April 05, 2005
Full Disclosure
It has been said that there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests. I would submit that there are also very few permanent principles. There are no “Republican tactics” and “Democratic tactics” (nor “Libertarian” nor “Green” tactics). Rather, there are the tactics of power and the tactics of weakness.
The case of teaching human origins in schools is instructive. In the Scopes Monkey Trial, evolutionists argued for an open classroom, saying that youth should be taught both sides and allowed to decide. However, with the tables turned and evolutionists in power, the arguments and "principles" have flipped. Now evolutionists are the ones arguing for one-way indoctrination and creationists are pushing for open-minded consideration of both. Do not be deceived: neither side is married to the principle argued; both are married to the interest.
Likewise in the debate on the Federal budget: many Republicans, including myself, have been horrified to learn that the Budget Hawks we elected in 1994 and kept re-electing since are just as free with our money as their Blue predecessors. Remember back when you used to hear "It's your money!" from Republican leaders ad nauseum? We don't hear that too much anymore, do we? Of course, the Democrats are now beginning to paint themselves as deficit-killers, but the intelligent voter will look past the "principles" and look to the interests.
In other, less settled issues, it's not entirely clear what is principle and what is interest. Do the Neoconservatives have principles in which their frightening foreign policy is based? Or do they just have a set of complex interests around which they've built an army of arguments to defend their interest-based actions? We probably won't be able to settle that question for a few years - until we see if the neocons act against their own interests when questions of principle arise.
However, just because this interests-over-principles reality is common does not make it right. We must be aware of it - and try to rise above it. As Watchblog writers, I submit that we abide by two guidelines in our polemics. First, to remain as true to our principles as possible. Second, to admit when we are acting solely for our own interests. We must not deceive ourselves if we wish to have an intelligent discussion.
So what are our principles? As a conservative, the foremost principle to which I subscribe is the rule of law. That is the foundation of our nation and the absolute which must never be crossed by our leaders. Because of this principle I adamently opposed Federal involvement in the Schiavo affair.
My second principle is the primacy of the individual, in both right and responsibility. As I see it, this is the divide between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, which is philosophically more like socialism. Because of this principle, I tend to oppose increased welfare; I oppose raising the minimum wage; and I oppose the environmental-determinist attitude among many social scientists.
But where or when or how does a principle turn into an interest? One could say that a principle becomes an interest when it "overrules" a higher interest; but that's unhelpful and logically fallacious. Furthermore, principles often clash - but that does not make them any less principles. The Schiavo affair was a window into many people's principles, because so many of us were disinterested but intellectually involved. We saw - disturbingly - that the principle of preserving life trumped the rule of law for lawmakers of both parties. (Or was it just a misguided application of the interest of gaining votes?)
I submit that a principle is an idea, doctrine, or dogma pertaining to the realm in question. That is, in politics, a principle is a political idea. This may be federalism, personal responsibility, natural law, direct democracy, localism, etc. Thus, a non-political belief (for instance, my belief that the slave trade is wrong) becomes an interest. This is obviously not a hard-and-fast definition, but it's relatively portable. I would be interested to hear anyone else's musings on the topic.
Posted by Chops at April 5, 2005 05:08 PMVery interesting post Chops. I think just about everyone that has a political opinion they feel strongly enough to verbalize fails to see the distinction you’re making, myself included.
After reading your article, which is very good, by the way, I find myself stuck in between agreement and disagreement. In one light, sticking to principle and divorcing interest sounds good. On the other hand, I find myself asking, considering the complexity of the world around us, is an attempt to segregate principle from interest merely trying stitch tendons between parts that aren’t supposed to always be jointed together?
I will have to reflect on it more. Thanks for the article though, it was well written and quite thought provoking.
Posted by: Taylor at April 5, 2005 06:29 PMThe difference between conservative and Liberal is not about socialism. It’s about whether today or yesterday’s “is” represents today or tomorrow’s “ought”.
To wit: Does traditional thought hold the answers, or do newer approaches and methods hold true? The current creationist argument is better understood by that rationale, because even if it not the status quo in terms of accepted theory, the notions of creationism are an attempt to promote the beliefs and ideas of the past over the eternally younger theories of Darwinism. It is a new approach at advocating an old belief.
In business, conservatives push laissez faire notions of taxation and economic regulation that hearken back to pre-new deal days. At the height of their current power, the death of the New Deal is not meant to be the gateway to something newer but instead the old order of things, which conservatives consider more ideal.
