Winston
Churchill, that ceaseless font of quotable utterances, once said, “If
you're not a liberal at twenty
you have no heart, if you're not a conservative
at forty you have no brain”. This
quote is generally understood as a pithy statement of the inevitable
disaffection that accompanies growing older and being disappointed by other
people’s shortcomings. But that
interpretation of the quote fails to accurately describe the difference between
liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives are not just embittered liberals who have been
disappointed by the flaws of their fellow man.
There are several areas, including economic policy, where a conservative
arguably has more faith in the individual and human nature than a liberal. The real difference between a liberal and a
conservative is revealed in their respective reflexive views on the government’s
response to new problems. When a liberal
hears about a social problem, their instinct is to endorse immediate government
action which directly addresses the problem at hand, and then addresses any
further problems this action creates as they arise. A conservative, on the other hand, thinks
through the potential unintended knock on effects of any action, and is wary of
enacting any policy which may actually cause further harm. This is not to say that Conservatives are
unfeeling or heartless, or that they do not want to take action to remedy
societal ills. They just usually favor indirect
solutions to these problems. They favor
these indirect solutions not because they are lazy, or feel that a direct
solution would inconvenience them, but because they genuinely believe that the
indirect solution is more effective than a direct solution, and produces
greater benefits for all involved. But these
indirect solutions can still seem heartless or unfeeling, creating the
appearance that conservatives are mean, nasty people who only care for
themselves.
In the
real world, a thoroughly liberal paradigm results in a series of government
actions that are effective in the short term, but each of which creates a new
set of unintended problems or governmental responsibilities (think of the
unintended clash between Obama and Catholic universities caused by healthcare
reform) which in turn generate more governmental programs, responsibilities,
and powers. Eventually the Government
will begin to run short of funds for these programs, and they will have to
raise revenue through taxation. So the
government increases the tax burden on corporations and those at the top who can
“afford” to pay a little bit more.
However, when the government increases the tax burden on corporations
past a certain point, corporations begin to look elsewhere for a more
hospitable business climate, and they take their jobs and capital with
them. This leads to increased dependency
on government programs, and the price of those programs rises again. As corporations move abroad and the cost of
government rises, the tax burden is shifted even more profoundly onto the
wealthy and successful in society.
Eventually, the tax burden begins to discourage the wealthy from
investing their capital in new ventures, and may even lead some of the less
patriotic in their ranks to take their wealth and leave the country. The country is ultimately left with a
stagnant economy, vast and expensive government machinery, and no resources
left with which to dig themselves out of trouble.
While
this is admittedly an extreme example, almost a reductio ad absurdum, of the
results of unbridled liberal policies, it serves to demonstrate how a series of
government actions, all of which directly address the immediate problems at
hand, can have negative consequences. As the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved
with good intentions”. It also needs to
be noted that a government which does absolutely nothing would be every bit as
bad as a government which does everything.
There are problems which naturally occur in society, and they won’t
simply go away if we ignore them or leave them alone. Direct government action cannot possibly
solve all of society’s problems, but perhaps, if the government can enact
limited policies which create an environment in which fair play and hard work
are well rewarded and people are provided with the most basic tools they need
to reach their potential, life will begin to improve for everyone. A libertarian believes government should do
nothing, a true liberal that it should do everything it can think of, and a
conservative that government must do some things to address the needs and
welfare of the people, but that it should act carefully and prudently. And here we arrive at the real essence of the
Churchill quote with which we began, “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart,
if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain”. The
heart of the forty year old is no less compassionate than the heart of the
twenty year old, but his actions are tempered by wisdom and less rash. Similarly, conservatives are not less
compassionate than liberals, they simply place a higher value on wisdom and
temperance in government action.
This
abstract, ideological difference between conservatives and liberals has
concrete consequences in American electoral politics. The indirect, restrained approach to government
problem solving favored by the conservative mind is more difficult to sell to
the public than the direct, immediate government solutions favored by
liberals. A liberal can point to an
immediate action and say, “there’s your answer”, whereas a conservative has to
have both the time and the skill to make a longer, subtler argument in order
not to be perceived as heartless or clueless.
Conservatives can take heart from the fact that historically they have
been able to find candidates able to make these arguments and electorates
willing to give them the time and attention to do so. However, it is currently unclear whether or
not there is a candidate capable of making a compelling argument for restrained
government in the current Republican Presidential field, or if the majority of
the American people have the patience or mind frame to be receptive to that
argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment