the two presidential candidates Americans got most excited about were Donald Trump, a nationalist, and Bernie Sanders, a socialist. Between the two of them, they make a pretty good national socialist.
Jonah Goldberg says pretty much the same thing in this interview with Bill Kristol. I found the long interview worth a listen. One of Goldberg’s points is that he views support for Trump as a reaction to the discrepancy between what was promised and what was delivered by politicians, especially Republican politicians. After they were propelled to victory in the mid-term elections, they came across as losers. This opened the way for an outsider to come in and claim to be a winner.
My thoughts begin with a generalization about how different political persuasions view human nature:
–Conservatives tend to believe that we need traditional institutions and restraints to control the evil impulses that are in everyone.
–Progressives tend to believe that we just need the right leaders to bring out the good that is in everyone.
–Libertarians tend to believe that we just need smaller government to bring out the good that is in everyone.
It seems to me that news events over the past twelve months or so have put a strain on those who are inclined to view human nature as good. Racial conflict and terrorism tend to reinforce the conservative view that human nature is something that needs to be restrained.
Of course, progressives can continue to blame the racial conflict on bad leaders who are not sufficiently attuned to the oppression of black people. And they can blame terrorism on the invasion of Iraq.
And libertarians can blame the racial conflict on cruel laws and their vicious enforcement. Libertarians can blame terrorism on past American intervention.
I am finding myself drifting in a conservative direction. But I still try to keep in mind that when we seek out institutions to restrain evil impulses, we should not put all of our chips, or even very many of them, on government.
I can’t see the progressives believing in any goodness of people, they’re really simply the non-institutional version of conservatives:
“Progressives tend to believe that we just need the right leaders to bring out the restraints to control the evil impulses that are in everyone.”
Because exactly zero progressives believe that good things will happen without intentional, governmental action. Without such action, we’re just bigoted racists who are going to exploit and abuse each other.
Lemme try: maybe they believe in the goodness of people when completely independent of institutions. The most independent people are the poor who aren’t corrupted by employers or churches or having to make decisions with their capital (which they don’t have). They believe government, when in their control, is basically good when it opposes other institutions.
Consider the interpositions and interventions that now exist in what once were the direct interactions and associations of individuals and groups.
There is much “sand” now in the gears of our society that slow and create abrasions in the human meshing that that provides economic and cultural advancements of social organization.
“Open Access” has been, and continues to be, increasingly constrained as attempts are made at the formation of “new” coalitions for control, principally through “management” of economic, government, and social facilities.
What if the good and evil that are in each of us are somehow not the same good and evil? That is, there is opportunity for … specialization [and trade] in both encouragement and restraint?
The advantage democrats have is that they promise that they will continue growing government.
It is like betting on Brock Lesner. Leviathan jjust leand its heavier bulk on you and waits for the inevitable.
Somehow they also do a better job on blaming Republicans for blocking progress.
Republicans are being punished for democrats winning. This is why I think Republicans need a progressive platform (like libertarianism). Rearguard action, or prevent defense isn’t working.
“Racial conflict and terrorism tend to reinforce the conservative view that human nature is something that needs to be restrained.”
Here is the problem with this. One reason I harp on things like the NSA not preventing anything is that it is a touchstone. That is them doing whatever they want with basically no resource limitation, with near total omnipotence (within that particular area) and no accountability (until Snowden). If that didn’t work, then what could they possibly do to keep a guy from going to get a rental truck. I get the part where deporting millions of muslims will prevent on the order of one attack, but that seems unrealistic in a completely apolitical way.
The terrorism problem is akin to holding an arboreal venomous snake by the tail. If we ban muslims, we MIGHT stop what, one attack? Two attacks? And that won’t cause some blowback or allow some imams to say “look, we told you they are our enemy?” I know that is not even a realistic proposal and is just posturing. The best strategy is probably Munich (film)-style pinpoint targeting of KNOWN terrorists, and history suggests that is at best a difficult new normal lifestyle, and nowhere near a solution. And does it even work against the lone wolf style loosely affiliated and materially unsupported terrorists? Maybe we just accept those are a separate category. But then again, maybe they are also more sensitive to blowback.
I have yet to see a nominal conservative admit how complicated and trial-and-error based the process is going to be. Nor do they seem too concerned about collateral damage of the human and civil liberties variety. Maybe if I’d heard many conservatives talking in ways other than “they just haven’t let us get tough on them yet,” where “getting tough” often means violation of liberties is a feature rather than a bug, and often worth it just to signal how tough you are willing to get, I’d be more inclined.
