Some say you can’t make the world better than it is. They say you ought to be sceptical about human nature, yet they urge you not to question potentially abusive conduct of the powerful. They say you hate America if you want to give extra opportunities to the less fortunate. Conservativism is bigotry of low expectations.
But what drives us, liberals, to care not only about own well being, but about quality of life of others as well? Are we personally hurt by seeing injustice by abuse of political or economic power? Is it very satisfying to seek optimal social gains by collaboration? Are we concerned that uncurbed greed will have catastrophic consequences to everyone?
Do we think that America is the foremost developer of achievements of the Western Enlightenment? Are we certain that America’s success had been assured by an effective balance of civil powers?
I try to understand deep differences between liberals and conservatives. What conservatives like to say is that they are content (or even happy) with the things as they are, whereas liberals always have to protest. Well, can you genuinely always be happy with the things in this world?
Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were not happy with certain things. The founding fathers of the US were not happy with the British authority. Jesus Christ was not exactly content with the Roman things. Were they wrong?
Rebellion is a subtle thing. In the essay “The Rebel”, Camus explains that a rebel is a man who says no, and this no means “there is a limit beyond which you [master] shall not go”. This means that a rebel can accept some level of mistreatment, but intrusion of the authority can possibly go beyond toleration. A rebel also feels right to oppose the oppression, to set the limit. He also implies some values that are so dear to him that he revolts no matter risks. As a last resort, he is willing to accept the final defeat, which is death, rather than be deprived of the personal sacrament which he would call, for example, freedom. Rebellion is not egoistic, contrarily to what is seems. The rebel prefers the risk of death because some values or rights are more important to him than own life. Rebellion may also arise not from own suffering but from observing oppression where someone else is a victim. The rebel defends what he is; he does not envy something he does not have.
He does not merely claim some good that he does not possess or of which he was deprived. His aim is to claim recognition for something which he has and which has already been recognized by him, in almost every case, as more important than anything of which he could be envious.
The rebel undoubtedly demands a certain degree of freedom for himself; but in no case, if he is consistent, does he demand the right to destroy the existence and the freedom of others. He humiliates no one. The freedom he claims, he claims for all; the freedom he refuses, he forbids everyone to enjoy. He is not only the slave against the master, but also man against the world of master and slave. Therefore, thanks to rebellion, there is something more in history than the relation between mastery and servitude. Unlimited power is not the only law.
Liberals are often associated with rebellion, and we can be proud of that. Rebellion itself has practical problems of limits. But denial of rebellion can be more pathological. No one has to be happy with whatever happens.
Conservatives have several “eternal” assumptions; one of them is that the world or human nature can never change. But did we have Islam 2000 years ago, for example? Things happen in the world, and those things have consequences, and everything evolves together: greed gradually increases until a crisis or revolts, new social systems develop or fail, people adopt. There might be things that hardly change, but we rather know better which things change or do not change before discussing what a man can or cannot do.
In particular, democracy as we know it is a very recent thing, just a couple of centuries old. Democracy developed because of rebellious people; conservative forces would have never come up with it. And some conservative forces can still curb democracy back. Are we crazy to think that there is no danger for democracy in the US today? Is it not time to be unhappy about the things? If we do not care, who does?
[Crossposted at European Tribune.]
Mmmm… There are recomendations, but no discussion. Is it so perfect? ;-)))
I have been thinking about what you have written – there are lots of points that I wonder about.
A discussion would be good. 🙂
First, I am so confused by what is meant by liberal or conservative. The words have been tossed around and used as insults that I am no longer sure what anybody means when they are used, including myself!
There are people I know who care very deeply about others. They are very involved on a personal level, e.g., contributing to and serving in places that offer food for those in need. These people do not think this is the role of government. They identify themselves as “conservatives.”
There are people I know who would like the government to take care of those who are hungry. These people have no direct involvement in programs or places that provide food for those in need. They identify themselves as “liberals.”
So who cares more?
As to democracy, has it ever really existed? I sometimes feel democracy is as much a mythological belief as heaven. I am not at all a political scholar, but as I understand it, the US does not have a democracy. We have a representational form of government with the presidential elections even further distanced from the popular vote with our electoral college.
If we consider the evolution of governmental structures, often we conclude at the level of nation/state. But I have wondered whether we have moved into a different era completely – corporate-state.
Corporations have achieved the legal status of individuals. Well, imo, they have become first among “equals”, gaining ever increasing power. Is it possible we have entered a new era? If so, what might rebellion look like?
What’s a liberal to do?
Thank you for your post!
I probably use the terms “liberals” and “conservatives” indeed too voluntarily, like everyone. But for practical purposes, conservatives are today’s supporters of the Bush administration. By this I mean not only intellectual supporters (like think tank fellas, or talk radio of Foxnews pundits), but also anyone who likes to listen to them, and feels warm spot for most of the official US policies (whether domestic or foreign). This is not an arbitrary labeling – front ideology of these folks has many recognizable cannons of conservative political tradition.
Correspondingly, liberals are the folks who do not like the Bush policies, and who think that many thinks are done forcefully wrong in today’s world. The main conflict I imply is that liberals are regularly marginalized and verbally abused in the media, and this is a part of the enterprising system that pushes the world to a rather feudal social state. This is precisely what liberals absolutely would not like, and presumably what conservatives deep down would like.
I would also consider “democracy” as a practical term, labeling the bunch of Western and some other societies with representational government and (more or less) functioning basic freedoms. You have to agree that these societies are quite different from numerus openly oppressive regimes throughout the history. However imperfect the modern democracies might be, they are also of different level than the aristocratic Greek or Roman democracies.
