Patriot123
06-28-2012, 11:06 AM
So I'm 19, and, well, I just started a blog. I figure, I have a ton of opinions all the time, solely because I always try to keep as open a mind as possible. I want my voice to heard in the movement though, and so I figured, hey, what better way to do that than to start a blog? Well, I just wrote up an article that stems from an idea I've been having for the past week. I figured, hey, why not post it up here and get some feedback? I'd love to get some comments on what people think. Well, here goes:
Source: http://theprincipledpragmatist.com
Do contradictions really exist in conservative and liberal ideology? And hey, does consistency in ideology matter?
In a presentation by Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University, the point is made that contradictions exist in conservative-liberal ideology, and not in libertarian ideology.1 The rationale for this is that libertarians think first in terms of principle which then inform their positions on the issues, while conservatives and liberals start at first the issue, and not the principle. Davies states, “The right place to start is at the first principle. Do we or do we not have rights to property and life? If we do, then certain things follow, and those things that follow will inform our positions on these issues.” In a demonstration, Davies divides up liberal and conservative issues, and then further divides them between “more freedom” and “less freedom.” In essence, the professor demonstrates how conservative and liberal issues contradict one another when compared to the principles of freedom, a key tenant of libertarian ideology. Davies’ argument lacks in two key areas: 1) his argument is circular in that it states “contradictions in ones political ideology are caused by a lack of principle, and they're bad because they contradict one another.” The argument fails to identify why principle is important. 2) The professor conveniently uses the principles of “freedom” to analyze contradictions between conservative and liberal ideology. In fact, by this logic one could use any principle—whether it is the Ten Commandments or “social justice,” and could then find contradictions in libertarian ideology. These errors, however, raise even bigger questions which we will examine in this post: 1) Do inconsistencies truly exist in conventional liberal and conservative ideology? 2) Is there any logical reason for starting from the principle when forming our political opinions, and not first from each issue? In actuality, we only perceive inconsistencies in our political adversaries’ ideology because we’re not examining their point of view from their own principles, but rather from our own. Secondly, more research needs to be performed on whether consistency in political ideology is preferable.
Let’s begin with the first question: do inconsistencies truly exist in conventional liberal and conservative ideology? My observations would lead me to believe they do not. Professor Davies thinks otherwise solely because he is examining liberal and conservative ideology through his own principles as a libertarian. In reality, one could take any set of principles, match them up to any two ideologies and claim there are inconsistencies. It may or may not be true that liberal ideology is more reactionary and therefore may have some contradictions in accordance with its own principles, but ultimately it does not have the same number of them that we would normally think. Likewise, conservative ideology has fewer inconsistencies than we would like to believe. The reason for this is that neo-conservative ideology is rooted in religion as its principles, and not necessarily in freedom like libertarian ideology is.
Further, one could argue that people inherently check their issues with their principles internally, regardless. We Libertarians may be more ‘OCD’ about it, but we all do it. To not would be to have a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and while this may exist in conservative and liberal ideologies, it likely doesn’t to the extent we believe it does.
Let us use an example to solidify this point. As Libertarians, we would believe that liberal ideology contradicts itself in that it stands against big business, yet supports policies that encourage corporatism and monopolies through government regulations. The issue with this statement is that liberal ideology does not stem from a belief in free markets, but in “social justice,” proper working conditions, a social safety net to support the poor and unions. Similarly, we would believe that conservative ideology contradicts itself in that it stands for less spending, and yet supports expensive nation-building abroad. The error in our logic is that conservative ideology does not stem from freedom and nonviolence like Libertarianism does, but from both religion and a large military presence. Neo-conservatives may prefer—at least in rhetoric, to support less spending, but that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be willing to make cuts in each and every part of the budget like we as libertarians may be.
Similarly, we can apply the same logic to Libertarian ideology. A liberal may state, “Libertarians expect ‘business friendly’ legislation for the fat cats on Wall Street, yet they contradict themselves in neglecting to make ‘poor people’ friendly legislation for the unemployed.” The failure in this logic is that the principles of libertarians align with the free-market, but not a social safety net as liberals would align with.
Often times, we get so caught up in our differences that we fail to take into account the underlying reasons for why others feels the way they do. Ultimately, the lesson we can learn from this is that it’s better to understand where our political opponents are coming from before attacking their views. Contradictions may exist in other areas, especially when there is political capital to gain through rhetoric. But ultimately, when it comes down to the actual ideology, there’s far fewer inconsistencies than we’d often like to believe, and we often resort to saying there are inconsistencies out of anger and frustration.
Lastly, the second question we asked was whether or not there’s any logical reason for starting from first principle when forming our political opinions, and not first from each issue. Ultimately, more research must be done on the importance of consistency and principle in ones political ideology. One may argue that by starting from principle, you’re gambling that you’re either 100% right or 100% wrong. If your principle is incorrect, that would make each of your issues null and void. And if you’re the President of the United States and find out you’re principle is wrong, that can have some serious repercussions. Consequently, if we start from the issue first, there’s only a slight chance that all of our stances are incorrect. If one of our stances is wrong, it doesn’t automatically make every other stance wrong. Ultimately, more research needs to be done in order for us to come to a final conclusion.
