Understanding social conservatism

[myata]

I've been struggling for some time to make sense of where to place social conservatism on the political spectrum. The traditional grade, based on the measure of individual freedom, with totalitarianism on one end, and libertarianism on the opposite, won't work. Really, social conservatives want less government involvement, less regulation ie. more freedom (with qualification of course, e.g can an employee without protection of basic rights written in the law be free? or, would having no - or less - social net to fall back on make us more free? - etc). On the other hand, their stand on individual freedoms, such as gay rights, abortion, etc, goes in the 180 degree opposite direction. I.e its bad for the government to tax us to finance common social programs. That would impose on our freedoms. On the other hand, it's OK for me (with my buddies) to comment and decide on somebody else's personal preferences (in choice of partner, family planning methods, or even dressing habits). Go figure.

To solve this conundrum, we'll need to add one more dimension to the analysis. I.e combine traditional interpretation of "Left/Right" (level of advocated social involvement in the society) with the spectrum of invidual freedom (libertarian / totalitarian). The resulting diagram, with "Left/Right" spectrum horizontally, and individual freedom vertically (more individual freedom higher up) would look like this:

Individial freedom

|

Q4 (more social, more individual freedom) | Q1 (less social, more individual freedom)

|

Left (more social involvment) ------------------------ | ------------------- Right (less social involvement)

|

Q3 (more social, less individual freedom) | Q2 (less social, less individual freedom)

Now it's much easier to understand who is who. In the extreme top right (Q1) we'll have traditional libertarians. Extreme bottom left (Q3) would have pure totalitarianism. Top left, combining social involvement with individual freedoms would signify the traditional liberal values (please note capitalization). And the social conservatism? It falls into the mirror opposite of liberalism, with less social involvement AND less individual freedoms. An example of that kind of society, in its pure form, doesn't easily come to mind. Maybe a kind of wild west country, where everybody lives on their own and doesn't care much about their neighbour, but peope are still prosecuted for transgressions of "common" morality with a lynch mob justice code?

Certainly, this analysis should be taken in the measured perspective. In a stable society, the actual distance between political alternatives can be small to virtually insignificant. That may change if society loses its balance for any political, economical, etc reason. Things tend to develop toward extremes at these times. The extremes that, as history shows, may come with more or less social involvement, but almost invariably harshly suppress indvidual freedoms.

[Hydraboss]

Sounds a lot like the Political Compass test.

[myata]

Sounds a lot like the Political Compass test.

It does. I must have seen it somewhere already, though I can't recall taking the test.

I agree with the main proposition of the "Political Compass", that the notion of "Left/Right" is insufficient (one-dimensional) to understand a political position. Credits for it belong belong to politicalcompass.org. I'd like to make some qualifications about defining the field. Those will be posted in the "Compass" thread.

[Michael Hardner]

Leftists and rightists won't accept generic terms like 'freedom' and 'social involvement'.

They would say that their way (whichever one it is) is the way of "freedom"...

Rightists often want more social controls on individual behavior (discipline in schools, less tolerance of gender diversity, etc.) and leftists will wade into social control territory from time to time too... diversity quotas in hiring... etc.

Maybe we can redefine how left/right think of themselves in a less Cartesian way... as in less like René Descartes... not a graph but some text....

Something like:

Rightists think the world is a tough place but if you don't take care of yourself and yours than nobody else will.

Leftists think the world is a tough place and therefore you should be forced to take care of the ones that nobody else takes care of.

[maldon_road]

Rightists often want more social controls on individual behavior (discipline in schools, less tolerance of gender diversity, etc.) and leftists will wade into social control territory from time to time too... diversity quotas in hiring... etc.

They are both controlling...in their own way.

Leftists want to ban "hate" speech. Rightists want to ban "gay pride" marches.

[Wild Bill]

Rightists think the world is a tough place but if you don't take care of yourself and yours than nobody else will.

Leftists think the world is a tough place and therefore you should be forced to take care of the ones that nobody else takes care of.