Though conservatives think they have things good now, they should take note that they are having to disguise their old-fashioned ideas as being new and liberating. America still has a liberal focus, one that’s still around to swing the orbit back in a liberal direction when conservative sensibility becomes too stagnating.
The connection of Liberalism to socialism is at once appropriate and inappropriate. It is appropriate historically, in that Liberal sensibilities were pulled that way during the New Deal days. But this must be seen not as an inherent tendency in American Liberalism, but one aspect of the experimental nature of liberalism. Liberalism may on occasion flirt with socialism, but it is not invested in it like the left wings of other countries are.
FDR’s speech about there being nothing to fear but fear itself is indicative of the Liberal spirit. But so is Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you” speech. Service to one’s community, not in the communist sense, but in the patriotic sense, is seen as a duty for Democrats.
We believe that the laws and strategies we govern by must change to suit the times, within constitutioal limits.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2005 09:21 PMInterest over principle have been around since the beginning of politics in America. It’s practiced by both sides in the executive and legislative branch every day. In an election year it is even more pronounced. A politician’s “interest” is getting re-elected. Following each census political lines are redrawn to cement re-elections and party self-interest.
George Washington was vehemently opposed to political parties. As I have studies constitutional history and American history I couldn’t quite understand why. However, as the left and right have become more polarized I think I am beginning to see Washington’s point. Often times political parties will put party interest and/or priciples above public interest…at least until election year. Unfortunately, “we the people” only remember what has been done for us lately and overlook many past offenses of our political representatives.
All this fancy writing does not alter the reality that our foundations are being systematically weakened. International Law, Individual Rights, State Rights, Separation of Church and State, Separation of Powers, etc. are all being pushed aside for the now.
Did you know Jeb Bush actually ordered State Officials to forcibly take Terri Schiavo against the Court’s Order?
Did you know Senator Corwyn is advocating violence against Judges?
Did you know there are hundreds of vigilantes trying to stop the Illegal Aliens?
We are a Nation of Laws not of Men. Sadly, that will soon not be the case…
Posted by: Aldous at April 5, 2005 10:13 PMChops, I’m going to answer your quasi-rhetorical question about what principles are (and interests).
Principles dictate what we do when it doesn’t concern us.
Interests dictate what we do when it does concern us.
Example: The Terri Schiavo case was a matter of principle for a majority of Americans. However, it was a matter of interest for the politicians involved.
BTW Aldous, just who do you think writes laws? How could we be a Nation of Laws without being a nation of people as well?
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 11:39 PMGood article Chops, and I especially like the title. I don’t mind so much when people have “interests”. What bugs me is when people dishonestly invent “principles” to which they don’t really subscribe to justify their “interests.”
Republicans certainly don’t have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but it’s now obvious that many of those that called themselves conservatives really didn’t want small government - but only wanted to reduce the power of the Democratic-controlled government. Likewise they didn’t really want to reduce the deficit - only reduce the ability of Democrats to pay for social programs. T
he same people now are ranting about “activist judges” - is it a coincidence that this is the one branch of government that they don’t completely control yet?
Posted by: William Cohen at April 6, 2005 09:20 AMStephen said:
In business, conservatives push laissez faire notions of taxation and economic regulation that hearken back to pre-new deal days. At the height of their current power, the death of the New Deal is not meant to be the gateway to something newer but instead the old order of things, which conservatives consider more ideal.
Exactly right. You’ll notice that the New Deal totally failed to end the Depression - in fact, after 5 years of Roosevelt, the economy went through a second-stage recession in 1937/38. Conservatives (a.k.a. classical liberals) absolutely do like the way things used to be, but not for the sake of tradition alone. We’ve shown ourselves willing to jettison discredited ideas, such as trade protectionism. We like the old ways, though, because that’s when “we” were supreme - when everybody accepted the idea of personal responsibility and rule of law (again, at least as principles).
I definitely question your assertion that liberalism’s philosophical relationship with socialism is nothing more than flirtatious. I’ve seen you guys in bed together more than once, and if I’m not mistaken, that’s your ring on her finger. From where I sit, it looks an awful lot like you two are married (again, philosophically; if I’m wrong, please explain to me the difference in the liberal political philosophy and the socialist).
***
Oh, and totally off-topic: Watchblog won’t let me post comments at home, because my server has suddenly become persona non grata. Anybody know how to fix this?
Now evolutionists are the ones arguing for one-way indoctrination and creationists are pushing for open-minded consideration of both. Do not be deceived: neither side is married to the principle argued; both are married to the interest.
