On the moral superiority of the conservative movement
In a lot of political systems, there is no real moral high ground in victory.
If you are a dictator and you use raw power or fear to control your people, you may win, but you do so as a scoundrel and a criminal.
At the heart of it, the leaders of countries like Iran and China are thugs. Some are more practical and efficient thugs than others, but they all lack legitimacy.
But in a democracy, there is a very real moral weight that comes with winning.
There are two reasons why this is true:
First, our system is based on the ideal of a self-governed people that chooses its own government. The political movement that wins the most votes, a majority in Congress, and control of the White House carries the banner of the people, at least temporarily. That means something.
Secondly, it is an unambiguous fact that in our democracy, you can only enact your ideas if you elect a strong enough contingent to Congress, and also control (or are able to sway) the White House.
You can have the best, most beneficial policy ideas in the world. But if your faction doesn’t have the power to enact them, they are little more than fantasy.
Which leads me to my main argument about the moral superiority of the conservative movement in America.
Like the far Left, the far Right in America espouses a lot of views that most of us don’t like very much, ranging from elimination of social security to tax cuts for the wealthy.
Most Americans support gays serving in the military. We favor financial regulation that limits the power and excess of big banks.
Conservatives reject those ideas.
But rather than fold their tent, or sit out major elections, conservatives have continued to organize, fundraise, and mobilize candidates to advance their agenda.
They have worked patiently, slowly advancing their ideas, building a majority on the Supreme Court, and stubbornly using every strategy to hinder the advance of progress or liberals ideas.
They have built major media organizations, think-tanks, and universities designed to provide a broad ideological foundation for their cause.
It’s worth noting — because so many liberals use this issue to obfuscate the facts — that conservatives have done the vast majority of their organizing peacefully, using non-violent tactics.
A case in point is abortion. In the 37 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was handed down, the Right has suffered disappointment after disappointment in their effort to recriminalize abortion.
But the movement has persevered, moving so close to achieving their goal that one more conservative Supreme Court justice will likely make the difference.
Contrast this with the liberal movement.
Just eighteen months ago, progressives organized to help elect the nation’s first African American president.
In a year and a half Barack Obama and his allies in Congress have passed sweeping reforms to the financial sector and healthcare, while also bailing out the automobile industry in a way that saved tens of thousands of union jobs.
This White House gave the EPA much wider reign to pursue aggressive environmental policies, including the first-ever effort to regulate carbon pollution in America.
The Administration has begun the process of phasing out the ban on gays serving openly in the US Military. It has ended military operations in Iraq and is on track to phase out combat operations in Afghanistan.
Despite that track record, polls show that disaffected liberals plan to sit out this election in huge numbers. They’re not donating money or organizing or doing any of the things that help would their candidates win.
We know that voters and opinion makers on the Left understand the facts, which are these:
Under Republican leadership, many of their prized goals — a national energy policy that caps carbon, same-sex marriage, a tax code that doesn’t favor the rich, etc. — would be unachievable.
Yet they simply don’t care enough about their agenda to be patient, organized and persistent enough to win and keep winning.
A case in point here is carbon pollution — an issue which I see as sort of the Left’s moral equivalent of abortion.
The first general scientific understanding of climate change didn’t surface until the late 1990s. The Kyoto conference and a firm scientific consensus on the matter weren’t in place until 2005.
Democrats didn’t gain control of Washington until 2008. That represented the first realistic opportunity to enact serious legislation.
This is a hugely complex and controversial issue. The kinds of changes that Liberals want would have sweeping impacts on our economy and society at all levels.
Debate is inevitable and essential.
Yet many on the Left have already apparently given up, deciding that the political process is simply too frustrating, too fraught with compromise, to be worthwhile.
In the parlance of democracy, that represents a flat-out moral abdication.
If you don’t care enough about your ideas, your values, and your policies to maintain a level of zeal — to rally voters, to keep your side energized, and win more elections — then the simple reality is that you deserve to lose.
It’s worth noting that there was a time when progressives had more salt and stick.
Harry Truman desegregated the US military in 1948. It wasn’t until 1964 that Lyndon Johnson — a man progressives despised — signed the Civil Rights Act.