It is probably a good observation than liberals take care of the society in general, not so much of individual fates. The approach might be too mechanical, but liberals are reasonable to believe that it is effective. Though liberals might give move thoughts of what their proposals mean to people individually.
If a conservative personally engages in helping those in need. But I wonder, what is the percentage of conservatives who actually do that. More often you hear the idea that you just take care of yourself and your family, and everything else will be most fine.
Besides, I read today that the Pope endorses government responsibility for fighting poverty. At least, the government is more responsible for that than the Church:
So here you have an arch-conservative leader arguing for government social responsibility.
What a liberal to do? I think that irreversible damage is done to progressive society orders by the last years of economical neo-liberalism (yeah, convoluted terminology) and well-organized political pressures from the right. Corporations are indeed the rulers of the world, their relation to flesh-and-bone people are more feudal than in the Middle ages. The rebellion will look like this: fierce and late, like in the Eastern or similar islands. (Read that Diamond book.) Nothing will happen until corporations will be hurt by their own environmental neglect. When the truth about natural resources will be obvious… it will be hell on Earth, even without ambitions of states like Iran or Russia.
So what a liberal to do? Firstly, he has to oppose the current “unstoppable” trends of political, economical and environmental abuse as much as he can. Make the “job” of WalMarts and Exxons as hard as possible. Win more time for the Earth to breathe, for people and yourself to prepare. Who knows how much time we have left, and how much we can win. Secondly, forget about saving the world. Human civilization is getting what it deserves. For a peace of happiness and fulfillment, take some care of preserving yourself, your values and knowledge, and what is dearest to you for the inevitable hell of crisis and beyond… The real fight is what kind of human world will emerge thereafter. Sure, if you have more energy left, you are welcome to do more 😉
I mean, of course,
“Easter and similar islands”,
and
“for a piece of happiness and fulfillment”.
Stupid spelling checkers….
Thank you for your response and some clarifications.
Because I am coming round to the view that we have entered a corporate – state era, I am considering the manipulation of language and ideas.
I agree with the demonization of the word liberals. Ideas, programs, solutions to problems that are countercorporate can now be painted with the word liberal and marginalized. The affect of corporate media manipulation.
I don’t agree that regular folks who may identify themselves as conservative necessarily want a feudal system. What I hear from them is a frustration over individuals not taking responsibility for themselves. And this frustration is directed (manipulated) toward those who have been portrayed as slackers, i.e., welfare queen, etc.
I often counter by mentioning the salaries of CEOs, questioning what on earth someone could do that they would have salaries in the millions. But this is countered by our cultural mythology that anyone can make it in America – hard work, clean living, god-fearing…
The corporate manipulation has many tools in the concepts of our cultural and religious mythologies. I wonder whether we also are distracted by the liberal-conservative labels, perhaps seeing differences instead of focusing on common ground which would unify us. Divide and conquer.
As to: If a conservative personally engages in helping those in need. But I wonder, what is the percentage of conservatives who actually do that.
In my community, the first responders to Hurricane Katrina were churches. They set up places to donate material goods and people volunteered to drive their large rigs to those in need. The government’s failure to respond and the inadequacy of the response when it did begin was viewed as more proof of the foolishness in depending on government.
Bush was defended as a man tryin’ to do good, but that Congress, those greedy guys, just interfered.
I do think this defense was said in a weak voice. Many people were very shocked at the consequences of Katrina. I believe that the perception of Bush and the Republican government was affected. But people do not know what to do or where to turn.
I heard the journalist Robin Wright speak about the middle east. She said that as the governmental structures become less organized and functional, people will turn to the organizations that will provide stability and guidance. These were the imams and mosques.
There is the possibility that as the consequences of Bush’s policies are felt by more and more people on a personal level, they will seek community, support, guidance…in the local churches.
How does one “battle” corporate America? What might this look like?
Interesting thoughts. And Diamond’s book is on my To Read List. 🙂
Another point to ponder is this notion of freedom.
What is meant by freedom? Freedom from…what?
A few years ago I read about the rebellion of the ’60s being subsumed – absorbed – by the marketing industry. Think about the commercials you have been exposed to over time. Implicit is this notion of being different – a rebel.
I have watched professional sports take a place in many people’s lives that just astounds me. We have drama and loyalty – fearsome(?!) confrontations – underdogs and heroes – all happening in stadiums paid for by taxes and named for corporations. All centered around… a game. Nothing really.
Slaves to fashion? Culture?
Is there anyone who is truly free?
Good questions, thanks again!
“Freedom” is a good notion to demagogue about. Ultimately, a human has to decide himself what freedom(s) he wants and can achieve. I just don’t get the value of freedom to listen to your favourite tunes when you have to pee in your own car in a traffic jam. Of course, humans can agree on a few freedoms that everyone should have. But in general, you have to contend for you freedoms yourself, especially when they comfront with freedoms of soemone else. You should not expect that you can set the freedoms in stone onece and for all. Most freedoms need to be defended regularly. And I have to say, liberals were not good in defending “their” values and freedoms lately.
For me, it is secondary concern whether corporations manage to incorporate rebbellion and other values into their marketing. It is good enough if people regurlarly play rebellion only in stadions. While they do not find in themselves nothing else to root for, they cannot be real rebels for something valuable. On the other hand, in professional sports corporations have a good addiction for “rebelious” folks…