What Does It Mean To Be A Conservative? Part II

From my Twitter feed this afternoon, conservatives apparently want to become liberals. I am not making these up.

I wonder if conservatives won't soon be where liberals were after Dukakis. Liberals rebranded as progressives. What are options on right?

— Keith E. Whittington (@kewhittington) August 5, 2017

Conservatives could "rebrand" as liberals. Seriously. We're for liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal economy, liberal education. https://t.co/MvSbZCfLEZ

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) August 5, 2017

Time to start a Liberal Party. https://t.co/6YxDGCNh0j

— Gabe Schoenfeld (@gabeschoenfeld) August 5, 2017

I like it. Just like Australia where the Liberal Party is the center right party. Conservative & Republican labels are besmirched by Trump. https://t.co/McDm93o9z0

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) August 5, 2017

What The Heck Is A Conservative?

Following links off my Twitter feed, I came across this article about a class on the history of American conservatism. The fact that the class discussed Russel Kirk, William F. Buckley, F. A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman. The fact that Ayn Rand is not mentioned in the article is cause for joy. Actually, the young conservatives reactions to conservative history that the article describes are cause for a bit of hope.

This paragraph, however, illustrated that the word conservative has become so elastic that it's meaningless:

We ended our time together by discussing current splits in the right. The differences between foreign-policy neoconservatives and paleoconservatives became acute after victory in the Cold War. In 2017 the spectrum of conservative thought in America runs from libertarians to neos to paleos to traditionalists to nation-state populists all the way to the alt-right fringe. You have Senator Jeff Flake and his Conscience of a Conservative on one hand, and Steve Bannon and Breitbart.com on the other. The various claimants to the conservative throne each have problems.[emphasis mine]

The only way this list could be more inclusive is if it contained "Appalachian snake handling glossolalians who are also members of Opus Dei."

More importantly, first the connotation of the word "fringe" implies that the author of the piece doesn't consider the "alt-right" conservative. Their populist rhetoric certainly indicates that the only thing that makes them conservative is that they consider the word "liberal" a pejorative. Given the current kerfuffle over National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, the alt-right seems more willing to break conservatives' bones than it does to break bread with them.

Further, the list left off social conservatives. Libertarians who want everything legal as long as no one is defrauded or physically harmed and the social conservatives who want legislation that clearly defines which toilet a person uses do not seem to share the same philosophical spaces.

In some ways, it's poetic justice. Elements of the conservative movement distorted the word liberal until it became an epithet. Now, conservatives can self-identify and the term can apply to those who want to extend the American empire and those who want to erect trade barriers can both be conservatives makes the word vacuous.

On The Need For Compromise: The Devil Is In The Defintions

At the Madville Times, Cory responds to this chart.

Cory writes,

This chart appears to support an observation I made over the weekend, that Democrats are actually the center, seeking practical solutions and good government, while Republicans are the wild-eyed ideologues, who view compromise as the root of our problems.

In certain areas (freedom of speech, human rights), compromise makes me queasy. But compromise lies at the heart of good governing. Compromise is how adults get things done. And if you’re looking for compromise, it appears you’re much more likely to find a home in the Democratic party.

 In the comments, Ken Blanchard writes,

. . . . The whole point of compromise is get as close as one can to one’s principles when other people are involved. . . .

There is a very good reason why a lot of Republicans are skeptical of compromise. They think that politicians go to Washington promising change and then do business as usual. They think that compromise means making promises you can’t keep and spending trillions you don’t have.

Nonetheless, I am tempted to accept your view that Republicans have principles and Democrats don’t. You’d think that when Obama criticized Bush’s national security policies, that the former was speaking from principle. If so, he compromised his principles in a hurry. You’d think that Democrats had a principle that a President can’t start a war without consent from Congress. Obama surely compromised that principle in a hurry, with his utter contempt for the War Powers Act. So maybe you’re right. Compromise is the way to get things done. Principles are just obstacles to good government. Thanks for setting me straight.

First the esteemable Dr. Blanchard correctly observes politics and values and principles create a complicated calculus.  For example, the Christan Right's support for Ayn Rand acolytes confuses me.  He also correctly observes President Obama has violated principle by refusing to follow the War Powers Act.  The President deserves to be condemned for his disdain for Constitutional principles.

It seems, however, that Blanchard has confused "negotiation" and "compromise"  when he asserts the "point of compromise is get as close as one can to one’s principles."  A standard definition of compromise* is

a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands. [emphasis mine]

In short, compromise means that both sides must make concessions.  Negotiate, on the other hand, seems to carry the connotation of success.  To negotiate is to "arrange or settle by discussion and mutual agreement."  Further, it can mean "to succeed in accomplishing or managing."  Here, the "mutual agreement" can be a win for one side or the the other.  There is an agreement, but there may not be "mutual concessions" or "reciprocal" modifications.  If one has superior talent or resources, one can manage to get everything that one desires through negotiation and refuse to compromise.

