Stardate 20030529.1903

(On Screen): Several weeks ago, Michael Totten wrote an article where, from his point of view on the left he discussed what he saw as some fundamental differences between the leftist position and the rightist position. His basic point was that he felt he was identifying a deficit on the left.

I was disturbed by his post when I first saw it, and I've been letting it cook in my mind for a while now. The fundamental problem I had with it was one I've had with a lot of political analyses. He, like many, treats it as axiomatic that political positions of various people can be placed on a single axis. In particular, he uses the common parlance of calling people on one end "left" and "liberal" and those on the other end "right" and "conservative".

I've written about my own political point of view, where I made the comment that because I was a liberal, in the US in 2003 that made me a "conservative". The real problem here is that it's actually multidimensional. There's an axis which has "conservative" on it; there's an axis which has "liberal" on it. But they're orthogonal to one another.

What I've been trying to do is to identify various axes, and give names to the extreme positions at the ends of each. For instance, one axis extends from "conservative" on one end to "revolutionary" on the other end. A conservative is one who tries to defend the status quo; a revolutionary is one who is attempting to change it.

conservative————revolutionary

Another axis extends from "liberal" to "autocrat/elitist". Liberals believe in the rights of the masses, and want to try to limit the power of the state over how the masses live their lives. That was the traditional meaning of "liberal" back when it was part of the Humanist movement in the 17th and 18th centuries. Liberals wanted to liberate people from excessive authority of the state.

Elitists and autocrats believe that the masses are foolish, and think that a concentrated group of the wise should make the majority of decisions about how everyone lives. (There is no consensus on who that group should be or how it should be selected, however.)

liberal————autocrat/elitist

Both of these are axes, and few actually are at either extreme position. It's more a question of where on this scale each person actually can be located. And the point in particular is that placing a person on the "conservative/revolutionary" scale amounts to comparing their political beliefs against the state of the nation in which they're living. They're conservative to the extent that they agree with the current national policy; revolutionary to the extent that they don't.

For a very long time, the autocrats were in power. Liberalism was a revolutionary concept, and people who believed in autocracy were conservatives. That continued for centuries, so we came to think of "liberal" and "revolutionary" as identical, and "conservative" and "autocrat" likewise as identical.

But there are a lot of places now where liberalism has won, and that means now that those who believe in liberalism (in the classic sense of the term) are also conservative because they're trying to defend the liberal status quo. Liberalism in the classic sense did mostly win in the US, and that's why I say I'm both liberal and conservative. I'm liberal, and since the US is liberal I'm conservative in defending America's liberalism. The revolutionaries in America now are those who are attempting once again to impose autocracy of various forms.

Another axis is realism versus idealism. Realists accept that the world is complicated and that when you have more than one goal they may be in conflict with one another, and that as a practical matter it is always necessary to make tradeoffs and compromises. Realism is more or less "half a loaf is better than none at all". Idealists, on the other hand, consider anything less than a perfect solution to be a failure. They've got their eyes on the stars and will accept nothing less.

realism————idealism

This is ultimately an axiomatic thing, and it's more common for young people to be idealist and for older people to be realists. But this also reflects on one of Michael's observations:

Liberals think of themselves as more worldly than conservatives. This is true in some ways, but not so in others. It seems (to me) that liberals are more likely to travel, and are more likely to visit Third World countries in particular. (If you meet an American traveler in, say, Guatemala, odds are strongly against that person being a Republican.) Liberals are more likely to listen to “world music,” and are more likely to watch foreign films. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to study the negative consequences of American foreign policy. But that’s about it. If you want to find a person who knows the history of pre-war Nazi Germany, the Middle East during the Cold War, or the partition of India and Pakistan, you’re better off looking to the right than to the left.

This is a manifestation of realism versus idealism. Realists study history because they're trying to determine what is possible, and hope to learn that from Santayana's famous "lessons of the past". Idealists have already decided axiomatically that anything less than an ideal solution is unacceptable, and in that case it isn't necessary to study the past; all it does is to teach you how to fail.

