Is there a fundamental contradiction underlying the Conservative platform?

[therealUT]

Given this sort of sympathetic formulation of the conservative position, critics can still find ample grounds for disagreement. The formulation identifies several key assumptions that opponents may well question: that, left to itself, the free market will not cause unacceptable hardship for large numbers of people; that substantial government intervention almost always leads to bad results; that Christian ethics—especially with the conservative emphasis on sexuality—is the best code of moral behavior. But our sympathetic formulation allows an even more effective way of criticizing the conservative position: not by arguing against its key assumptions but by arguing that those very assumptions lead to contradictions.

In particular, there is a basic tension between the two main elements of the conservative view: Christian ethical values and the free enterprise system. Christian morality is a matter of love for others and self-sacrifice on their behalf. A market economy assumes that all agents (employers, workers, buyers, sellers) act in their own selfish interests. The problem is evident in the New Testament’s unease with the wealthy and sympathy for the poor; see, for example, Matthew 13: 22, Mark 10: 23-25 and James 5: 1-3.

The standard response to this sort of moral objection is that the “invisible hand” of the market produces public goods out of private selfishness. If we all act for our own selfish ends, there will be far more material goods for us to share than there would be otherwise. But this is a utilitarian argument; that is, one that judges actions as moral because they increase our material happiness. Christian morality, however, denies that moral good and evil depend on what maximizes such happiness. Christian love and self-sacrifice, in particular, are moral goods in their own right, regardless of their consequences. Conversely, conservative Christian morality would not allow homosexuality or same-sex marriage, even if it turned out that doing so would increase material happiness.

I am not proposing this line of argument as a decisive refutation of the views held by the current Republican presidential candidates. But it is, I maintain, an argument based on a sympathetic analysis of those views and requires a serious response from people who hold them. It is not the end of a fruitful discussion of our political differences, but it could be the beginning.

How to Argue About Politics - NYTimes.com

I am not quite sure I agree with Gutting's analysis. I think someone can be both an advocate of the free-market and an advocate of religious charity/generosity, as long as one remains consistent in stating that the government should abstain from getting involved in either.

However, I think he is right if he is pointing to the inconsistency in the Conservative aim to legislate certain precepts of Christian morality while also keeping the government out of market.

 

[Lexvol]

I have disagreements, but the argument shouldn't be ignored. I have often argued that God was a capitalist (created the laws of nature) and that Jesus was a socialist (the antitheses of the laws). Oversimplified...sure.

Please note that this post is not intended to evolve into a debate on the characteristics of the Trinity. Just a fun thought.

 

[volinbham]

If you take the most extreme view of fiscal conservatism (100% free market) and of social conservatism (100% Christian values based rule) then sure you can find contradictions.

The same is true if you take the extreme view on environmentalism and non-legislation of morality. Strict environmental laws are in effect legislating a morality of individual human behavior being subordinate to preserving some "current state" status of the environment. The same holds true for entitlements or any number of traditionally progressive views. At the core, the progressive view of some enlightened bureaucrats determining appropriate behaviors is at odds with a claimed social liberalism.

In the end, the author has argued against strawmen positions.

If you want to find inconsistencies in conservatism, you need not look as deep as he did - just look at support for Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind.

 

[volinbham]

I am not quite sure I agree with Gutting's analysis. I think someone can be both an advocate of the free-market and an advocate of religious charity/generosity, as long as one remains consistent in stating that the government should abstain from getting involved in either.

However, I think he is right if he is pointing to the inconsistency in the Conservative aim to legislate certain precepts of Christian morality while also keeping the government out of market.

Agreed.

 

[therealUT]

If you take the most extreme view of fiscal conservatism (100% free market) and of social conservatism (100% Christian values based rule) then sure you can find contradictions.

The same is true if you take the extreme view on environmentalism and non-legislation of morality. Strict environmental laws are in effect legislating a morality of individual human behavior being subordinate to preserving some "current state" status of the environment. The same holds true for entitlements or any number of traditionally progressive views. At the core, the progressive view of some enlightened bureaucrats determining appropriate behaviors is at odds with a claimed social liberalism.

In the end, the author has argued against strawmen positions.

If you want to find inconsistencies in conservatism, you need not look as deep as he did - just look at support for Medicare Part D or No Child Left Behind.

I think the Liberal/DNC platform has the same underlying inconsistencies. They want government charity (which consists of moral obligations) and government intervention in the economy for egalitarian purposes (again, moral-based), yet they want the government to keep government morality out of their personal lives.

 

[rjd970]

I think the Liberal/DNC platform has the same underlying inconsistencies. They want government charity (which consists of moral obligations) and government intervention in the economy for egalitarian purposes (again, moral-based), yet they want the government to keep government morality out of their personal lives.

