“Values” are sort of like “diversity,” in that as the word is used today it often means something different from its traditional meaning. Now it’s frequently used as a synonym for various positions that are assumed to be favored only by right wing social conservatives — anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. It was in that context that there was a flurry of comment that the last election had been decided by “values” voters, a view now largely rejected in favor of Bush’s favorable rating on national security issues and Kerry’s myriad weaknesses.
In a brilliant column today, David Brooks discusses differences between Democrats and Republicans in a way that suggests much of the debate over “values” has been shallow and short-sighted (although that is not the subject of his piece.)
Brooks’s point is that modern conservatism has been both strengthened and made more popular by its disunity, by its internal debates over public philosophy, not by its well-oiled “message machine.”
Conservatives have not triumphed because they have built a disciplined and efficient message machine. Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they’ve found one faction to agree with.
….
Moreover, it’s not only feuding that has been the key to conservative success – it’s also what the feuding’s about. When modern conservatism became aware of itself, conservatives were so far out of power it wasn’t even worth thinking about policy prescriptions. They argued about the order of the universe, and how the social order should reflect the moral order. Different factions looked back to different philosophers – Burke, Aquinas, Hayek, Hamilton, Jefferson – to define what a just society should look like.
Conservatives fell into the habit of being acutely conscious of their intellectual forebears and had big debates about public philosophy. That turned out to be important: nobody joins a movement because of admiration for its entitlement reform plan. People join up because they think that movement’s views about human nature and society are true.
By contrast, Brooks argues,
Liberals have not had a comparable public philosophy debate….
Liberals are less conscious of public philosophy because modern liberalism was formed in government, not away from it. In addition, liberal theorists are more influenced by post-modernism, multiculturalism, relativism, value pluralism and all the other influences that dissuade one from relying heavily on dead white guys.
As a result, liberals are good at talking about rights, but not as good at talking about a universal order.
Although it is no doubt true that some are attracted to the Republicans more because of their low-tax or pro-business policies and some are attracted to the Democrats by what they regard as its public philosophy (or philosophies), I think Brooks has a strong point, and one as I suggested that puts the “values” debate into a more comprehensive, and comprehensible, perspective. I disagree on one point, however: I don’t believe Democrats are very good at talking about rights.
They do indeed believe that people have rights to all sorts of things, but all too often what they mean by “right” is simply that it is illegitimate to oppose one or more of their favored policy prescriptions. They are quite good at talking about the policies, as Brooks says, but much less comfortable discussing the nature of the rights that they say command the adoption of the policies. This is not so much because of a refusal to invoke the memory of “dead white males,” as Brooks says, but because, as Brooks does recognize, of their aversion to principle itself.
The thing about rights is that they derive from and require a belief in at least a few universals, and the post-modernist, multicultural, relativist ethos of modern liberalism rejects universals. The right to be free from racial discrimination, for example, has always been rooted in the belief that people are the same, a belief best stated by Jefferson’s bold assertion that all men are created equal — a proclamation of social values, by the way, not a description of society. Today, however, liberals defend what they increasingly regard as the essence of civil rights — namely, preferences to preferred groups — on the basis not of sameness but of difference — blacks from whites, ethnics from “European-Americans,” women from men, gays from straights.
Brooks’s advice?
If I were a liberal, which I used to be, I wouldn’t want message discipline. I’d take this opportunity to have a big debate about the things Thomas Paine, Herbert Croly, Isaiah Berlin, R. H. Tawney and John Dewey were writing about. I’d argue about human nature and the American character.
In disunity there is strength.
I hope the Democrats follow this advice. Not only would they be better off as a party, but perhaps they can articulate and defend a public philosophy that will not make us look more like Quebec, or the Balkans, or in the alternative mount an argument about why balkanization is a good thing.
I like Brooks very much, but I think his description of conservatism here is off. We’re not talking “internal debates” here; we’re talking a bunch of completely imcompatible people all herded perforce into a single bin labeled “conservatives” and then forced to come up with a consensus. Look at the people commonly called “conservative.” Do Pat Buchanan and Glenn Reynolds agree on anything? At all?
The fact is that “conservative” = “not-liberal,” and one offense in any direction puts you in the “conservative” bin. So Buchanan is a “conservative” because he’s conservative on the social issues; Reynolds because he supported the Iraq war. Why doesn’t Buchanan’s opposition to the Iraq war (and his economic populism and protectionism, for that matter) make him “liberal”? Why doesn’t Reynolds’ libertarian attitude towards social issues and especially privacy concerns make him “liberal”? Same reason in both cases: “liberal” is the benchmark, and “conservative” is anything deviating from it in any particular.
