I read something today written by Dan Simmons, a favourite author of mine. It really struck a chord. I'm going to quote from it at length:
The reason I've lost interest in the American "left" since I was active in it in the 1960's and '70's is that it's moved almost 180 degrees to a point it's so conservative, it's essentially reactionary. The old joke definition of a conservative was --"Someone old enough and wise enough to know that all change is for the worse." Well, left-wing intellectuals have filled that slot, whether they were advising us all in the late 1980's that the Soviet Union would ALWAYS be with us, so get used to it and learn to live with Communism, or today panicking at climate change (or the idea that some species, somewhere, may go extinct,) or in trying to legislate racial quotas and opportunity from the bench. The left has become rigid and change-fearful. (except with the idea of further empowering government and bureaucrats)
I would suggest that the intellectual left has become hidebound, dogmatic, determined to see the past and present as the shape of things to be (the New York Times declared that the U.S. was in a "Vietnamlike quagmire" the first week of the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban), protectionist in trade, a slave to warring interest groups at home, and essentially frightened by the future.
This isn't the "liberalism" that shaped Western culture up through the first half of the 20th Century or the exciting intellectual atmosphere among progressives as recently as the 1960's. The current function of the American left seems more and more to be the caricature of the aged mother-in-law in the backseat constantly carping to the driver, "Watch out! Don't go so fast! Careful! Look out! I told you so! Slow down!"
This is NOT progressive in the classic sense of the term. It's just little-old-ladyish.
I fancy myself a classical liberal in both the economic and social spheres. (For the most part, anyway: I've got views from all over the political spectrum somehow peacefully co-existing in my cranium.) It's passing odd, then, that I should find myself agreeing, in general, with the conservative take on things--but if you juxtapose conservativism and what used to be called liberalism, you'll find they're pretty freakin' similar. Both advocate minimal state involvement, on the grounds that individuals are the best arbiters of their lives.
I fundamentally (but not absolutely) believe in individual rights. What I mean by this is that my right to throw a punch ends at your nose. I should be free to exercise my liberties so long as I am not interfering with yours. In this sense, I'm more American than Canadian. Unbeknownst to most Canadians, we do not have the right to something as basic as owning property enshrined anywhere. Theoretically, the government can take your property away on any pretext they choose.
The orginal American concept of liberalism lends itself very well to capitalism and especially its excesses. In the United States, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (We have the "right" to peace, order and good government...which strikes me as almost the exact opposite.) Nowhere does it say you have the obligation to assist others who may be lacking in liberty or happiness. Some people noticed this, and took gross advantage of it. I think that's where the backlash against classical liberalism started, resulting, eventually, in a position considerably more socialist. Today it's the conservatives who worship at the altar of commerce, which only makes sense when you realize they're "conserving" an old way of life. Aspects of which, I'd be the first to admit, went stale a long time ago and aren't worth conserving any longer.
"Liberalism = liberty". Or at least it used to. Today it means government involvement in all facets of your existence. While I don't reject government out of hand, I do think it has a tendency to overanalyze and micromanage...and use up vast sums of taxpayer dollars in so doing. I believe it would be possible to remove about a third of the poeple on the government payroll--maybe even half--without anyone noticing. And further, that if such a thing is possible, it is defintely preferable.
A couple of years ago I wrote a post in response to something my Mom sent me concerning government's almost limitless imagination when it comes to creating new taxes. A hundred years ago here in Canada, taxes--even something as basic as income tax--were but a glint in a bureaucrat's eye. Today most of us work half the year before we're allowed to keep a penny of our earnings. What's strange about this (beyond the thought that people allowed and encouraged it to happen) is that one could make a very persuasive argument that we were, as a society, better off a hundred years ago. Consider: if you could magically transport yourself back a century, odds are you'd find your great-grandpa easily supporting his (enormous, by your standards) family, on his income alone. Don't stay for long back in the 1900s: you're needed here and now to earn enough money to support yourself, your husband--who's working, too, by the way--and your one child.
(By no means am I suggesting anything so crass as that women belong in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. What I'm saying is that those who choose motherhood and housewifery as a career option should have their choice respected...all too often, it isn't, now...and it should be far more economically feasible a choice. These days, many women are forced to work outside the home just to keep up on the treadmill. Meanwhile, taxes keep going up.)
We in Canada have a very socialist outlook on things...most of us believe that Government Knows Best. I think that woefully underestimates the intelligence and initiative of the average Canadian. As I say, I believe government does have its place (there should be a basic standard of living for all, whether they "contribute" or not, for example) but beyond that I think we'd be best served if government got the hell out of the way.
All that said, I'm not a fan of unfettered capitalism, either: it's too much a zero sum, I win/you lose kind of game...a game played with people's lives and livelihoods. I'd like to see a hybrid society comprising the best of what's Canadian and what's American...an individualist society that neverthess respects the collective. A pipe dream, perhaps, but mine own.
Meanwhile, I find I agree with Mr. Simmons that the left is increasingly becoming as dogmatic as it has long accused the right of being, and fearful of change and the future, to boot. This fear needs to be recast if we have any hope as a society. Collective fear always leads to anger, and the absolute last thing we need in this world is more anger. We all of us need to regard the future, as problematic as it is, as an opportunity. Only in this way can we bridge the gap between ideologies and actually get something done.
"No blame..no shame...fix the problem!"
4 comments:
There's always a balance. A degree of government intervention always seems to be necessary somewhere, but not everywhere.
The real problem is, its practically impossible to step outside and view the system objectively. We don't know what Canada today would look like if it had adopted a more American viewpoint. We can only theorize, but we don't know.
That all makes finding the balance "the true way", if you will, that much harder. When we can't even agree if what we did yesterday is the right thing, how do we know what to do tomorrow?
You can't even compare two different countries. What works for one may not work for another for practical reasons (population density, natural resource availability), or hard-to-measure qualities (culture, religion). Take China, the worlds most successful communist state. Many people argue that democracy isn't practical for China as it would be unwieldy in such a massive country with a large population. You can argue the merits one way or another, but you just don't know.
So in the end, we have to argue, debate, talk and most importantly listen and think; and then fumble forward doing the best we can.
Not a ringing endorsement of social evolution is it?
I wonder if it is just the nature of ideaology that it will over time settle into ruts so to speak and lose it's initial drive or direction. Kind of like a great rock and roll band.
We definitely need a new third party down here, a centrist liberty focused party.
Its the nature of everything to fall into ruts. We're creatures of habit, and we form collectives those collectives become habit forming.
Its true of personal realtionships, businesses (corporate culture anyone), glee clubs, and political entities.
We are resistant to change, regardless of political outlook. Even when we advocate change, we mean it for everyone else but ourselves.
Rocket--your third party would win in a landslide...and within four short years would resemble the other two. Power *does* corrupt. (Though absolute power does not corrupt absolutely: if your power is truly absolute, what could you possibly be corrupted with?) More properly, it's the perception of inadequate power that corrupts. Unfortunately, that perception almost seems hardwired into our political DNA.
Catelli--you're right about China...the only way that country could function as a democracy is to split up into a bunch of canton-like entities, functioning along the lines of the EU. As for being resistant to change: amen, brother.
Post a Comment