The reason that Creationism isn’t taught in science classes is because it isn’t science. Basically, Creationists want to be afforded the status of science without submitting to the rules. It is like I showed up at a track and field meet and demanded to compete against the runners in my car. I can run against the others, or I can go race other cars. I just can’t use my car to get a gold medal in track.
My second principle is the primacy of the individual, in both right and responsibility. As I see it, this is the divide between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, which is philosophically more like socialism. Because of this principle, I tend to oppose increased welfare; I oppose raising the minimum wage …
I would think on this basis you oppose welfare and the minimum wage altogether, or is there a sense of “creeping socialism” in your philosophy that accepts some level of both?
Chops:
Oh, and totally off-topic: Watchblog won’t let me post comments at home, because my server has suddenly become persona non grata.
Same here, and my server comes from as major, well known ISP. Methinks Watchblog is being too draconian.
Has nothing to do with draconian. Has to do with spam blocking. Your ISP is blocked because your ISP leaders continue to choose to allow spam to flow through their insecure mail servers. If you want to remove the problem the posting problem as well as do your small part to end spam, tell your ISP to secure their mail servers or you will find another one.
—WatchBlog Managing Editor —
Posted by: Steve (not Stephen) at April 6, 2005 10:35 AMSteve -
On servers: mine is Comcast, and was ok for months before this week. Weird.
On welfare: I recognize that my principles aren’t perfect, and I recognize that not everyone shares them, so I’m willing to compromise. In a “perfect world” everyone would work for their living; but in a perfect world, people would also get a decent education and not have access to drugs. A political beatitude could be: Blessed are the moderate, for they shall not be perpetually unsatisfied.
Posted by: Chops at April 6, 2005 11:09 AMIn a perfect world, we’d have access to the drugs, but they wouldn’t kill us or be addictive.
Posted by: Mark at April 6, 2005 11:18 AMPrinciples ought to be our cheif intrest.
As humans we have a hard time with that, specially when principles get in the way of our intrest.
Sometimes I have to wounder if poliicians (both Republican and Democrat) have any principles, or do they just have intrest?
Chops,
Nice article and I have enjoyed reading the follow-up posts. It reminds me that folks on the right and the left can agree on some things and agree to disagree on others.
William,
I think you nailed what many of us have been thinking about the Republican party for some time. There was no principle only interest in their talk about reducing the debt and the size of government. Their interest, of course, was a power grab. I can only hope those on the right will replace some of their elected representatives to send them a signal that this IS a republic and these folks represent us…NOT their own interest at political power. I think the signal has been sent to the Democratic party over the last 20 years. Did they receive the signal? I suppose we will only know as time passes.
Woody,
You also make a good point regarding creationist. I am a Christian and believe in creationist. Did I learn it from school? Heck no, I learned science in school. Creation cannot be explained by science and therefore should not be taught in a science class. If you want your children to learn about how God created the world do like the rest of us Christians and get them in Church. You won’t have to worry about them learning about evolution there.
Posted by: Tom at April 6, 2005 12:54 PM@Ron
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you. Principles are great and all that, and we should believe in them, but they don’t put bread on the table. Interests and pragmatism are of vital importance to society and life and quite often need to take the driver’s seat.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you. Principles are great and all that, and we should believe in them, but they don’t put bread on the table. Interests and pragmatism are of vital importance to society and life and quite often need to take the driver’s seat.
Zeek,
Sad but true, I’m inclines to agree. This is more or less what I was teetering about when I read the article originally. If my memory serves me right, aren’t you a teenager?
Taylor,
“If my memory serves me right, aren’t you a teenager?”
Ok… What does this have to do with anything?
By the by… I’ve never before mentioned my age… are you stalking me or something?
**Glances over shoulder**
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 06:55 PMPrinciples have price tags. The fundamentalist preaching dilegently against abortion and pre-marital sex quite often will secretly pay for his daughter to have an abortion, because he values his reputation more than his principles. It’s very easy for all of us to spout our principles here online, where there is virtually no committment - it costs us nothing. I wonder if there really is a way for us to know how strong our own convictions are … what would really happen to us under fire, when the price of holding to principle goes up.
Much easier to be a cynic, methinks. You get the fun of sitting on the sidelines, mocking the hypocrisy of the world. Much easier to be a skeptic, and believe in nothing, than to be a believer and face a crisis of faith.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 07:10 PM“If my memory serves me right, aren’t you a teenager?”Ok… What does this have to do with anything?
Nothing relevant to the discussion.
By the by… I’ve never before mentioned my age… are you stalking me or something?