Ultimately, we only would like to believe that inconsistencies exist in our opponent’s political ideology out of frustration and a lack of understanding. One of the greatest virtues in politics is to understand where your opponent is coming from, and trying to find common ground. This is something we don’t do enough of in the Liberty Movement and need to be more proactive about if we expect to work together with both conservatives and liberals. Likewise, a discussion is needed on the importance of consistency in ones political ideology.
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9WOqJG-2s
Source: http://theprincipledpragmatist.com
Do contradictions really exist in conservative and liberal ideology? And hey, does consistency in ideology matter?
In a presentation by Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University, the point is made that contradictions exist in conservative-liberal ideology, and not in libertarian ideology.1 The rationale for this is that libertarians think first in terms of principle which then inform their positions on the issues, while conservatives and liberals start at first the issue, and not the principle. Davies states, “The right place to start is at the first principle. Do we or do we not have rights to property and life? If we do, then certain things follow, and those things that follow will inform our positions on these issues.” In a demonstration, Davies divides up liberal and conservative issues, and then further divides them between “more freedom” and “less freedom.” In essence, the professor demonstrates how conservative and liberal issues contradict one another when compared to the principles of freedom, a key tenant of libertarian ideology. Davies’ argument lacks in two key areas: 1) his argument is circular in that it states “contradictions in ones political ideology are caused by a lack of principle, and they're bad because they contradict one another.” The argument fails to identify why principle is important. 2) The professor conveniently uses the principles of “freedom” to analyze contradictions between conservative and liberal ideology. In fact, by this logic one could use any principle—whether it is the Ten Commandments or “social justice,” and could then find contradictions in libertarian ideology. These errors, however, raise even bigger questions which we will examine in this post: 1) Do inconsistencies truly exist in conventional liberal and conservative ideology? 2) Is there any logical reason for starting from the principle when forming our political opinions, and not first from each issue? In actuality, we only perceive inconsistencies in our political adversaries’ ideology because we’re not examining their point of view from their own principles, but rather from our own. Secondly, more research needs to be performed on whether consistency in political ideology is preferable.
Let’s begin with the first question: do inconsistencies truly exist in conventional liberal and conservative ideology? My observations would lead me to believe they do not. Professor Davies thinks otherwise solely because he is examining liberal and conservative ideology through his own principles as a libertarian. In reality, one could take any set of principles, match them up to any two ideologies and claim there are inconsistencies. It may or may not be true that liberal ideology is more reactionary and therefore may have some contradictions in accordance with its own principles, but ultimately it does not have the same number of them that we would normally think. Likewise, conservative ideology has fewer inconsistencies than we would like to believe. The reason for this is that neo-conservative ideology is rooted in religion as its principles, and not necessarily in freedom like libertarian ideology is.
Further, one could argue that people inherently check their issues with their principles internally, regardless. We Libertarians may be more ‘OCD’ about it, but we all do it. To not would be to have a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and while this may exist in conservative and liberal ideologies, it likely doesn’t to the extent we believe it does.
Let us use an example to solidify this point. As Libertarians, we would believe that liberal ideology contradicts itself in that it stands against big business, yet supports policies that encourage corporatism and monopolies through government regulations. The issue with this statement is that liberal ideology does not stem from a belief in free markets, but in “social justice,” proper working conditions, a social safety net to support the poor and unions. Similarly, we would believe that conservative ideology contradicts itself in that it stands for less spending, and yet supports expensive nation-building abroad. The error in our logic is that conservative ideology does not stem from freedom and nonviolence like Libertarianism does, but from both religion and a large military presence. Neo-conservatives may prefer—at least in rhetoric, to support less spending, but that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be willing to make cuts in each and every part of the budget like we as libertarians may be.
Similarly, we can apply the same logic to Libertarian ideology. A liberal may state, “Libertarians expect ‘business friendly’ legislation for the fat cats on Wall Street, yet they contradict themselves in neglecting to make ‘poor people’ friendly legislation for the unemployed.” The failure in this logic is that the principles of libertarians align with the free-market, but not a social safety net as liberals would align with.
Often times, we get so caught up in our differences that we fail to take into account the underlying reasons for why others feels the way they do. Ultimately, the lesson we can learn from this is that it’s better to understand where our political opponents are coming from before attacking their views. Contradictions may exist in other areas, especially when there is political capital to gain through rhetoric. But ultimately, when it comes down to the actual ideology, there’s far fewer inconsistencies than we’d often like to believe, and we often resort to saying there are inconsistencies out of anger and frustration.
Lastly, the second question we asked was whether or not there’s any logical reason for starting from first principle when forming our political opinions, and not first from each issue. Ultimately, more research must be done on the importance of consistency and principle in ones political ideology. One may argue that by starting from principle, you’re gambling that you’re either 100% right or 100% wrong. If your principle is incorrect, that would make each of your issues null and void. And if you’re the President of the United States and find out you’re principle is wrong, that can have some serious repercussions. Consequently, if we start from the issue first, there’s only a slight chance that all of our stances are incorrect. If one of our stances is wrong, it doesn’t automatically make every other stance wrong. Ultimately, more research needs to be done in order for us to come to a final conclusion.
Ultimately, we only would like to believe that inconsistencies exist in our opponent’s political ideology out of frustration and a lack of understanding. One of the greatest virtues in politics is to understand where your opponent is coming from, and trying to find common ground. This is something we don’t do enough of in the Liberty Movement and need to be more proactive about if we expect to work together with both conservatives and liberals. Likewise, a discussion is needed on the importance of consistency in ones political ideology.
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9WOqJG-2s