With the availability of some Air America shows on XM Radio, most of the blogs listed on Crablogs and the general loudness of the drones immediately following the disappointment of the election and inauguration, I have been trying to understand the underlying principles of those on the left side of the political spectrum. I don’t believe these are universal by any means, but I do believe they encapsulate what I have been seeing.
There tends to be a completely different set of principles operating there than with conservatives.
1. A god has no control nor exerts any influence in the world today, whether he created the world or not
2. War is never the answer
3. Don’t trust your government
4. Government should play a limited role in the enforcement of morality, but a major role in the enforcement financial equality
5. Morality is relative to the personal choice of the individual and there should always be a safety net against the consequences of those personal choices
These principles begin with the universe and work their way inward toward the person. I realize there are nuances to every one of these principles that could rule out a persons adherence to them, but these are the over-arching principles I see in the rank-and-file Democratic Party today.
Now I disagree with every single one of these principles. I also understand that a lot of that flows from my disagreement with point number 1. But I hope to unwrap some additional thoughts here that will hopefully bring me further understanding of liberal principles, further understanding of people who believe in them and despite my disagreement with them why we are both important to our democratic republic government.
To be continued…
Jeff,
Thanks for the detailed response on my site. It is clear you think carefully about your faith and Christian doctrine (e.g. with respect to death penalty, homosexuality,war etc.) You are right about terrorists who kill civilians being as problematic as Bush (is to me). Certainly when 9/11 happened it concerned me that in Al Qaeda and the Taliban we were seeing the rise of a a new type of religious fascism.
Anyway, I respect you trying to share your beliefs with others in our little electronic community. These discussions always surprise me in a good way. That said, I think I'll leave the conversation on my site there for the time being.
Re: your career worries, there's always graduate school to consider...
Best wishes,
Carl
As one of the "drones", let me question, and where possible, try to rephrase the "principles" you ascribe to the left to get them a little closer to what I think the left really thinks about these things:
1. A god has no control nor exerts any influence in the world today, whether he created the world or not.
Actually, I can't respond to this one because I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you think that god exerts some influence over the world that the left is chosing to ignore, such as "choosing" Bush as the leader, or "blessing" the U.S, or stuff like that?
2. War is never the answer
Really? The left has become pacifist? Just because the left tends to disagree with Bush's decision to wage a pre-emptive war under false pretences (and honestly, it was not the case that we didn't know then that there was a HUGE question about whether Iraq had WMDs) and is now concerned about the levels of innocent civilian deaths and near-civil-war ... this doesn't mean that they think that "war is never the answer".
3. Don’t trust your government
Seriously? If that's what the left thinks, wouldn't that make them prefer anarchy? What, specifically, do you think the left doesn't trust about the goverment?
4. Government should play a limited role in the enforcement of morality, but a major role in the enforcement financial equality
Government should not enforce any particulars of morality that are not universally accepted (e.g., homosexuals should not be allowed to marry), though certainly they should enforce some universals (e.g., murder is wrong) since these promote a stable and safe society. Financial "equality" is not a goal (unless I've missed something), though as close as we can get to equal opportunity is a goal.
5. Morality is relative to the personal choice of the individual and there should always be a safety net against the consequences of those personal choices
I'm not sure what you're talking about here? Abortion? This one is stated so broadly that I can't really tell how far you see this stretching...
***************
I was just going to leave this alone, but I can't do that when I see you making such broad statements - unfairly, in my opinion.
I also have a question for you, in trying to understand where you're coming from: Do you think that our government should promote and enforce specifically-Christian values, even when they contradict values of other religions or philsophies? I'm asking that as a general question, but of course, if you have any specific points, you're welcome to talk about them. I guess I'm just trying to figure out where in the government you see room for other religions and philosophies?
Posted by: seadragon at January 28, 2005 05:08 PMAs I said in my entry, “To be continued…”, I plan to delve further into these 5 principles. Hopefully I will adequately answer your issues with these principles, from at least the vantage point from where I sit. Please bear in mind that I did say they are probably not universal, but over-arching and there would be degrees of disagreement.