Even simpler:

There is a man drowning 100 feet from shore. A rightist happens buy, throws him a 90 foot rope and tells him: "Hey, work for that last 10%!"

A leftist comes by, throws him a 100 foot rope (which he took from someone he thought didn't deserve it) but just before the fellow reaches the shore the leftist drops his end and rushes off to do another good deed.

[eyeball]

A leftist comes by, throws him a 100 foot rope (which he took from someone he thought didn't deserve it) but just before the fellow reaches the shore the leftist drops his end and rushes off to do another good deed.

The fellow in the water is so pissed off at the rightist he's running up the last few feet to shore himself. The leftist went to tackle the rightist who by now was excersizing the better part of valour by fleeing for his life.

Edited July 25, 2008 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

The fellow in the water is so pissed off at the rightist he's running up the last few feet to shore himself. The leftist went to tackle the rightist who by now was excersizing the better part of valour by fleeing for his life.

If this were a real world example and not just a joke, the fellow from whom the leftist stole the rope would drown.

The leftist would blame Steven Harper and globalization.

[myata]

Leftists and rightists won't accept generic terms like 'freedom' and 'social involvement'.

They would say that their way (whichever one it is) is the way of "freedom"...

There's a lot of beef with definitions. I think that limiting "social control" to more or less economy (in the original test) is insufficient and may skew the result. E.g from that point of view, fascism, allowing some economic freedom, vs Stalin's communism would appear as quite different societies, while in my view, the difference is only in the level of suppression of individual freedom (and, of course, ideology).

One way to improve it would be to attempt to make categories 1) more precise; and 2) independent from each other, as much as possible. This is another deficiency in the original methodology: "social control" is related to "individual freedom" and so makes two categories correlated, skewing the result.

In my view, the individual freedom category is relatively well defined, and should stay. No matter who is talking, it's easy to draw the line at: is individual allowed, unrestricted in any way, certain activity, practice, etc, as long as it does no harm to others. I can see that qualification of "no harm" can be see as somewhat of a challenge, but otherwise, it'll measure the level of individual freedom quite precisely and unequivokely. The measure applies to all domains of individual activity, political, economical, social practices, etc.

It's more of a challenge to define the other category, that corresponds to the traditional "left / right". One can vaguely feel that it should be something to do with the level of "integration" in the society. Both original test (state control) and suggested "social involvement" point in that direction. One could think about some measure that's related to individual involvement in the society - i.e all the ways an average individual can interact with the societal environment around them, no matter whether the interaction is concentual or not). In that way one'd be able to distinguish strongly integrated societies, from the less integrated ones. This needs to be understood better.

Returning to the original topic, it's pretty clear that social concervatives advocate the direction of less individual freedom, and less integrated society. This is distinctly different from liberal (more individual freedom and more integration), libertarian (more freedom, less integration), and totalitarian (less freedom, more integration) concepts. And, to a large extent, the only option that hasn't been thoroghly tested in the recent history. The question is, do we want to go there?

[eyeball]

If this were a real world example and not just a joke, the fellow from whom the leftist stole the rope would drown.

The leftist would blame Steven Harper and globalization.

Nope. The leftist would be pointing out that Harper and globalization are merely strawmen not to mention the rightist revisionism of history which tells us the leftist borrowed the rope from someone else not a drowning person.

[Michael Hardner]

'Right and left' should be tossed out.... it's like playing 'cowboys and indians'.... the important right/left struggles have been fought... we need to align along different parameters now.

Leading me to myata:

One could think about some measure that's related to individual involvement in the society - i.e all the ways an average individual can interact with the societal environment around them, no matter whether the interaction is concentual or not). In that way one'd be able to distinguish strongly integrated societies, from the less integrated ones. This needs to be understood better.

We have this internet thing now... which has arrived (like many technologies) right at the time it's needed.

It's binding us together and tracking what we're all doing without us even asking it to.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Michael Hardner

[August1991]

'Right and left' should be tossed out.... it's like playing 'cowboys and indians'.... the important right/left struggles have been fought... we need to align along different parameters now.