That’s sixteen years of perseverance and organizing and won elections. Sixteen years, in other words, of fighting for the moral high ground.
So will the Left fight for what they believe in this time? Or will they concede the high-ground of passion and conviction to conservatives?
This election season, my money’s on the Right.
Your comments welcome.
Tags: election10
Liberals need to realize that the Democratic Party is as controlled by corporations and their legalized bribes (“donations”) as the Republicans. All the other issues are merely distractions to the Big Issue of our hijacked democracy. Instead of putting their passion into demonizing Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (however much they may deserve it), liberals should focus there energies in cleaning up the party most of them are belong too. The Dems may keep winning by default while the GOP offers these chumps but eventually the Republicans are going to wise up and offer someone with the veneer of seriousness. Something, however bad, always beats nothing in politics. The Democratic Party used to be great. Now, it does the bidding of those it once fought.
Do you seriously mean to equate morality with zeal? The moral high ground consists of *wanting* what is right, not merely succeeding. What you’re advocating is “might makes right” — whoever can put their goals across, is right. The greatest evils in history — the Inquisition and the Holocaust come to mind — are remembered precisely because their fanatical proponents had the “perseverence and organization” to systematically exterminate those they hated.
If the Left doesn’t have enough popular support to put its program into action, that doesn’t make the Right morally superior — it merely means the Left is outgunned. What you’re calling “disaffected liberals” are merely fair-weather allies who make the same mistake you do — the Left isn’t winning, so I’m going to bet on the other guy… forgetting that the point of politics is not to back the winner, but to back the cause of good.
Dave –
You cruised right past the first part of my argument. Of course might doesn’t make right.
But in a democracy people don’t wield power through might. They wield it through argument, persuasion and victory at the ballot box.
—Brian, NCPR
Other Brian –
Your point is well taken.
But the logical way to “reform” a political movement is by supporting and electing the politicians you think would offer better, cleaner leadership.
That’s what the tea party has tried to do. They’ve bucked the GOP repeatedly, putting forth candidates that they think offer a better conservative vision.
But the truth is that a lot of liberals who cry foul don’t do this.
Instead, they use the “I’m too pure for this system” argument to simply drop out.
In a democracy, that’s not moral high ground, that’s moral abdication.
–Brian, NCPR
But at some point wouldn’t the simple demographics win out? I mean if most people really do favor the things that the more liberal favor; it should not be that hard in a democracy for those things to win out.
Maybe deep down most people really are not so sure about these convictions, both on the Left and on the Right. They do know when things seem to be falling apart though in the economy and in the country. Most Americans be they Democrat or Republican I don’t think have the intensity of belief you are talking about Brian. I really don’t think that most Democrats say that President Obama is not pure enough for them, sure the activists and hard Left Radicals might, but they don’t represent most Democrats in my opinion.
Mervel – In this election cycle — and I would argue over most recent election cycles — conservatives cared more. In American elections, voting zeal often carries the day over simple demographics.
To cite one example, rural whites are about as numerous in America as Hispanics, but the former group (which tends to vote for Republicans) is extraordinarily disciplined about voting, while the latter group (which leans Democratic) “under performs” dramatically.
So — if you’re a Hispanic who cares about immigration reform but don’t plan to vote, you cede the moral high ground (in political terms) to a tea party activist from a small town who does plan to vote.
–Brian, NCPR
Political parties are the problem. Every candidate gets mushed into a box that is proclaimed by the “all knowing leadership”. The candidate changes or modifies their position after the election and we buy it. I see the election of Scott Brown as a wise choice for Mass. He doesn’t agree with all the republicans’ platform and voted whats best for his state. If we can just get the things done based on what each representative thinks would be best, we’d be getting somewhere. Instead the sheep have to get their marching orders from the leadership. Think for yourself.