Another axis has to do with the extent to which someone believes in diversity. This is an odd one; in part because certain political positions that have been staked out have taken to creating their own definition for the term "diversity" which distorts the discussion. (I.e. they'll claim that they believe in diversity, while supporting policies which as a practical matter reduce it.)

tolerant————conformist

From my point of view, this amounts to a measurement of the extent to which someone believes that everyone has a right to "scandalize the neighbors", by saying or doing things that the neighbors don't like, even though the neighbors are not really harmed by it.

Being tolerant doesn't mean you never get scandalized; it doesn't require you embrace all positions. Tolerance means you don't act to suppress what scandalized you by force. You can disagree with it, and express your disagreement. But conformists go further than that, and attempt to use political power to punish aberrant behavior in hopes of suppressing it.

I'm not sure this is actually a separate degree of freedom. It may rather be a way of diagnosing the extent to which someone is truly liberal. If you're really liberal, you'll also be well over on the "tolerant" end of the scale. If you are actually elitist or autocratic, you'll tend to believe more in conformism.

Conformists don't necessarily all agree on what the standard should be that everyone is supposed to conform to; that derives from other choices they've made on other axes. What makes them conformists is their willingness to use force to impose conformity of behavior.

There are a few other axes which are practical ones regarding current political affairs, and I'm not completely certain how many actual degrees of freedom are involved among them:

capitalist————socialist
individual————group
opportunity————result

The second one involves the question of "identity politics"; should people be thought of as individuals or as parts of "groups"? The third one refers to the question of whether it is more important that there be equality of opportunity or equality of result. Those are strongly related and may be manifestations of the same basic axis. If one believes in individuals and not in groups, then equality of opportunity is the only defensible position.

What I think is the case is that all three of these are actually manifestations of a single deep axis which actually has to do with equality:

inequality————equality

The question is whether we accept the idea that some people will do better than others will, whatever the reason why.

The issue is complicated by the fact that "the reason why" can vary all over the map, so this is to some extent also contextual. For instance, in an autocratic society which has distinct social classes or castes (which may or may not be racially based), those who were born on the bottom tended to stay on the bottom. Which means that back in the day, liberals tended to work against inequality because it was a manifestation of autocracy which the liberal revolutionaries were trying to eliminate.

But in an ideal society which is liberal and tolerant (should one ever appear) there won't be equality of result. Some people will be motivated to work harder than others will. Some will have abilities than others don't have. We're biologically unequal, and we have different personalities and different goals, and there's also a certain element of chance and luck along with the general tendency of competitive systems to amplify differences in success.

In any system where there is a minimum amount of government meddling, there will be winners and losers to varying degrees. If a person is a liberal and a realist, they pretty much have to accept inequality and may even embrace it.

If one thinks that's wrong, it tends to drive a lot of the other decisions. The presumption that inequality is axiomatically wrong makes you a revolutionary, because inequality is present in all existing systems. It tends to drive you to autocracy, because implementing equality requires the power of the state. It's an idealistic position, since every practical system anyone has ever proposed has included an acknowledgement of inequality. It makes you oppose capitalism because inequality is a fundamental characteristic of capitalism.

Once I start looking at myself on this kind of basis, it becomes easier for me to explain why I oppose Jerry Falwell and Noam Chomsky equally. I'm conservative (within the context of the US) and they're both revolutionaries. I'm liberal and they're both elitists. I'm a realist and they're both idealists. I'm tolerant (or I like to think I am) and they both believe in conformism.

A lot of these actually are separate degrees of freedom; it's possible to be conservative and autocratic and equally possible to be conservative and liberal. One can be a realistic autocrat or an idealistic autocrat.

Based on this, I find I cannot agree with Michael's ultimate conjecture:

Liberals are builders and conservatives are defenders. Liberals want to build a good and just society. Conservatives defend what is already built and established. This is what the left and the right are for. What draws a person to one or the other is more a matter of personality than anything else.

