The Problem With Republican Philosophy: Is It Just Stale?

101 Comments

John Cole proposes a question:

My question is: is there anything inherent in whatever conservatism is supposed to be that makes it less interested in reality? Anything in liberalism that makes it more interested in reality? Or is this all a historical accident? And is there a big political disadvantage to focusing on governing as opposed to pontificating?

He has some pretty spot-on observations about the differences between conservatives and liberals, mainly that conservatives are focused on philosophy and liberals are more focused on results and outcomes. He goes on to make this observation:

Honestly, though, I don’t see how it is possible for a movement to govern effectively with a focus on theory and fantasy. That’s not to say that conservatives can’t do a good job governing at the local level, where the issues are too concrete and boring to be dealt with by John Galt. But at the national level, I just don’t see how conservatives have a chance of being effective, given that their base, their media, and their intellectual infrastructure is more interested in rhetoric, “philosophy”, and fantasy than in any kind of policy specifics.

You see discussions like this almost daily on this blog. Conservatism in general seems to be more focused on individuals while liberalism is more focused on community. Actually, I think that would be a healthy balance if the discussions were actually balanced. Modern conservatism has turned into “this is what I’m afraid of” and “this is what I don’t like,” but doesn’t really have an answer for exceptions.

You could see this in the discussion of same sex marriage. The objections to same sex marriage from conservatives fall into two general categories: “it’s against my religion” and “I don’t like it because it’s different.” These objections don’t really conform to real life though, I mean, how do you handle the fact that some people are gay and that not everyone believes in the tenets of your religion? Their theoretical argument is basically “don’t be gay.” You see this same dynamic with abstinence-only eduction, there is nothing other than “don’t have sex” with no acknowledgment that people will have sex eventually (more than 95% pre-maritally), what then? The same thing happens with abortion – “don’t have one” does not cover all the possible real life situations that people face.

The Balloon Juice discussion was quite interesting.