I thought you made a remark about being in highschool before, but wasn’t entirely sure if I had the right info with the right handle or not, hence follow up question delicately asked to not offend in case I was mistaken. Anyhow, no, LOL, not stalking you, just impressed with the assembly and expression of your thoughts here. When I was your age, can’t say I cared enough to be in a place like watchblog, let alone have the mental caliber to stand my own, can’t say I remember having any friends that could / would either. (maybe I hung with the stupid kids?) I guess I’m just impressed with someone of your generation making the points you make the way you do, that’s all. I’ll stop now, before I border on fawning.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 08:13 PMDaniel:
“Much easier to be a cynic, methinks. You get the fun of sitting on the sidelines, mocking the hypocrisy of the world”
I’m pretty cynical myself, but again, that doesn’t make you rich :) But maybe you’re not so hedonistic/megalomaniacal as I am ;P
“Much easier to be a skeptic, and believe in nothing, than to be a believer and face a crisis of faith.”
Or… you could be critical and analyze things rather than just assume everything is a lie…
:)
Chops:
On welfare: I recognize that my principles aren’t perfect, and I recognize that not everyone shares them, so I’m willing to compromise. In a “perfect world” everyone would work for their living; but in a perfect world, people would also get a decent education and not have access to drugs. A political beatitude could be: Blessed are the moderate, for they shall not be perpetually unsatisfied.
Two things. First, what is your definition of perfect? In a perfect world, wouldn’t everyone essentially receive roughly the same income? Sounds communistic, but isn’t that “perfect”, in that it is economically equal to all people? Thus, in order to take a step closer to that perfection, aren’t welfare and minimum wage good steps to take?
Second, why would we be blocked access to drugs? If the moderate are blessed, then wouldn’t allowing no drugs at all go against that principle? Those who master moderation could use drugs and maintain control of their lives. Could they not? Posted by: Ryan at April 6, 2005 08:51 PM
Ryan -
You said that in a perfect world, all incomes would be roughly equal. I don’t buy that, not unless all human beings are the same (having the same interest, ability, drive, passion, etc). In a perfect world, those who became rich would help to support the poor and give them a chance. That’s all anybody deserves. A chance.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 10:18 PMMy second principle is the primacy of the individual, in both right and responsibility. As I see it, this is the divide between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, which is philosophically more like socialism.
I recognize that my principles aren’t perfect, and I recognize that not everyone shares them, so I’m willing to compromise. In a “perfect world” everyone would work for their living; but in a perfect world, people would also get a decent education and not have access to drugs.
Chops, don’t you think that this is looking at the world as a little too black-and-white? I completely agree in personal rights and responsibilities. But, as you said, this isn’t a perfect world. So, I’ve adjusted my thinking and continue to adjust it as things change and I become more aware. I try not to harken back to the day when people took responsibility, but rather look forward with ways that we can bring it back.
What raises my hackles most are these labels being placed on people, because most often they’re inaccurate. Placing people and philosophies in the opposing buckets creates confusion, closes minds, and divides people.
So, I say yes, define your principles and interests. Debate them, stand by them, live by them. Just be careful to label them as “conservative”, “liberal”, “Democratic”, or “Republican”. Those labels have lost their meanings (if they ever had them) because they’ve changed and been so abused over the years. If we just discuss our principles, I think we’d find that as a country - heck, as a planet - they’re not all that different. The greatest thing about this site is that it exposes the fact that we’re all much more complex than “liberal” or “conservative”.
(I feel like I’m missing some stirring background music here :) )
Posted by: Tad at April 6, 2005 11:45 PMTad:
“we’re all much more complex than “liberal” or “conservative”. “
I dunno… some people… well never mind ;P
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 11:55 PMChops-
You misunderstand liberalism. It is about doing the most good for the most people. The Conservatives of today favor policies that benefit the rich and powerful, whether commercial or individual. The good of businesses of a few thousand is put above the good of the millions who constitute public on many occasions.
If the accounting laws are too restrictive about how people can cook their books, they get struck down. If a dangerous conflict of interest is potentially profitable, the gain of a few is put above the financial welfare of the many. If a need consumer reform or environmental safeguard loses money for a corporation, sure enough, you guys step in to say that the rights of the rest of us must yield to the rights of these few, especially when that deferrence means people getting hurt, sick, broke, or dead for the sake of that freedom.
Liberalism and Libertarianism are not the same thing. Libertarianism recognizes few exceptions to the rule of license, of unfettered freedom and consequence. Liberalism states that freedoms should be absolute right to the point where they start hurting people and taking their freedoms away.
