Andrew Sullivan tries to move beyond left and right and come up with a more realistic matrix of political positions:
I’m tired of this hawk-dove paradigm. And we all know how tired left and right are as useful labels…. More revealing, perhaps, is the fiscal-conservative-social-liberal category, in which I think I’d probably be counted. (The roster of categories is therefore: social and fiscal libs; social and fiscal conservatives; socially liberal but fiscally conservative independents; and socially conservative and fiscally liberal independents.) But the war changes the matrix again, I think. There’s a new group of people out there who are socially liberal but also foreign policy realists, especially among those who have been awakened to political engagement by September 11. Some of these used to be Scoop Jackson Democrats, but today’s breed doesn’t buy into the big government liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s either. Some are neocons who don’t love the social right. Others are just Generation X and Y, who simply accept the social diversity of modern culture and want to see it defended against theocratic barbarians. These people are not comfortable with the Republicans’ flirtation with the religious right, or their prosecution of the drug war or mixing of church and state; and they’re not impressed by the Democrats’ lack of seriousness in foreign policy or enmeshment with public sector interest groups. They’re politically homeless, these people – but were probably key swing voters in the last election. Instead of hawks and doves, call these people “eagles.” I think they’ll play a key part in shaping the politics and culture of the next few years.
Got that? I don’t either. My biggest question concerns “social liberal.” What’s that? I suspect most people who would use this term to describe themselves would favor affirmative action/racial preferences. Since Sullivan doesn’t, I think even his self-description here is a bit confused.
“Socially liberal” is a term I’ve used to describe myself for a few years now. It’s generic meaning could cover a base acceptance of diversity or tolerance…that is, social liberals accept all races, ethncities, and or sexual preferences carte blanche. Yet by saying that you’re a socially liberal conservative, it separates you from those “bigots” on the right (I say this as a gross simplification of an idea, not mine by the way) while at the same time distancing you from the “liberal” governmental policies on affirmative action and diversity. In other words, I’m not using it as a showing of solidarity with Dems, nor am I saying that Reps. always show intolerance or bigotry.
I’ve said before on my blog that 1) I believe we’re seeing a subtle shift of both parties’ bases that won’t manifest itself for another couple of years (5-10 or more in my opinion, and 2) many more people would consider themselves Republicans, or would at least entertain the thought, if it wasn’t for the religious right. I think the RR really scares the shit out of otherwise reasonable people who don’t really sympathize with the Democrats’ goals.
In fact, this may now be changing, and the most recent election could be analyzed this way. Aside from cloning, and some statements on Islam, the far religious right hasn’t been heard from in a while, which makes the rhetoric of people like Bill Moyers seem that much more outdated. In 1994, his little spiel would seem way more contemporary than it did last week.
What Chris says makes a lot of sense to me, too. And I agree with a lot of what Andrew describes (although John’s point is well-taken, and I suspect that’s not what Andrew intended by “social liberal”).
Maybe it’s time for a third party. One that doesn’t target a niche, and doesn’t favor extremes, but rather sits in the middle — taking the best ideas of both major parties, while specifically refusing to be beholden to the extremes on either side. Just call me Pollyanna.
Well, both of the above comments make sense to me. I haven’t thought this through yet (any may never). Chris’s desire to separate himself from bigots on the right (and we all know there are some) certainly makes sense. I guess I’ve developed a bit of a reservation, however, about implying that tolerance (and I think that’s what we’re talking about here) is a monopoly of “liberal.” Thus if a socially liberal conservative is a tolerant conservative, then presumably a just plain conservative isn’t tolerant…. I don’t mean to sound defensive about this, especially since I’m not even sure I am a conservative.
I think that the majority of the American people are simply turned off by anyone who has some grand vision of transforming society into some sort of utopia. Both the religious right and the ultra-liberal democrats both seek a radical transformation of society which only appeals to a small minority of the American people.
As for me, I don’t want to live in a de facto Christian theocracy OR a European-style welfare state. It is not a question of either/or, I, and most people I believe, would choose NONE OF THE ABOVE. For the most part, I just want the government to mind its own business and leave me alone. I think this is what most people want. The ideologues who haunt both parties just can’t seem to grasp that their ideas of what is heaven on earth would be Hell to most people.
My sense is that most people who call themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal are relatively libertarian. Perhaps not as libertarian as the Libertarians, but generally supportive of moving in that direction. There may be distinctions between socially liberal and socially libertarian — gun control, maybe affirmative action — but they’re closer than socially conservative and libertarian.
Re tolerance, I think a lot of self-described conservatives would tell you that tolerance is over-rated. Taken to an extreme, I doubt anyone would disagree — tolerance of rape is not the halmark of a healthy society. Tolerance of skin color is. Tolerance of open homosexuality, or abortion, or gun-ownership — well, that’s where relatively-mainstream people start to disagree.
“Tolerance” is, as Mr. Jens points out, a flexible concept that is not necessarily objectively “good.” Also, there is, I think a big difference between choosing to be “tolerant” of something (e.g. homosexuality) and the government FORCING you to be “tolerant” by imposing penalties if you are not.
I think it is fair to say that “liberals” and “fiscal conservative, social liberal” types are more inclined to pass laws mandating “tolerance” than are “conservatives” or “libertarians.”
I’d certainly call myself both “socially liberal,” defining it in opposition to the religious right, and “fiscally conservative.” I’d always defined these categories as what represented a libertarian-type point of view. I’d agree, though, that there doesn’t seem to be much of a libertarian party as opposed to a Libertarian party, though I haven’t much looked into the official version.
The problem is that the left has co-opted the term liberal. I find most so-called liberals in this country to anything but. They are statists through and through. The true liberal in the 19th century use of the word wants a limited government that protects us from foreign aggression, enforces contracts and property rights and keeps us from harming one another. This is obstensively what Libertarians want but too many of them have a polyanish view of the world. To wit, they believe that isolationism and strict non-interventionism is all we need do to avoid trouble. This is that same utopian view so many on the left expouse, namely that all people can be dealt with as well meaning and rational. Nothing is futher from the truth. Life is ‘nasty, brutal and short’, and a strong but very limited government is necessary. Hence the need for a strong military and U.S. involvement in world affairs. Similarly the government should avoid social engineering of the left or right type. Just let people alone as long as they do not cause trouble.