So, yeah, there’s lots of internal debate among “conservatives,” partly because some of them have absolutely no views in common with others. I agree that internal debate is healthy, but what we have here is less a “movement” than a Knesset.
Do Pat Buchanan and Glenn Reynolds agree on anything? At all?
Well, yes. I’m pretty sure they both voted for Bush.
Your point about conservative being an incoherent notion if it is not defined simply as “not liberal” (even on one issue) is of course correct, but in fairness to Brooks he was discussing Republicans and Democrats, not just conservatives and liberals.
The problem is, as this leftist sees it, partially that the right has marginalized some of our strongest philosophers.
If Brooks called me, I’d have to answer Marx and Sartre (along with others). And then I’d immediately be called a Stalinist, and the attacks would continue from there. Despite the fact that one can, actually, have an immense amount of respect for Karl Marx’s analysis without wanting to institute a communist dictatorsip, anyone who honestly answers “Marx” to the question “what’s your favorite philosopher” can expect zero credibility in American public life.
On the other hand, go to the opposite pole. Say Ayn Rand. Doesn’t sound so bad, eh? Even though IMNSHO, Rand was a frothing maniac with horrible ideas and worse writing, it’s socially acceptable to admire her work.
John, Brooks brings up the parties in a single graf, about foreign policy. To me he seems to be talking about “liberals” vs. “conservatives,” as indeed all the text you quoted did.
But this:
Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly. As these factions have multiplied, more people have come to call themselves conservatives because they’ve found one faction to agree with.
is spot-on, except that I do think the “identification” goes the other way, as I said: it’s not that people call themselves “conservative” because they agree with one conservative faction about something; it’s that other people call them “conservatives” for the same reason. I do not think that Glenn Reynolds considers himself a “conservative.” I have no idea what Pat Buchanan considers himself, unless it’s William Jennings Bryan redux. (Which would make him a “Populist.”)
Paul Gowder,
If a candidate for an academic or political job gave Ayn Rand as his/her “favorite” philosopher,” I’d be very wary indeed, and I imagine most employers would as well. Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine an academic environment in which “Rand” would be a more congenial answer than “Sartre.” For one thing, Sartre’s devotees tend to be nihilistic only up to a point, whereas Rand’s tend to take her way too seriously. (Speaking from rather limited experience here, but still . . .)
Paul Gowder,
I should have added this.
Even though IMNSHO, Rand was a frothing maniac with horrible ideas and worse writing, it’s socially acceptable to admire her work.
The difference between her “horrible ideas” and Marx’s is that one set killed a hundred million people and one didn’t. I know it’s old news, but it’s still worth bearing in mind.
Michelle – Back to Brooks, you’re right; he was talking more about conservative/liberal than Repub/Democrat.
The relation between ideology and party has long been interesting. A long time ago I used to wish for a “realignment,” making parties and their presumed ideologies more closely aligned. Now that that’s happened, it just goes to show you to be careful what you wish for…
Of course the alignment is still not perfect. Conservatives (who/whatever they are) are still more conservative than the Republican party, and liberals are still more liberal than the Democratic party, though they are much more closely aligned, I believe, than the Republicans. There are still far more pro-choice Republicans in office and in positions of influence, for example, than there are pro-life Democrats
A good friend of mine is a fairly influential Democratic operative, and he bridles at the frequent comments — not only from me — stressing the powerful new influence of groups like moveon.org. He thinks they’re fanatics without much influence on the people he knows. (He must be right about the people he knows, but I still think he’s wrong about the party as a whole.) When I quoted him an ABC poll indicating that 40% of Democrats actually support partial-birth abortion, he replied that I should stop referring to “a bunch of nuts” as though they represent the party. 40% are nuts? Well, that’s what he said.
All that said, and even though you’re right about the focus of Brooks’s comments, I still think the fact that Reynolds and Buchanan probably voted the same way gives some weight to what Brooks wrote.
The difference between her “horrible ideas” and Marx’s is that one set killed a hundred million people and one didn’t
See? This sort of flip remark is my point exactly. Marx does not imply Stalin, just like Heidigger does not imply Hitler.
Paul Gowder,
[me:] The difference between her “horrible ideas” and Marx’s is that one set killed a hundred million people and one didn’t.
See? This sort of flip remark is my point exactly. Marx does not imply Stalin, just like Heidigger [sic] does not imply Hitler.
I really don’t think anyone has implied that admiring Heidegger makes one a Nazi. (That Heidegger was, in fact, a Nazi is an awkward fact, but people have been able to draw on his work without being drummed out of the academy as Nazis.)