There is a conservative inconsistency opposite this. Free market, don't let government get involved...but we need regulation on who we marry and what we decide to do in the privacy of our own home.

This is why politics is largely a futile enterprise. The only people that agree with everything on the platform of the two political parties are the extreme portion of the base. Everyone else has to choose the lesser of the evils and decide which issue is most important to them.

 

[volinbham]

I think the Liberal/DNC platform has the same underlying inconsistencies. They want government charity (which consists of moral obligations) and government intervention in the economy for egalitarian purposes (again, moral-based), yet they want the government to keep government morality out of their personal lives.

Agreed and what I was trying to say. In all, I disagree with his title "How to Argue About Politics". He's advocating the exact wrong way of using extremes then attacking inconsistencies as opposed to identifying goals/objectives then examining alternate viewpoints on methods to achieve them.

The "inconsistency/hypocrisy" card is so overplayed it's ridiculous. In fact, it's become hypocritical to accuse someone of hypocrisy because it is virtually a human trait.

 

[volinbham]

There is a conservative inconsistency opposite this. Free market, don't let government get involved...but we need regulation on who we marry and what we decide to do in the privacy of our own home.

Wasn't that the point of the NYT article? It's true but as you suggest, it has an equal and opposite example (which TruT and I posted). So the man's argument is half right.

This is why politics is largely a futile enterprise. The only people that agree with everything on the platform of the two political parties are the extreme portion of the base. Everyone else has to choose the lesser of the evils and decide which issue is most important to them.

It's a crazy system and no platform would be acceptable to all but it shouldn't be and can't be given the 300+ million citizens of this country.

For me the larger problem is that government itself has a strong survival instinct - it fights hard against any efforts to shrink it. It is inconceivable that it is necessary for government to continually grow but it is inevitable.

 

[jamesd1628]

It's a crazy system and no platform would be acceptable to all but it shouldn't be and can't be given the 300+ million citizens of this country.

For me the larger problem is that government itself has a strong survival instinct - it fights hard against any efforts to shrink it. It is inconceivable that it is necessary for government to continually grow but it is inevitable.

The same can be said for virtually any human endeavor - population, economy, government, etc.

 

[n_huffhines]

I am not quite sure I agree with Gutting's analysis. I think someone can be both an advocate of the free-market and an advocate of religious charity/generosity, as long as one remains consistent in stating that the government should abstain from getting involved in either.

However, I think he is right if he is pointing to the inconsistency in the Conservative aim to legislate certain precepts of Christian morality while also keeping the government out of market.

Also conservatives tend to think domestic welfare is a "crutch", but they love to engage in global welfare. Inconsistent, IMO.

 

[n_huffhines]

I have disagreements, but the argument shouldn't be ignored. I have often argued that God was a capitalist (created the laws of nature) and that Jesus was a socialist (the antitheses of the laws). Oversimplified...sure.

Please note that this post is not intended to evolve into a debate on the characteristics of the Trinity. Just a fun thought.

Nope. He never advocated a socialist government. He advocated charity. If you want to know his thoughts on economics read the parable of the talents.

 

[Lexvol]

Nope. He never advocated a socialist government. He advocated charity. If you want to know his thoughts on economics read the parable of the talents.

I hoped it wouldn't be taken too literally. The comparison obviously is between the "survival of the fittest" in natural law, and "love your neighbor as yourself".

One of the beautiful thing about the Christian narrative (in its purest form) is that it transcends "earthly kingdoms" and the greedy traps therein. I can't imagine Christ endorsing any political system. His rules are way to simple for bureaucrats to follow.

 

[n_huffhines]

I hoped it wouldn't be taken too literally. The comparison obviously is between the "survival of the fittest" in natural law, and "love your neighbor as yourself".

One of the beautiful thing about the Christian narrative (in its purest form) is that it transcends "earthly kingdoms" and the greedy traps therein. I can't imagine Christ endorsing any political system. His rules are way to simple for bureaucrats to follow.

That's not what I get at all from the parable of the talents. I get that we are expected to improve on our gifts/talents/inheritance, no matter your starting point. Love thy neighbor doesn't really come into play in this parable. I'm sure Jesus expected the "faithful servant" to be charitable.

 

[Lexvol]

That's not what I get at all from the parable of the talents. I get that we are expected to improve on our gifts/talents/inheritance, no matter your starting point. Love thy neighbor doesn't really come into play in this parable. I'm sure Jesus expected the "faithful servant" to be charitable.

I wasn't addressing the parable of the talents....just the "second greatest commandment". Exegetically speaking the parable of the talents is really more about preparedness/faith vs. the fear of developing talents and allowing them to multiply....if you want to be technical.