What Values Do Politicians Really Hold?

Ken Santema sends out a tweet with a link to this Mary Theroux post. Theroux contends that George W. Bush was not a conservative and Barack Obama is no liberal:

Mr. Bush was given a pass by conservatives who either thought an extraordinarily dangerous world required extraordinarily extra-Constitutional powers for the presidency, or who viewed him as a nice guy who could be trusted.

Mr. Obama is similarly being given a pass by liberals who like his rhetoric on gays or abortion or something. But the plain fact of the matter is he’s not a liberal. He demonstrably believes he can do whatever he wants, and that his motives and ability to do as he believes must not be questioned.

Coincidentally, Rod Dreher contends that "Progression" has won the day, a fact that makes it difficult to be a philosophical conservative as opposed to an ideological right-winger:

.  . . . as Alasdair MacIntyre has observed, all parties in American politics are devoted to Progression. It’s simply a matter of whether you are a “conservative” progressive, a progressive progressive, or a radical progressive. There is nothing conservative about a figure like, say, Newt Gingrich. I wonder, though, if we have a political culture in which it is all but impossible to be truly conservative, in the moral and philosophical, fullness of that term, as distinct from an ideological right-winger. I have my doubts.

Dreher either ignores the loud reactionary voices prevalent in American politics, or he relegates them to the "ideological right-winger" caucus. I'm not sure the latter is a correct assessment. Dreher correctly observes, however, the difficulty of developing and maintaining a philosophical consistency.

The common lack of concern for civil liberties and the perceived dominance of "Progression" or "ideologues" may have occurred because political parties accept as dogma "it's the economy, stupid." Focus on the economy can easily be summed up by a little girl in an AT&T commercial, "We want more; we want more," a sentiment that relegates non-material concerns like civil liberties to oblivion. Further, to privilege "more" one must accept progress as a primary value

Reviewing Michael Sandel's What Money Can't Buy: The Limits of Markets, Julian Baggini writes,

. . . Sandel argues we need a serious public debate about what values we want our politics to build and defend. That means dropping the illusion that politics is about no more than efficient management of the economy: it's about nothing less than competing visions of the good society.

Both parties, of course, claim to promote and defend values. Both parties, however, couch the values discussion in a utilitarian calculus beloved of high school policy debaters: adopt values in the way we say is best or risk extinction. Those threats, whether real or implied, limit the possibility of serious debate.

An Important Reminder About Voters And Politics

Tod Kelly attended the recently conlcuded Value Voters Summit and comes away asserting "the attendees I was fortunate enough to meet – . . . were, to a man and woman, incredibly salt-0f-the-Earth nice people."

He goes on to make eleven brief observations about the people who spoke to these attendees. My favorites:

So, in no particular order, here are the top ten things I learned from the Values Voter Summit Main Stage speakers:

1. By the tally I kept, the number of times I heard Main Floor Speakers not named Paul Ryan mention Barack Obama: 157. Number of times I heard Main Floor Speakers not named Paul Ryan mention Mitt Romney: 5. . . .

3. The Obama administration has begun secretly plotting with the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. They have begun to “brainwash” FBI and other security agents to be receptive to the messages of Islam, so that Sharia law speech laws can be enforced unchallenged after Obama’s reelection. (Michelle Bachmann, US Rep-MN). . .

7. The Obama administration is planning to make illegal all churches and synagogues, and put in jail any Americans that attend them. This will happen this January, “March at the latest.” (Kamal Saleem, Debunked Ex-Terrorist Impersonator). . . .

8. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was apparently told early on that politicians smile big all the time. So now when she talks about terrible tragedies like the brutal the murder of Robert Krentz or Chris Stevens, she does so with a beaming, 100 megawatt smile that looks like she’s about to break out in the giggles. It comes off looking very creepy. Seriously, her people need to sit her down and talk to her about this. . . .

9. When Rand Paul opened the conference, he talked about the sanctity of human life, in regard to human fetuses, to thunderous, leap-out-of-your-chair applause. He continued to underline this philosophy by pivoting to the subject of war, where he said, “Truly great leaders are reluctant to go to war.” The crowd got pretty quiet on him after that. . . .

And this ones not really about a speaker, so I’ll throw it in as a bonus fun fact:

11. Friday morning before Paul Ryan came out, they showed a video presentation honoring the Heritage Foundation. The video ended with stills of famous conservatives that had worked with the foundation, and each got a different level of applause by the audience, based on how popular the pictured conservative was. Not surprisingly, the picture of Paul Ryan got the loudest. The next biggest cheers went to a picture of Limbaugh, followed by one of Hannity, and right behind him was George W. Bush. One of the pictures that got the least, shockingly, was the picture of Reagan, who got what might be called a polite, golf-clap smattering. This may have been the most surprising moment of the conference for me.

The fact that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity can earn bigger applause than Ronald Reagan says a lot about the state of America's alleged conservatives. None of what is says should be considered good. The fact that a call to be "reluctant to go to war" quieted a crowd of "salt-of-the-Earth-nice people" should frighten us all.