Brian,
Nice way to start a discussion, but it’s undermined by some straw men. First, in criticizing liberals, you don’t name a single one. There’s the dreaded “some” and “many” and “a lot,” yet you don’t give a single example, or any numbers. I’m curious what lefties you’re reading, or if it’s just the Politico’s CW you’re echoing. In the liberal blogosphere, there’s actually tremendous attention to this very issue, with fund-raising for people like Alan Grayson who move the “Overton Window” and are not funded by the “liberal” DNC. Because, actually, the DNC isn’t liberal. There’s also a lot of intellectual wrestling with this very topic, with real, fact-based, lively debate. You paint a picture of sulking, unrealistic, impatient naifs, and view that as the whole picture.
You also seem to expect a three-year-old progressive movement to have the same message discipline as the 40-year-old Heritage Foundation-model right wing. Nag guh happen. (In fact, that right wing isn’t all on the same page right now, either.)
Another note: Read your Robert Caro. Not all progressives despised LBJ, at least not til the height of the Vietnam war. They often didn’t trust him, but Hubert Humphrey and others like Abe Fortas and FDR genuinely liked the man.
Finally, the anti-abortion movement probably isn’t the best example of peaceful, patient activism, given Eric Rudolph and people who shoot and kill doctors.
Brian, I see your point and it makes sense.
But why would they care more? Maybe it is not so much about caring but about what people actually believe?
Another possibility could be that Republicans/conservatives are more civic minded, more duty bound towards their communities and nation? Maybe voting itself is a small town or rural value? The other possibility is that those who would be on the Left or be a natural consistency for the Left don’t feel that Government that Democracy itself will ever work for them and thus see no point in the hassle of voting.
Brian,
There is another option which you ignore: joining a “third party” and trying to make that inroads that way. This is the option I’ve chosen because the Democratic Party is not interested in non-corporate candidates and a non-corporate vision. I spent 10 years as a Democrat trying to improve it and things kept getting worse, not better. The Greens aren’t making much in the way of inroads, but at least there’s a party out there that represents my interests. I got sick of voting (and particularly being made to feel obligated to vote) against my own interests. That’s not democracy either.
The big difference is that the Tea Party has the right-wing media machine (Fox “News,” yap radio, etc) behind it; they are not nearly as pure grassroots as their backers would have you believe. The relentless efforts of the noise machine essentially forces the mainstream media to treat these candidates seriously which in turn gives them even more exposure and name recognition as well as the imprimature of respectability.
Insurgents challenging corporate Democrats from the left (either from within the Dem Party or from the Greens or other smaller party) don’t have that media machine behind it so the mainstream media uses that rationalization to not cover them.
Left-wing backers of such candidates DO use the blogosphere, YouTube, etc to promote these candidates but these grassroots efforts are but a drop in the bucket in the absence of media that deems itself objective. Brian M, how would YOU suggest such candidates get more exposure in the face of a corporate media blackout? How can they do better?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/index.html
I don’t know if this will link or not. But the US census shows that those who are older, live in the Midwest and West are white non-hispanic and have incomes under 100,000 but over 80,000 are the most likely to vote.
The problem is that many of the legislative “victories” were not representative of the majority of Americans. They were muscled through by a super-majority Democratic anomaly.
The poll numbers on health-care, ground-zero mosque, and even global warming are evidence that the Dems are governing the minority.
No, JDM, they’re evidence that the insurance, right-wing-media and oil industries have done a good job spreading their message.
I am a faithful reader and sometimes commenter on this blog, and I am really struggling with this entry, Brian. It is pure red meat, flung out to rile people up.
There are lots of definitions of politics, but I like the one best that I learned in college from a very interesting professor: “Who gets what, where, when and how”. There is nothing about morals in either this definition, or other drier, wordier versions I find when I look around. Exercise of power (or authority, if you don’t like the word power), and distribution of limited resources – that is what I think politics is about. Conservatives grasp this very well indeed.
The word “moral” is a loaded word that means different things to different people. The written definitions I find refer to “the distinction between right and wrong”, “concern with the judgment of goodness or badness”, “right behavior”; a very interesting definition states “Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence”. I do not think it is a useful word when discussing political behavior and elections. It turns up the heat without shedding light.
One other thing, Brian: In light of all of this liberal malaise, how many super-conservative (and therefore moral) federal election candidates have won special elections in the North Country since Obama was elected, let alone the rest of the country?