The first priority of builders is the immediate surrounding environment, starting with the home and moving outward from there. Next is the community, followed by the city, the region, and the nation. The other side of the world is the lowest of all priorities. “Think globally” but “act locally” is a bumper sticker for the left. That we shouldn’t meddle in other countries if our own needs work is also a liberal idea. It partly explains why Tom Daschle focused on prescription pills for old people in war time.

Defenders, unlike builders, are on the lookout for threats. This is what conservatism is for. In the absence of civil war or revolution, threats exist abroad. Canada isn’t a problem, and Mexico isn’t really either. The biggest threats are on the other side of the world. Conservatives don’t write about China and Iran because they’re into Taoism or because they swooned at the Persian film festival. The interest is there because these countries are dangerous.

This is where Michael's argument, based on a single axis, breaks down. The people he refers to as "liberals" aren't liberal. For lack of a better term, we'll have to call them "leftists" for the moment. The vocal leftist movement which has been revealed in the last year in the US manifests as being elitist (i.e. not liberal), idealistic (not realistic) and conformist (not tolerant). There's a lesser dedication to equality (over inequality) but it's not totally consistent because it is a side effect of a basic choice of groups over individuals and to some extent of socialism over capitalism. And within the US right now, they're revolutionaries because they strongly disagree with the status quo. It is because they are revolutionaries that we tend to categorize them as being "leftist"; it has nothing to do with liberalism as such (especially since they aren't liberal).

Michael says, Liberals are builders and conservatives are defenders. Liberals want to build a good and just society. Conservatives defend what is already built and established. Revolutionaries are builders. But Liberals want to live in a good and just society; and if they already have one then they'll be conservative and try to defend it.

And in fact, that isn't really true anyway. Everyone thinks that what they advocate would be "good and just"; but they may not agree about how to go about that. That's a mom-and-apple-pie statement; it doesn't actually tell you anything. The conservatives may think that they're defending what already exists because it is "good and just", even if it's autocratic and strongly class-based.

Michael says, The first priority of builders is the immediate surrounding environment, starting with the home and moving outward from there. That doesn't follow.

Michael like many is having a hard time explaining why the so-called "neocons" are advocating change in the middle east. It's because "conservative" is a function of context; it measures the extent to which what one believes agrees with the status quo. If someone is liberal, then in the US they're conservative but in Saudi Arabia they're revolutionary. The neocons are liberal; the leftists to which Michael refers tend to the autocratic. Thus the leftists oppose change in the Middle East but advocate change in the US, because the Middle East is already autocratic but America is mostly liberal.

American neocons are working on trying to change the middle east because they don't agree with what it's like now. They don't feel the need to work locally because they like what we already have. There's no particular requirement that revolutionaries have to begin at home. Rather, they begin with the place which is most unlike what they think should exist, whether it's local or remote.

It's not that simple, of course. The leftists advocate change in the US because they dislike what's here. I think that they're not conservative regarding the Middle East, but they oppose the kind of revolution the neocons want to bring about in the Middle East because they think the result would be even worse than what's there now. It would spread the existing American system even further, and they identify the existing American system as being the worst on the planet.

Michael says, Defenders, unlike builders, are on the lookout for threats. Actually, realists are on the lookout for threats; idealists don't concern themselves as much with that because as a practical matter everything that isn't ideal is already a threat.

Michael continues to make various deductions from what he thinks of as his basic insight, and the mistakes cascade. He says, In other pieces I’ve noted an annoying equivalence between the far-left and far-right. And he lists several. But when you look at it from the point of view of multiple political dimensions, what you discover is that the people he refers to as "far-left" and "far-right" actually land on the same point on a lot of these scales, as I described above for Falwell and Chomsky.

The reason that Michael finds similarities at opposite ends of his single scale and vast differences among those at the same end is that his scale is fallacious. What he's actually doing with these observations is to cite evidence that the scale itself fails as a predictive model.

I've always been uncomfortable with those who try to place me on some sort of linear scale; no matter where they place me, I find myself standing next to people whose positions are profoundly in opposition to my own.