Left and Right are not terms decided by some central commission.

Real divisions exist among people. These are rough labels that tend to work.

As we all understand, the fundamental divide between left and right is the issue of personal responsibility.

We on the right believe that the world is a better place if individuals - or more specifically families - take responsibility for themselves. Economics is all about how self-interest not only drives our lives, but underpins stable and mutually beneficial relationships between us (eg see this blog). From the economy, to education, to health, to welfare, the right believes when governments get involved beyond law and war, the long-term consequences are almost always dire.

The left believes the exact opposite. They believe the world is better if planned and managed by a benevolent dictator who goes by the name of "Society". For the left, the apparent randomness of markets is the law of the jungle, and individual differences in talent and interest a monstrous inequity. They believe that markets are an indulgence, or as the late John Smith put it to Tyler on a City lunch tour, "markets where possible, government where necessary". They believe "equity" trumps growth, and they believe there is no such thing as individual failure, only social failure.

Weblog

[eyeball]

'Right and left' should be tossed out.... it's like playing 'cowboys and indians'.... the important right/left struggles have been fought...

And yet the struggle continues on millions of webpages, blogs, media oulets, and around billions of dinner tables everywhere with no end in sight.

we need to align along different parameters now.

Yes that's right. These parameters are on the authoritarian libertarian axis. Its interesting that the one commonality the left and right share the most is their fear that the other side's system of government always results in tyranny.

Leading me to myata:

We have this internet thing now... which has arrived (like many technologies) right at the time it's needed.

It's binding us together and tracking what we're all doing without us even asking it to.

Should this concern anyone who fears tyranny?

Why can't we use the technology of the Internet to track all that the government does? The left and right need to know everything the government does - transparency and total public awareness is the only way to defuse the deeply-rooted fear people have of being misgoverned, one way or the other.

There has never been a more important struggle than the one between the state and the individual. I don't subscribe to any notion that society is deliberately being divided and conquored but I do think the result is still naturally occuring. The states are winning individualism is losing and authoritariansim is on the rise around the planet.

[eyeball]

As we all understand, the fundamental divide between left and right is the issue of personal responsibility.

We on the right believe...

What a steaming pile of crap.

[moderateamericain]

I know this is a very simplistic way to look at a complex issue. Because there are many different issues that define a Conservative and a Liberal. But my individual take on the matter is that Conservatism is based on the economic idea that I know better than anyone else on what I should do with my money. And that we as a society should have limited control on what people choose to do with there wealth. My take on the Liberal philosophy is that they wish to dictate to us how and when to spend are wealth. Because its best for us. And to me thats just insulting.

[Black Dog]

We on the right believe that the world is a better place if individuals - or more specifically families - take responsibility for themselves. Economics is all about how self-interest not only drives our lives, but underpins stable and mutually beneficial relationships between us (eg see this blog). From the economy, to education, to health, to welfare, the right believes when governments get involved beyond law and war, the long-term consequences are almost always dire.

I'd take this self-serving rugged individualist bullshit a lot more seriously if right-wingers weren't always looking for a big strong daddy figure to take care of them when times get tough. Never mind too that conservative governments burn just as much taxpayer money, if not more, than their nominally liberal counterparts.

August, if this is reflective of your views on left and right, it's no wonder they're so skewed.

[jdobbin]

I'd take this self-serving rugged individualist bullshit a lot more seriously if right-wingers weren't always looking for a big strong daddy figure to take care of them when times get tough.

Sometimes they seek a mother too. Case in point: McCain.

[blueblood]

I'd take this self-serving rugged individualist bullshit a lot more seriously if right-wingers weren't always looking for a big strong daddy figure to take care of them when times get tough. Never mind too that conservative governments burn just as much taxpayer money, if not more, than their nominally liberal counterparts.

August, if this is reflective of your views on left and right, it's no wonder they're so skewed.

Rightists sort of have to in a way otherwise gov't would be theoretically irrelevant.