Today's New York Times leads with

The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday of a “huge financial calamity” if President Obama and the Republicans cannot agree on a budget deal that allows the federal debt ceiling to be increased. Moody’s, the ratings agency, threatened a credit downgrade, citing a “rising possibility” that no deal would be reached before the government’s borrowing authority hits its limit on Aug. 2.

"Huge financial calamity" and "a credit downgrade" indicate that the time for negotiation, getting as much as one can," has ended.  The time has come to compromise.

James Fallows illustrates what I hope most Americans want from their leaders in this situation.

It's easy to forget at times like these, but the whole ponderous U.S. political/governmental system is made of actual human beings, who -- even as they respond to large-scale ideological, political, financial, and interest-group pressures -- can still choose to behave better, or worse, in a given set of circumstances. And the difference between good and bad behavior can make a difference. (If JFK's national security council had been much more hair-trigger and impatient during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or if Khrushchev had been, world history would have been different.)

I'll add another distinction to Fallows's point.  By all accounts Cantor and Obama are intelligent men.  Right now, America needs their wisdom more than their intellect.

*I used the definition of compromise as a noun although I am comparing the definitions of two verbs.  The verb definition "to settle by a compromise" does not do much to further the discussion.

Graduation Speech Summation

According to the New York Times, college graduation speeches don't seem to have changed that much over the past few years.

They [speakers] spoke of courage in an uncertain economy, warned against technology overload and tried to redefine success for a new generation. They railed against fear, conformity, stasis and self-involvement. And they asked row upon row of young men and women to do nothing less than save the world

The priorities that speakers urged graduates to have do seem to vary a bit.  The Times reports,

The New York Times measured the frequency of key words in 40 of the hundreds of speeches delivered this spring. Perhaps as an indicator of the still-guarded condition of the national economy, the words “world,” “country” “love” and “service” showed up far more often than “money,” “happiness” and “success.” The author Jonathan Franzen, at Kenyon College, rhapsodized about “love” and “passion,” using the words some 40 times; Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook, said “Facebook” more than anyone else.

Geeky folk like me will like this chart that illustrates frequency of word usage for different audiences.

What's in A Word?

Adrian Petersen, star running back for the Minnesota Vikings, created a bit of a dust-up when he compared the National Football League to "modern-day slavery."  He has been accussed of "not thinking at all," being "an idiot," and needing "a lesson in history."

I am saddened that "[t]here are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade"  Further, [t]he modern commerce in humans rivals illegal drug trafficking in its global reach—and in the destruction of lives." I wish more people knew that conservative estimates believe that there are 27 million people in slavery today.  That number "means that there are more people in slavery today than at any other time in human history."  Finally, I will grant that the word "slave" is "infamously rooted in history that [it is] are beyond nuance and context" and that using "that painful imagery in a five-second sound bite . . . was guaranteed to blow up in his face," especially since Peterson is expected to earn $10 million dollars next year.

Still, I'm bothered by the fact that everyone is going after him for the first half of the sentence and not focusing on the last half.  Peterson said, "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too." [emphasis mine]

What if Peterson had said that the NFL is like modern day sharecropping or serfdom?  Granted, Peterson is going to make $10 million next season and no serf or sharecropper ever earned that much.  On the other hand, he is limited to playing in the NFL.  No rival football leagues exist.  When he was drafted by the Minnesota Vikings, he would have had to wait for a year to play football if he had not wanted to live in Minneapolis.  In short, he had to choose between playing football and working where he wanted.

More importantly, NFL players who play 5 years have a life expectancy of only 55 years, decades less than the average lifespan of 77 years. To put an NFL player's life expectancy in perspective, it's the same as a man living in Ethopia.  Even those who condemn Peterson admit that "it's the players who risk bodily harm and brain damage, and are often left with chronic pain and debilitating conditions for life."  Most of those players won't be millionaires, but the company store owns their bodies, if not their souls.

Too many people take a "if it's so bad, leave attitude" toward anyone who complains that working conditions are unfair.  By doing so, they ignore the fact that many have to choose between a bad job and no job.  No job means no food on the table and no roof over one's head.  Peterson is right; a lot of people are stuck in a job that doesn't pay them enough to live, but that they can't afford to leave.  It may not be slavery, but it's certainly a perversion of the American ideal.  He was making a valid point, but he should have chosen his words more carefully.