All my life I have been a far left supporter. Now, I feel let down, disappointed by those whom I had thought shared at least some of my basic tenets and so, I must re-evaluate my position. But in order to do that, I must write down what I think each side stands for, what I stand for, and then decide a course of action.
Conservatism is a political ideology that to me appears stilted and not up to the task of making the necessary choices in an open society in the 21st century. Mired in maintaining traditional perspectives and preserving religious beliefs and cultural customs, conservatism remains hobbled in its response to the changing world we live in, a world that runs exponentially faster than it did in the last century due to technological progress in computers, communications and the digital age.
The conservative tenet of the rugged individual free to chart his own course is a myth. The US army settled the west first and then pioneers came to claim the land the government had promised them. Women forged social groups that shared the load of child rearing and education and formed the communities that helped individuals in times of need.
It is no secret that slavery provided the economic basis for the new country. Northerners cannot be so smug, looking down upon southern slave holders, when their insurance companies in Connecticut wrote policies for slave owners protecting them from financial loss should they lose their property, i.e. human slaves. Everyone profited from slavery, directly or tacitly.
The railroad knitted the country together on the backs of impoverished Chinese immigrants who were treated poorly and died in blasts clearing land for the tracks.
Boatloads of Irish immigrants were similarly treated and took the worst jobs that Americans wouldn’t do, whilst living in miserable conditions.
Nowadays, those without education, those destitute, those without hope for lack of work, who seek refuge from misery at the bottom of a bottle or the end of a crack pipe, are considered less than; they’re told to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, a comment callously indifferent to the fact they have no boots.
Empowering individuals to seek their own solutions, strikes me as capitulation; a case of “I’ve got mine, you’re on your own.” It’s deemed in the public good to place spikes on flat surfaces so homeless people can’t sleep on them, there are public ordinances making it a crime to feed homeless people like they’re pigeons. And in some cities, police confiscate blankets and destroy makeshift shelters.
The adherence to the concept of free market is another myth. A free market would actually drive prices down due to competition between rival companies.
Ever shop for a car? Each model falls within a particular price point. The car companies employ strategies to fool you into thinking their model of car is different than others in the same class. And they promote their name, their brand, so consumers identify with them and come to believe they are different than other cars.
What about medications? In a free market, wouldn’t we be buying medications from companies that cost us less? Maybe we could buy medications from a company in Canada? But there are laws against that. Lobbyists influence politicians who make laws that benefit corporations by rigging, without necessarily breaking laws, the system for the corporation’s benefit.
The ruling class and governments set the rules for operating the economy. They always have. So, when you hear conservatives say they want less government, they are actually saying, according to former secretary of labor Robert Reich, they want a different government, one that benefits the corporations. And when they talk about deregulation, Reich maintains they are actually talking about re-regulation making rules that favor themselves.
Personal freedom is another supposed tenet of conservatism but I see only constraint and obstruction from conservatives who too often are acting from strict religious doctrine antithetical to personal freedom.
Issues of who one can love, marry, how one dresses, how one expresses their individuality or ethnicity continually suffer attempts to have such behaviors stymied, mitigated or eradicated by conservative groups. They stand against stem cell research despite the benefit such research would provide to people suffering with Alzheimers and many other debilitating diseases. Physician assisted suicide is blocked by conservative thinkers thus stealing the most fundamental of an individual's rights and in many cases condemning folks to die in agonizing physical and mental anguish.
Conservatives are always trying to stop gay rights, rule what women can do with their bodies, what recreational drugs we can use, censoring movies, books and music wherever they can and with the backing of special interest groups like Christian evangelicals. This is not advocating for personal freedom, this, in my opinion, borders on conservative theocratic rule.
Liberals tend to believe government should solve problems and that government should make society equal for all. They believe the maladies of society should be addressed and resolved by strong government agency. The government, they believe, should see to it that no citizen or resident should be in need, the so called “nanny state.”
Economically the two sides, left and right, adhere to economic neo-liberalism.
Of course, there is some wriggle room, but essentially both sides wish for a free market enterprise, sustained economic growth, and that the role of government is to provide laws to protect property rights.
Liberals favor so-called trade deals, which in reality, benefit big corporations over the individual labor force and the community at large. Noam Chomsky, the celebrated linguistics professor and political activist from MIT, has much to say on the issue of trade agreements referring to them as internal transfers within a corporation, and investor rights agreements, not trade agreements.
Liberals are for a strong government as an agent ensuring a level playing field for all. This includes healthcare, education, immigration, and women’s rights.
The political philosophy of liberalism was born from the Age of Enlightenment denouncing hereditary rights and the divine rights of kings, monarchism and supporting a secular government that endorses freedom of speech, freedom to worship as one pleases (that is to say, no state religion, as was the case in the day) and civil rights.
Equality, civil rights, and personal freedoms within the context of the law, constitute liberalism. It requires a constitution to set up the laws and a bill of rights to enumerate the civil rights of individuals and protect them from the power of their leaders.
Most contentious of the liberal ideas would be the concept of the welfare state; a strong safety net to ensure the needy are cared for in their time of need. And with that comes the charge that liberalism does not create wealth but rather redistributes it.
Labor creates wealth. The worker creates wealth. Look around at the people you see working. Do the kids in sweatshops in Bangladesh working twelve-hour days sewing clothes work less hard than a hedge fund manager? Are the kids wealthy? Did the hedge fund manager actually create anything?
Capitalism also redistributes wealth and it does so by exploiting the labor of workers, fixing markests, lobbying (bribing) the government and currency manipulation (how GE makes its money these days).
In broad strokes, that is how I view the competing political philosophies. What is more difficult is to clearly state what I hold as my values. This will be in no particular order, it will be somewhat disorganized. And that will be part II of my post.
Comments
Post a Comment