(Btw, tonight, another tea-party Palin fave bit the dust in Alaska’s primary.)
How ’bout we wait til November before making grand pronouncements on the ongoing success of conservative “morality”? Nobody in the middle is paying attention yet.
Also I think this is not really about principles on the Left or Right. We have huge immediate problem in the US right now we are verging on a depression, can these guys the majority party right now; fix that or not. That is what people are asking. Health care reform with 20% unemployment is pretty cold soup. It’s easy for Republicans to speak out against those in power right now, I actually am surprised they are not doing better. I mean if you didn’t like the President at the beginning, everything that has happened in the past year and a half in this country would certainly be enough to fire you up. If you did like him, how can you get fired up about continuing the current course, even if you believe in it, it takes a huge leap of faith.
“First, our system is based on the ideal of a self-governed people that chooses its own government. The political movement that wins the most votes, a majority in Congress, and control of the White House carries the banner of the people, at least temporarily. That means something.”
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Many Republicans woke up on the morning after the election vowing to work for the downfall of the Obama administration. Their brilliant strategy of non-cooperation has choked the legislative process, casting any attempts to address the real problems in our world as a betrayal of principle. How is this moral?
“They have built major media organizations, think-tanks, and universities designed to provide a broad ideological foundation for their cause.”
The Right? My head is spinning……
Whoa, where did this all come from? Change a few words in your post Brain M and you could be describing the liberal Democrats. “They have built major media organizations, think-tanks, and universities designed to provide a broad ideological foundation for their cause.” That’s pretty much the Democrats and liberal/progressives right there. “They have worked patiently, slowly advancing their ideas, building a majority on the Supreme Court, and stubbornly using every strategy to hinder the advance of progress or liberals ideas.” The progressives have been working since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, doing the same thing. Have you forgotten FDR’s attempts to build a larger Supreme Court that he could personally stack to agree with his more radical illegal policies? Change the word “liberal” to “conservative” (ie-fiscally responsible) and you have the Democrat left.
As for morals, I agree with Anita. Looking for morals in politics is like looking for a sainted virgin at a satan worshiping porn convention. Both sides can claim the moral high ground, neither reaches the summit very often.
For a guy who claims to be a middle of the road semi conservative you sure seem taken with the progressive view point Brian.
I am not sure who in politics has the higher moral ground. Right now, the most talented people are not the ones running for office. Instead, we have lawyers and former business people that are running (ie such as California is now focusing on, as well as NY). They come in all flavors of liberal and conservative,
Our best people are avoiding serving — and you can see the results, from school boards right up to the governor’s office.
There is no moral higher ground in politics or anything else. The moral higher ground doesn’t exist. It is a contradiction in terms. The last shall be first and the first shall be last.
I think what he is saying is that loyalty, patience and sticking with one’s deeply held convictions are virtue’s. If you say you believe in a cause and then dump your own guy; who accomplished more than any other guy for your supposedly deeply held beliefs; at the first sign of trouble this probably would not be considered moral.
The hard core conservatives I know honestly believe that Obama is really hurting this country in a permanent way, they are not just playing politics, they believe that is truth and will work to do whatever it takes to stop his policies and get him a one term presidency, They are also the 35% who never stopped liking old George Bush, even when everyone else just hated him and mocked him and everything was falling apart when Iraq was just horrible. They stuck by the guy, how many on the Left are going to do that for Obama when things start falling apart even worse than they are now?
Political change doesn’t always happen through the government, at least not directly. More often, it happens when enough people become convinced that there is need for change. Witness the massive protests against the Vietnam War, or the growing acceptance of homosexuality.
I’ve heard this argument before – liberals are spoiled brats who won’t play if they don’t get what they want. This misses the reality that change won’t come unless we continue to hold our official accountable. I can and will vote for Democrats, while at the same time expressing my disappointment with lack of action on climate change, torture prosecutions, gay rights, etc.
I do agree outsider with that sentiment. Consider on the right, the long term struggle against abortion which is turning the tide on that issue or the tea party movement focusing on government debt which is striking a cord, change does not always happen politically on either side of the spectrum.