As for your final question, I believe our government should promote and enforce truth. This includes enforcing morality to a degree. While I do not expect nor want the government to enforce a Church of the United States of America with a specific set of doctrine that becomes law and illegal to disobey. I do want them to acknowledge the existence of God as this directly relates to truth. I realize it is a truth that you disagree with, but as I have seen you lean towards the desire to understand this acknowledgement. The foundation for morality is found in the Judeo-Christian worldview and it is my contention that most people attempt to follow this moral compass whether they realize/admit to it or not. Not on each and every issue, but it is an over-arching standard.
Posted by: Jeff Price at January 31, 2005 10:52 AMJeff,
Part of the problem with finding underlying principles on the left generally and liberals in particular is it's unlikely you'll find much agreement. Lefties in general are disagreable people. For instance, I find listening to Air America almost as tiresome as listening to Rush Limbaugh or his ilk. I dislike the two for very different reasons, but I still dislike'em. I'm supposed to feel differently, or so I'm told, and I really try to like it, but...
I would caution against going to Air America for explication of underlying principles anyway, because they're actually quite disparate in their views(Sam Sedar and Janeane Garafolo are both socialists, and Bobby Kenedy Junior is a free market capitalist, for instance). I think you'll find that "the left" as you conceive it doesn't actually exist. That's one of the reasons I really hate Rush Limbaugh, etc. They continue to spread the fiction that there is this vast "left" out there that's united in purpose and principle. I think you'll find that until last year, that wasn't really the case. Also, it's worth making a distinction between "liberals" and the "hard left". Having been on the hard left, I can tell you that there are immense differences.
I think you'll find that much of what you consider to be "the left" actually was considered largely right-wing until Bush got into office. For instance, many libertarians who espouse fairly radical free-market theories would traditionally be considered "on the right", but are now "on the left" because of the Patriot Act. Consider also the strange journey of Ralph Nadar, who is considered the ultra-lefty, but regularly joins forces with Pat Buchanan, the self annointed king of all things conservative. Finally, the anti-government sentiment you associate with liberals actually is far stronger on the right. See for instance Newt Gingrich or Grover Norquist, both of whom advocate a "starve the beast" mentality in regards to the government.
Anyway, on to your list. When I say below something is "not true", what I mean is that it can not be sited as an "underlying principle"(by underlying I take you to mean general or universal to all those "on the left"), not that certain people "on the left" don't believe it.
1 is clearly not true. I know many people who believe that their views on economics and politics stem directly from their faith. I'm not one of those people, but such people do exist(in larger number than I would have expected, actually). For a counter example, I will point you to none other than one of my favorite writers, local boy H.L. Mencken. He could quite reasonably be considered "on the right" when it came to matters of economics, but held true and fast to this principle.
2 is clearly not true. There are plenty of "liberal hawks" out there. I think here's a perfect example of your assuming that the "hard left" and "liberals" are one in the same. Many people who are socially and economically liberal believe very passionately in national security and such.
3 is probably the largest area of contention. Would I be wrong in assuming you got this impression from reading us? I think the idea is to distrust politicians, not government per se. But you're going to have a hard time finding any two people "on the left" who agree on this point, and you're going to find plenty of people on the right who hold it far more dear than even the most ardent social-anarchist. Noam Chomsky has made the claim often enough that given the choice between a republic like ours and corporate facism, he'll take the republic and work for anarchy that way.
4 is probably where you're closest. Every "lefty" I know believes to some degree in economic justice of one sort or another. How that is acheived is a subject of immense (and in the 1800's violent) debate.
5 is kind of muddled, so I'm not sure if it's true or not. I'm not sure the first part of the statement is totally correct. I think many "liberals" come to that conclusion in order to cut the baby in two, so to speak. But I know plenty of lefties who beleive in an absolute morality, it just doesn't jibe very well with what other people's might be. As far as protection from consequences, again, that's a tough one. I think if you mean that people can be redeemed for their mistakes by performing good works, well, then yes. But protection? Err....I think we're running into a language barrier there.
Cheers!
--j