[Black Dog]

Rightists sort of have to in a way otherwise gov't would be theoretically irrelevant.

Isn't that a central tenant of the conservative/right: government so small you can drown it in the bathtub? Unless of course that same government is buying bombers and dictating sexual mores, that is, which brings us back to the OP.

[guyser]

I'd take this self-serving rugged individualist bullshit a lot more seriously if right-wingers weren't always looking for a big strong daddy figure to take care of them when times get tough. Never mind too that conservative governments burn just as much taxpayer money, if not more, than their nominally liberal counterparts.

Freddie and Fannie Mae?

Healthcare? I hear ad naseum, primarly on a US gun website (dont ask) how "socialist" Canada, et al are because of healthcare, primarly but other things too.

And then you read about Fannie/Freddie and how "they were too big to let lapse into bankruptcy". Its funny...if it wasnt so ...well...annoying.

[moderateamericain]

I'd take this self-serving rugged individualist bullshit a lot more seriously if right-wingers weren't always looking for a big strong daddy figure to take care of them when times get tough. Never mind too that conservative governments burn just as much taxpayer money, if not more, than their nominally liberal counterparts.

August, if this is reflective of your views on left and right, it's no wonder they're so skewed.

Just curious for an example of what you mean by a big daddy strong figure when times get tough? But i agree that a Liberal and conservative government burn tax payers money just as well but I think the difference is what they burn it on.

[blueblood]

Isn't that a central tenant of the conservative/right: government so small you can drown it in the bathtub? Unless of course that same government is buying bombers and dictating sexual mores, that is, which brings us back to the OP.

line has to be drawn somewhere...

[Black Dog]

Just curious for an example of what you mean by a big daddy strong figure when times get tough?

The first one that would come to mind (and relevant today) is the post-9-11 cult of personality that sprang up around W. Bush. Or look at the current campaign and those who feel military hero McCain is better suited to run the country than effete lawyer Obama (even Plain is being touted as a real manly woman-Freud would love this stuff). It's about image and there's a disturbing tendency among conservatives to seek leaders who project rugged toughness and who can hold their mewling charges in their burly clasp, which flies in the face of the right-wing self-image.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Black Dog

[moderateamericain]

The first one that would come to mind (and relevant today) is the post-9-11 cult of personality that sprang up around W. Bush. Or look at the current campaign and those who feel military hero McCain is better suited to run the country than effete lawyer Obama (even Plain is being touted as a real manly woman-Freud would love this stuff). It's about image and there's a disturbing tendency among conservatives to seek leaders who project rugged toughness and who can hold their mewling charges in their burly clasp, which flies in the face of the right-wing self-image.

hmm. Its an intresting analogy i guess. Im not sure i completely buy into it. I look at McCain as kind of a frail old man actually. Between him and Obama I think Obama would whoop McCain's old ass. If anything wouldn't McCain be considered the weaker of the two based purely on cosmetics? Besides I think we all know Palin could whoop all 3 of there asses anyhow. Anyone who can SHOOT her food has gonna have some balls. lol. But in seriousness, I think you read too much into it. Anyone with half a brain is going to vote for their candidate based on there already held beliefs. Its like a checklist. You compare the two candidates and put a check next to each one that believes as you do. Anyone who tells you they vote soley on the needs of others is either full of shit or lying to themselves. Assuming that everyone believes what the talking heads in the world have to say (limbaugh and others) is a generalization on your part.

[BC_chick]

As others have pointed out most political quizzes have four squares in which people fall.

And I would take that a step further and state (again) that I believe every democracy needs at least four political parties - as opposed to bipartisanship - in order to ensure that people are not voting strategically, but for the party that best represents their values.

On fiscal issues people don't seem as passionate about their opinions as they are about social issues.... so it makes no sense to see a fiscally conservative person voting for a party just because they support gay rights or a woman's right to choose.

Democracy, in its evolution to bipartisanship, has become a broken system. Time for a revolutionising and modernising it!