One tangible thing I’m fairly convinced of is that trying to tackle “global terrorism” is probably a bad idea if it increases the number of enemies. Yet this is how Trump has started to talk. Clinton of course helped create it! Just as an aside, we actually had a person ensconced a largely ceremonial position in The State Department as a holding place for a run for president instigate two wars. And for no conceivable benefit other than the fun of doing it! It’s mind-boggling.
We had our hands full with Al Qaeda and may be overwhelmed with ISIS. We certainly don’t need to tackle the Tamil Tigers or narcoterrorists, or Chechens, let alone a billion muslims just because we want to expand our enemy set to the concept of terrorism. If it is just blowing smoke to trick other countries into helping us against a few specific threats, MAYBE it’s understandable. But my money would be on other geopoliticians tricking our naive leaders.
“Libertarians tend to believe that we just need smaller government to bring out the good that is in everyone.”
I wouldn’t put it that way — it sounds awfully naive in that formulation. Maybe something more like, “Libertarians tend to believe smaller government forces even people with bad tendencies to do good things in spite of themselves.” All people are not inherently good. Available power will prove extremely attractive to those with sociopathic tendencies and will inevitably be captured, abused and turned to private ends (see Public Choice, Lord Acton, etc).
Or, perhaps you could put it this way — There are a lot of ambitious assholes out there. These people are dangerous and intolerable when given government power. But when they are restrained by the discipline of voluntary trade and must provide valuable goods and services in order to prosper, even assholes can be invaluable. Consider Steve Jobs. He was widely known to be a major, autocratic asshole. In government, he would have been a disaster. But working in the free market, he was a huge boon to humanity.
I’d settle for one half step beyond your last paragraph, smaller government means Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will do marginally less damage.
Well sure. Smaller government would also result in fewer employment opportunities overall for people like Trump & Hillary and select, at the margin, somewhat better people who exhibit less megalomania. And big government has noxious effects on other institutions — in such an environment, the most ‘effective’ leaders of corporations and other large organizations become those best at playing influence games (e.g. regulatory capture) rather than those best at promoting the organization’s core mission.
Anyway…the bottom line is that I really don’t think libertarian preferences for small government are based on an overly sunny view of human nature.
pessimistic (I might say “realistic”) view of human nature is a pretty definitive trait of Conservatism, even if it is not wholly unique to it.
That is, a pessimism about human nature is necessary feature of Conservatism, but optional for Libertarians (and originally absent).
Classical Liberalism, Objectivism, various Anarchisms, etc. (being venerable strains of Libertarianism) all rejected any notion man’s “fallenness” and believed in his perfectibility. Those Libertarians that do come from a place of pessimism[1] probably owe that to the historical alliance between Conservatives and Libertarians (at least within the US) as they do often find themselves aligning with Conservatives in political struggles (even if they feel they must hold their nose when doing so).
[1]http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2556
When Goldberg says that institutions are fragile and Trump is a mini-Hitler (not in so many words) he sounds like Barbara Ehrenreich predicting that Reagan, Bush, etc will be proto-Hitlers. When he segued into “my fans have disappointed me” I turned it off. Goldberg is a clown, that’s what his audience wants, not lectures.
Conservatives still run into the same problem that liberals run into: creating powerful institutions that will oftentimes be controlled by exactly those people whom you don’t want controlling it. There’s a strain in libertarian thought, particularly from the public choice side, that a small government and minimal laws are needed precisely to limit the amount of damage done by the worse inclinations of humans. This doesn’t run afoul of the governance problem, but it does require accepting that sometimes bad things will happen which the government shouldn’t do anything about. That’s too much to accept for most liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives always think people are bad and things are getting worse, and change is to be rolled back, often to a past that never was. Liberals think people and things get better but only in the long arc with effort, and change is a necessity, to a future that will always be. Liberals dream is conservatives nightmare so both are right.
It seems to me that news events over the past twelve months or so have put a strain on those who are inclined to view human nature as good.
Please explain to me why today’s reality is worse than the world 30 years ago or any time before that? Yes, the world has been worse than 10 – 20 years but we have to remember that 20 years everybody was discovering the internet and 10 years everybody was working hard for a higher mortgage payment. For all the complaints, third world poverty is crashing which has had the unfortunate reality in causing the developed world wages to stagnate.
Again, if you are going to support the conservative story like Brooks and Levin, then show me how the conservative movement is going to have to show me how Koch Brothers are going to support these local religious institutions. (Yes I know they give to charity.) Or prove to me, that conservatives will not get entangled in a foreign war or bomb Iran. In fact at this point, I am see Gary Johnson is the best alternative.
“Racial conflict and terrorism tend to reinforce the conservative view that human nature is something that needs to be restrained.”
By good (Conservative, goes without saying) leaders and his concepts. They will say which institutions and traditions must be kept, which can be given up and which should be reformed and to what extent. This is the reason there are Conservative voters, Conservative lawmakers, Conservative candidates, Conservative Commanders-in-Chief and so on.