Philosohy Without A License: Rick Santorum Edition

Writing at Salon, Linda Hirshman concludes

In this context, Rick Santorum’s candidacy, and the Republican Party that hungers for it, looks like a handful of the left-behind fighting a rear-guard action against modernity, which has passed them by. It’s understandable that they would focus their efforts on sex, where Augustine struggled so hard for control. Like Augustine and his unruly member, the modern world, especially modern capitalism, makes people feel like they have lost control. As recent events reflect, this is not foolish. They have suffered from forces way beyond their control. But the solution to gaining some mastery over the environment lies in embracing modernity through modern institutions like the rule of law, collective action, proper regulation, counter-cyclical economic policy, rather than rejecting it. . . . .

Western history since the Enlightenment has been peppered with such revolts against the modern world. Usually they are a sign of desperation and find their way, unassisted, to the dustbin of history. On the rare occasion when they take hold, however, they can be extremely dangerous.

Attacking Santorum voters for "rejecting modernity" strikes me as counterproductive.  They have conflated "modernity" with post-modernism and the relativism that accompanies it.  For them, Hirshman's accusation is a badge of honor because it means they are upholding eternal verities.  They are proud of being a "rear guard" in the war for hearts and minds of American voters.

Today, I'm Thankful For Jon Huntsman And Ron Paul

I was traveling home with high school debaters while the Republican presidential candidates were engaging in an activity that confuses sound bites with cogent argument.  Conor Friedersdorf reports that I have reasons to respect two of the participants in the most recent cliche fest.

First, Jon Huntsman took a solid stand for the American values I grew up with and spoke out against torture.  Friedersdorf writes, 

Jon Huntsman made the most eloquent case against waterboarding.

"This country has values," he said. "We have a name brand in the world... I've been an ambassador for my country three times. I've lived overseas and done business. We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project that include liberty and democracy, human rights and open markets when we torture. We should not torture. Water-boarding is torture. We dilute ourselves down like a whole lot of other countries and we lose our ability to project values that a lot of people in a lot of corners of the world are still relying on the United States to stand up for." 

Friedersdorf also reports that Paul took a stand against the American government sanctioning the assassination of one of its citizens.

Ron Paul was the savior on this issue. 

"We're at war against a tactic and therefore there's no limit to it," he said, condemning Obama's assassinations. "We create these monstrosities and we do things outside the law... You want to live within the law. And obey the law. Because otherwise it's going to be very bad for all of us. And this whole idea that now we can be assassinated by somebody we don't even like to run our medical care, they're giving this power to the president to be the prosecutor, the executor, the judge and the jury." As Adam Serwer mused on Twitter, "Paul remark goes at heart of contradiction of modern conservatism: Government is only infallible when it kills people."

Captain America As Role Model

Mark White, a professor at the College of Staten Island in New York City, has published an opinion piece about Captain America's symbolic value in the San Diego Union Tribune.

White reminds us that patriotism is more than being "simplistic, flag-waving jingoist, toeing the line of whichever party happens to be in control in Washington at any given time."  I would add that patriotism is more than parroting the talking points that party leaders' memoranda, blogs, twitter feeds, or talk radio hosts, or cable news channels dictate.

White illustrates that Captain America represents a patriotism that emphasizes "principles over politics."  The professor reminds us that "[p]rinciples are timeless, the enduring ideals embedded in the foundational documents of our country, most importantly the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."  White points out that these values include "freedom, equality, and justice."  White reminds readers

At its best, politics is grounded in principle, but all too often the principles get forgotten in favor of competing interests – which may be perfectly valid, of course, but which also cause us to lose sight of our shared values.

Perhaps more importantly, White points out that Captain America exhibits the virtues that Benjamin Franklin famously tried to live and George Washington embodied:  "honesty, courage, integrity, loyalty and humility."  I'm a little troubled about Steve Rogers, Captain America's not so secret identity, torture threats in recent issues of Secret Avengers, but as White points out

Captain America . . ., regardless of the varied political opinions of the writers who have chronicled his adventures over decades, he is consistently shown to exemplify these social values and individual virtues, the principles that unite us as Americans.

Given the space limitations editorial pages impose, I can understand why White didn't point out the dangers that spring from one political party assuming that it alone understands the principles embodied in America's founding document or that its members alone possess the virtues that Captain America embodies.

Captain America is nothing if not inclusive.  As a man who frequently leads the Avengers, he has welcomed reformed criminals, recovering alcoholics, mutants, space aliens. African Americans, Hispanics, foreign princes, and pagan gods to the group.  It's those actions as well as Captain America's 70 year history as a solo hero that allow White to conclude:

Captain America does not represent his country at any specific point in time or under any particular leadership. He does not deny the mistakes we have made throughout our short history, nor does he make excuses for them to provide political cover for one party or another. Instead, he consistently rises above politics, eschewing partisan divisions to symbolize the ideals that give America its unique identity: a country founded on, and governed by, enduring principles that all Americans can endorse and embrace.