalists) individual liberty. We need at least 2 viable parties and some give and take to make this whole system work – that’s what the founders designed into the system – and Republicans simply aren’t doing their part. The extortionate behavior, extreme hypocrisy, and outright lies are too much for intelligent, reasonable people to bear.
I used to have Republican friends, and they’ve all become Democrats – not because they’re liberals, but because they’re conservatives (as defined by Mr. Lund here) that want to preserve our system of democracy that made our country great. They see the Democratic Party as being the best hope for that. I find particularly sad the old chestnut that’s quoted here: “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no head.” This was never actually true, of course, since the best educated people have always leaned liberal, but it wasn’t crazy. These days, it’s like a sad joke that reminds us that things used to be different. What passes for conservative today makes a mockery of true conservative ideals.
GdoThis column makes me very sad…
That was not my intent, but to be honest, while writing it I also I also felt sad, in much the same way you describe. There was time, not too terribly long ago, when issues could be discussed between people, who would remain cordial and friendly towards each other. Of course those people still exist, it just seems they are harder to find.
Thank you for your comments.
Having followed politics for nearly 50 years I think Dennis has done a very good job of capturing the essence of the fundamental differences between the parties, or more properly – liberals and conservatives. One reason for the divisions in our country now is that both parties have moved to the left, one of which has moved very far to the left. Had the Republican party not moved noticeably to the left. there would have been NO tea party. One reason for the poor level of discourse is shown by the response to your column. At least the man in Tempe was actually willing to lesson and enter into a conversation and reconsider his own views.
Thank you Reg.
Regarding a ‘reconsideration of views’; I really do not think he (the man in Tempe) had ever really expressed how he felt in the manner that he did, but instead had fallen into a rut of responsiveness to others. He was genuinely surprised to hear what he was saying.
I think your family was much like mine. My mother and stepfather knew the depression firsthand, but were able to take care of themselves by their willingness to work hard. The same was true of my in-laws. They didn’t expect or want anyone else to take care of them. Nevertheless, they generally voted Democratic, mainly because they felt that the Democratic candidates cared more. But they were always willing to listen and debate issues, unlike many today. My first vote was for Robert Kennedy, who I had seen in South Sacramento the weekend before. He was willing to stand up to what was happening in the country and reverse what was an absolute fiasco in Viet Nam. He was standing up to a Democratic President.
Seems like I’ve heard that Tempe story somewhere else.
Now this is weird. After reading DDL’s column yesterday, and thinking I had read the Tempe story before, I googled a portion of the story and got a hit on a right-wing website called freerepublic.com. Turns out someone named “Michael S.F.” had posted the same story back in 2006. I then made the comment above and went back to my football game. Later in the day I went back to the website to read it again but it had been removed…..seven years later. Weird, right?
By the way, I spent a little time on freerepublic.com. reading posts and articles by Michael and others and I must say, some of it was rather vile. They seem to take particular joy in the death of 23 year old American peace activist Rachel Corrie.
Doesn’t sound weird at all.
The Wikipedia entry about Freerepublic.com is very telling:
“Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum for activists, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[2] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as “Freepers”,[3] using screen names. The site is supported entirely by donations, with pledge drives known as “Freepathons” held each quarter.
Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements.[4] Freepers were instrumental in raising the question of a lack of authenticity in the so-called “Killian memos”.”
Those disgusting posts about Rachel Corrie were pulled off of freerepublic,com by MichaelSF two hours after my comment .
I think that there is a difference between being a conservative and being a reactionary. What we are seeing in large (unfortunately) factions of the current Republican Party is a bunch of reactionaries. They are not true conservatives, because most Americans, I believe, have conservative leanings in many areas. The true conservative philosophy has been corrupted and co-opted by a bunch of, mostly older, white men, who are reacting to the changing reality of our world – a world that is no longer totally driven by their interests and their goals. The reaction against these big changes – in demographics, ethnicity, population shifts, etc., has caused a group of (unfortunately, again) fairly powerful people to set out on a course to bring back those good old days when everyone else, including minorities and women, knew their places, when the ideas of the economically comfortable drove most decisions, when “what was good for business was good for the country,” etc. So, please, let’s not call those people in Congress who have no hesitation about creating a major crisis and making us the world’s laughingstock “conservatives.” They aren’t – they’re just plain, old, angry reactionaries who are dreaming of the “used to be,” which, in REALITY, never really was!
Now, this has been a discussion that has really gone somewhere worthy. Yes, the Tea Partiers are reactionaries who have obsessive need to exercise political initiative under mixed motivation, part of which has been supplied by persons outside and above their rank & file, for entirely separate motives. Part of Tea Party energy is literally from religious fundamentalism and evangelism carried into politics under false flags instead of the crusaders’ cross.
People, I’ve always distinguished between conservatism and “backwardism,” which is regressive and obstructive. The conservative attitude must not be conflated with so-called conservative program or agenda. The attitude values caution, circumspection, stringent examination of proposals and avoidance of costly, troublesome, legislative mistakes. Conservatives resist big, quick changes, fearing unforeseen, bad consequences that due diligence in advance should avoid. The conservative viewpoint is a necessary and valuable part of legislative discussion. The American turkey need both wings to fly on the level, no matter what direction it takes. But, goddamn it, both wings have to belong to the bird! You can’t have one wing flying off by itself, devil take head, feet and tail.