Besides, if your people are so freedom loving, what’s with the Marriage Amendment? It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg to have some gay guy marry another. That is just one example.
But corporate malfeasance? Enron and WorldCom, among other businesses, cost people money by defrauding them about the true state of the business. Your side spent years enabling them to do just that. They also gave Drug Companies more power to get their drugs on the market, with the result that people have died early deaths, and unnecessary disability. True Liberalism does not allow harmful and deceptive behavior to go unchecked just so some magic benefit can be bestowed upon all by the supposedly wiser beneficiary elite that it benefits.
As for trade protectionism, let me ask you a question: if it’s so obsolete, why is China doing it? Could it be that that corporate interests here have allowed the decks to get stacked against Americans in the world job market, so they can go on selling cheap products?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2005 02:16 AMStephen said:
The Conservatives of today favor policies that benefit the rich and powerful, whether commercial or individual. The good of businesses of a few thousand is put above the good of the millions who constitute public on many occasions.
Stephen, I thought you were above this kind of partisan caricature. You’ll notice that my post was about the difference between principles and interests. I don’t dispute that special interests have done some sleazy things in the Bush administration. But the absurdity of saying that “favoring the rich” is a conservative principle is exceeded only by the sheer misunderstanding of principle.
I don’t know if my intelligence should be insulted by your comment, or only your intelligence.
Posted by: Chops at April 7, 2005 10:01 AMDaniel,
Your right about principles having a price tag.
I believe every time to sellout your principles you pay in someway. Also I believe that when you stick to them it can cost you.
The only way to tell how strong our convictions are is to have them put to the test. We all have, and have stuck to them at times, and have failed at times.
Maybe we should all just be cynics,
So what are our principles? As a conservative, the foremost principle to which I subscribe is the rule of law. That is the foundation of our nation and the absolute which must never be crossed by our leaders. Because of this principle I adamantly opposed Federal involvement in the Schiavo affair.
I try to follow the law. When man’s law contradicts god’s law I will become a law breaker. So far I’ve managed to slide by.
. This is off subject a little. Have you seen the laws coming down the road on Blogs
A “Law’ in SF if passed would require blogers to register and report blog related expenditures over $1000.
Canada has banned a blog for criticizing the government. Any bloger who links to said blog is up a creek also.
George:
“Canada has banned a blog for criticizing the government. Any bloger who links to said blog is up a creek also.”
That’s why we don’t live in Canada buddy.
Posted by: Zeek at April 7, 2005 02:14 PMChops-
Could you explain the rationale, then behind striking down accounting regulations? Does a lack of transparency for the investors really benefit them? Could you explain why Bush’s tax cut did away with the top bracket, cut the next one down, skipped over the brackets most people fell into, then cut the lowest bracket, earning people only a few hundred at best, if they weren’t earning a few hundred thousand?
Why kill the Estate Tax, when it only affects the richest two percent? Why is it that the GOP defines interfering with the market not in terms of subsidies, but in terms of regulations, financial or not, that apply to things like environment and safety?
Why continue to allow China to engage in unfair trade practices that spit in the eye of free market principles? Why not push the Chinese to let the market set the prices for labor? Why let the Chinese fix their currency to the dollar, ensuring they can always undersell us. It would be one thing if they were beating us in fair competition. But it’s not the talents of Chinese workers that are making those prices low.
Why let Microsoft stagnate and rule the PC operating system market? Why let the big telecom companie gobble each other up?
Why do any and all of these things, if not to please the rich and powerful? The other explanation is that our congress and our executive don’t know they’re doing this.
I don’t want a command economy or socialism. I just want a government that looks out for the nation as a whole for a change. The private interests have their power. Where’s ours?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2005 12:40 AMStephen, normally I wouldn’t comment, but this was about China:
“Why continue to allow China to engage in unfair trade practices that spit in the eye of free market principles? Why not push the Chinese to let the market set the prices for labor?”
That just makes no diplomatic sense. You’d essentially piss off the Chinese government while having insufficient affect to change the labor prices. And what “unfair trade practices” would you be referring to?
“Why let the Chinese fix their currency to the dollar, ensuring they can always undersell us. It would be one thing if they were beating us in fair competition. But it’s not the talents of Chinese workers that are making those prices low.”
It’s not about their currency, it’s about their dirt cheap labor. The average Chinese worker makes less than $5,000 a year (and that’s actually enough to live on).
Posted by: Zeek at April 9, 2005 12:58 AM