The difficulty with Marx is that so much harm has come from people who proclaimed that they were following him. Heidegger just threw in his lot with the Nazis; he didn’t actually inspire them. But Marx was ultimately the impetus behind a couple dozen unimaginable tyrannies, some of which are still around. I can see how that might possibly make his name “mud.”
How about Nietzsche? (There’s another German philosopher whose name I can never spell right.) He arguably WAS the inspiration for at least some of Hitler’s stuff…
Hell, even Plato went to Sicily once, as I recall, and trained its dictator personally.
Who were the philosophical inspirations for the bloodbath that followed the French Revolution?
For that matter, how much tyranny has been carried out in the name of Jesus?
I don’t think a philosopher can be blamed for the subsequent perversions of his/her message by opportunistic politicians.
Paul Gowder,
I don’t think a philosopher can be blamed for the subsequent perversions of his/her message by opportunistic politicians.
I agree with you. I think it’s quite possible to admire Marx without admiring any [practical] Marxists, though it does take some mental legerdemain.
Paul, when I went to Columbia, being a Marxist was a requirement for being a professor. Yes, they would rationalize that Communism wasn
Richard: that’s an unfair mischaracterization of Marx. Recall that he advocated the “withering away” of the state & a final society of self-sustaining groups — a vision similar to many libertarians, but after the elimination of class.
Again, though my point: our philosophers on the left are associated with all these nasty historical exploitations, and this distracts from what they said.
I think it’s perfectly consistent to admire, as I do, Marx and Jefferson and Kierkegaard.
Am I being unfair, Paul? Hardly. Obviously, you haven
“The problem is, as this leftist sees it, partially that the right has marginalized some of our strongest philosophers.”
The other problem is that most thinking people find the idea of a “favorite philospher” really silly.
“The difficulty with Marx is that so much harm has come from people who proclaimed that they were following him. . . . But Marx was ultimately the impetus behind a couple dozen unimaginable tyrannies, some of which are still around.”
You go from people claiming to follow, to him being the impetus. Nice switch of blame. Does it mean that Stalin is less to blame?
Next blame the inventor of the geocentric universe for the excommunication of galileio.
I think this blame game is ultimately fruitless. Where I think Paul is wrong is in his initial statement that anyone who honestly answers “Marx” to the question “what’s your favorite philosopher” can expect zero credibility in American public life — at least if universities are part of American public life.
I’m not sure that any departments actually require a belief in Marx of their new hires, but I’m sure that such a belief would not be disqualifying in any major university, and probably not in any minor one either. A belief in Ayn Rand, however, probably would be disqualifying in many places.
“A belief in Ayn Rand, however, probably would be disqualifying in many places.”
What does “A belief in Marx” mean? the guy wrote thousands of pages. Much of it quite boring and un-genocidal. From what little I know, quite a bit of his philosophy can be summed up in the preface to the critique of political economy:
“The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” and on and on.
I think most people have a belief that that has some truth to it. I think a Marxist thinks thats the entire truth.
I’m sure we can find some other generally agreeable quote from Ayn Rand. Though I’m sure we can also find some howlers.
Richard:
Diatribes like yours are why I despair of ever opening a serious dialog between left and right in this country.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a description of an efficient and rational distributive system. The method of getting there is not determined yet.
I didn’t say I support all of Marx, anyway. The whole “dictatorship of the proletariat” (which would NOT include me. I’m a lawyer, albeit a leftist one, not a factory worker) concept, while perhaps sensible-seeming in its historical context (written BEFORE the major totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century, when “dictatorship” didn’t necessarily mean “regime of murderous thugs”), was obviously incorrect in light of our historical experience with such power-grabs. Many of his ideas are still valid even after we — correctly — toss out the idea of the intermediate “dictatorship” stage.
However, it’s clear that Marx thought that the withering away of the state would be a good end-point to history.
I note also that Marx suggested that the revolution would be worldwide. It was Stalin that insisted he was implementing the revolution in one country, and there’s a substantial argument that Cuba’s revolution, at least, would have been a success but for the geopolitical effects which pushed it into brutality (Soviet domination, American hostility…).
Also, revolution theories aside, Marx’s insights as to how economics actually work — insights which do not in any way trend toward dictatorship — were well ahead of his time.
John:
I was talking about public life in the context of your original post and Brooks’ original article: think tanks, politics, high appointive position, etc. Places where one’s opinion can influence policy. In such places, a belief in Rand is more credible than a belief in Marx. As is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that Alan Greenspan is a former associate of Rand’s, whereas any former associates of known Marxists have zero public, non-academia, cred.
Notice the wording here: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
Unfortunately, many people incorrectly hear: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his wants.”
I can almost hear the childish voices crying out, “But, Mom, I NEED that!”