And both, Progressives and Conservatives, believe some aspects of human nature must be restrained and repressed (greed/rebelliousness) and some other aspects must be unleashed and nurtured (“it takes a village”/”get the government off the backs of the people).
I think you can do better in your progressive generalization. I’ve never met a liberal who thought leaders were key to bringing out good in people. What an off-key observation.
Perhaps incentives. Perhaps opportunities. Perhaps support. Perhaps systems. But, leaders? It doesn’t even fit the logic of your relatively coherent three-axes.
Kling’s categories are unrealistically rigid.
“Libertarians tend to believe that we just need smaller government to bring out the good that is in everyone.”
No, the general libertarian model says government is needed to stop people from hurting each other, but beyond that people should be free to pursue their own interests; hence, limited government that doesn’t try to run everyone’s life. Libertarians don’t generally argue for inherent good in people.
“libertarians can blame the racial conflict on cruel laws and their vicious enforcement. Libertarians can blame terrorism on past American intervention.”
No, many libertarians believe that law enforcement can be excessive and cruel but view this as an arbitrary justification rather than a legitimate cause for racial conflict. There is much documented law enforcement excess directed at whites as well as blacks. Consider the Waco siege of the Branch Davidian compound where ~80 white people who mostly weren’t even under suspicion of criminal activity were killed in their own home by federal agents. And this was widely criticized by local police.
As this post links a National Review article, it’s relevant that National Review editor Charles Cooke latest book is “The Conservatarian Manifesto”, which clearly implies large overlap between conservatives and libertarians.
The recent report that made the rounds a few days ago showed that the only racist data was that black cops were far more likely to shoot unarmed whites than any other combination.
The only conclusion to that of course is that unarmed whites racially target black cops (tee hee!)
Time to dust off my “Presidential candidates always get worse” observation. I still haven’t settled on the why. Any ideas?
Maybe Arnold will open the floor for some guest bloggers. hardy har har.
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
To influence you in a more conservative direction…
I don’t believe in the spiritual aspects of religion anymore, however I do believe in evolution, both physical and social/cultural. Religion didn’t spring up out of nowhere and it’s not a single person’s invention to try and control the masses. Western Christianity evolved slowly over a few millenia to compliment human nature and promote the pro-civilization parts of us while pushing back against the anti-social parts of us.
For example strong marriage norms evolved in multiple religions very similarly despite being significant separated between these groups because families are essential to both fulfilling the personal needs of men and women to pass on their genes while also complimenting civil society, strong communities that help each other and build each other up, growing rings of dependence and support, etc.
The same can be said of religions and cultures that are much less benevolent than the latest iterations of Western Civilization (Islam achieved much from its humble beginnings, a virulent version of Shintoism seemed for a time to be able to carry the day and make Japan as powerful as its former oppressors, it cost millions of human lives, but al last it seems Chinese Communist conquered China’s rightful place among the peoples of the world–or so would say a Chinese nationalist). If we need a noble lie to convince us to do the basics (maintain stable family unions, help one another, etc), how can we prevent ourselves from being swalled by the nocive parts of the noble lie? Catholics and Protestants didn’t kill one another in Europe because they wanted to care of their children and create strong communities that help each other, they killed one another because each side held a version of the noble lie that promoted hatred between them. The noble lies may help pushing back against some anti-social parts of us, but they also may promote some anti-social parts of us. Who decides if the price is right?
It’s a fundamental question.
If all religion/ideology/philosophy/etc is just a temporarily successful life-hack that has a favorable effect on our broken chimp brains, that each generation is trying to find loopholes around till it breaks because they are programed to find loopholes, then your right there can never be peace. People stumble on some solution by accident, it works for awhile, then it stops working. Nothing ever really changes, all just random cycles over and over again.
I suppose what attracted me to Christianity is that it doesn’t really take a stance that human nature is good or evil. Simply fallen. And it offers hope to break that cycle, though not necessarily in this life/world. This extreme optimism held in spite of a realistic pessimism about the world is refreshing.
I’m not naive enough to believe there is a belief system out there that will fix things (please don’t tell me yours, even if your smug enough to think you don’t have one). So either I’ve got to trust there is some divine plan (whatever it is) or give over to nihilism.
Yet again, is Trump a political savant or a total incompetent for giving Ted Cruz the rope to hang himself with?
NPR was unanimous in thinking Cruz should have been given an early speech. But, if they had done that, I thought, maybe his calls for delegates to vote their conscience might have resulted in that actually happening.
When all you have is an axis, all you see are poles.
I’m a Calvinist. I consider this year strong, strong evidence backing us up re: Total Depravity