Justin Green

Political Theory and Punditry from a native of Flyover Country

I find that assuming that whatever rotten thing people can do, they eventually will do, is the sound basis for a political worldview. And this is why I am a conservative, not a liberal or a libertarian.

I concur with Rod Dreher. The bottom line difference for conservatives as compared to many liberals and libertarians has to do with the perfectibility of man. Now, don’t take this as a blanket statement. Those are generally unhelpful and inaccurate. Even still, I’d guess this can be fairly useful in helping people understand the skepticism (if not outright cynicism) that comes from conservative folk like myself.

(Source: theamericanconservative.com)

If law has no deeper authority than human convention, any man who reflects at all on what kind of life he should live realizes he cannot rely on the guidance. Every man reasonably pursues his own good, and, if there is no common good, he will properly use the law for his own private satisfaction.

That’s Allan Bloom reflecting on an argument advanced by Thrasymachus in The Republic of Plato. I can’t help but think of Richard Rorty during this passage. Rorty knew a thing or two about Socratic irony, and it was his hope that people could be educated to embrace the idea that our laws have no higher authority. At bottom, Rorty argued in his book Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, we all recognize our laws and customs are without foundation. That’s what Nietzsche was arguing would happen when people realized they’d “killed God.” For us to eliminate superstition about higher authorities was for Nietzsche an opportunity to proceed with the fundamental ends of justice in a manner quite different than Socrates, Plato and the like.

The distinction, of course, is that Bloom, unlike his relative counterpart Rorty, bemoaned such an idea. If we abandon the inquiry into human nature and its impact on the City, we ultimately have little need for philosophy. The education of those with appropriate natures for a life of inquiry and service is the highest ideal for men such as Bloom. Rorty essentially says the opposite, calling for philosophers to instead work on translating complex arguments into a form suit for mass consumption.

Last fall, I argued that Bloom was correct. Despite reading considerable material by both men in the time since, my opinion remains the same. We need philosophers, and not merely smart guys capable of making tough arguments simple for the masses. We need men (and women) of the Socratic school because without them, we proceed into the vibrating rythyms of mechanistic robots. We’re human, and understanding the natures that rule our very being is admirable instead of worthy of lament.

Here We Go

And thus begins my adventure with Leo Strauss. Pray for me.

Despite the religious skepticism of the Scottish Enlightenment, the Scots hoped to find the “common sense” of things, to discover universal principles of man without destroying the specific manifestations of men’s peculiarities. In the American colonies, one could find some of the best proponents of the Scottish Enlightenment in such diverse figures such as Charles Carroll, James Wilson, and John Witherspoon. Perhaps the answer to the “whys” and “hows” of the Celtic Mind is ultimately rather simple. Of the European Enlightenments, only the Celtic Mind attempted to engage the Western tradition without overthrowing it.

TAC. At this point, you could probably just write “Edmund Burke” with nothing else and I’d like it. For all his peculiarities, Burke remains my favorite political thinker.

Who Owns You?

Ari Kohen has nicely summarized a distinguishing factor between modern American and classical liberals.

But the reason that I disagree when it comes to gay marriage amendments and the death penalty is because those are instances in which the majority is, to my mind, acting tryannically. They’re attempting to authorize the agents of the state to strip the rights of fellow citizens and to remove any recourse those citizens might have to redress what the harm being done to them. And then I agree when the majority votes to fund the police department because I don’t think the idea of police is inherently problematic or that police officers set out each day to strip people of their rights.

For Munger, though, the majority is always acting tyrannically because it’s always telling someone else what to do … so I suppose he always disagrees with it. He just doesn’t want other people telling him what to do. As I said above, and as I wrote in my previous post on this topic, that’s just not a position I hold because, at bottom, I don’t think that all government is, of necessity, a tyranny.

As always, I recommend a full read of his arguments before proceeding. (Do it for the future, the kids or whatever motivates you to read a few paragraphs of mildly complex argumentation.)

What Dr. Kohen is arguing, I would suppose, is the following: (note: not a quote of any kind. Text has been block quoted for readability)

1) Not everyone in a state of 300 million will always agree. Calling anything you don’t agree with tyrannical (when done legally, of course) is problematic under such circumstances.

2) Government isn’t necessarily an evil entity out to get you.

3) The more excessive problems associated with the state can be nicely ironed out.

One and two make sense to me as a conservative. The third, however, is likely a point of permanent disagreement for us.

So in a sense, the argument is whether a majority of Americans can compel the minority into action.

Dr. Kohen seems to think it’s acceptable as long as such compulsion isn’t favoring one group or clearly causing discrimination. (Correct me if I’m wrong here, Dr. Kohen). Let’s also add to this list that Dr. Kohen believes the state should minimize the imposition of cruelty. (1)

We both agree these are excellent principles. The difference between us is I would add at least one of my own:

The state should have a minimal (if any) role in regulating personal behavior when such behavior doesn’t violate the rights of others.

On the Right, that would mean an end to foolish drug prohibition and some absurd legislation violating civil liberties.

On the Left, it means an end to the nanny state.

Each side argues for that the other’s policies are far more harmful. What both sides fail to recognize is the danger of recognizing this type of action from the state as acceptable.

When those on the Left (2) broadcast that the state should have control over what people put in their bodies as food, they cede the argument to right wing anti-drug warriors.

When those right wing drug fighting heroes argue the state should be able to have a say in drugs, they cede the argument to San Francisco hippies who think they should have the right to ban toys from happy meals.

What both major statist parties (3) show little interest in slowing the steady advance of the state into the private lives of its citizens, that constitutes a very real problem for our society.

So when Dr. Kohen advances the fairly standard liberal line that ending racism and other societal ills will solve our problems, I must side (albeit tentatively) with his interlocutor, Mike Munger.

It’s certainly a problem that police act badly. Racism and related ills definitely contribute to this problem. It sucks that people are the victims of such misbehavior.

It’s just that we should expect little different when we cede so much of our personal autonomy to an impersonal authority. Government may not mean to do bad things or harm people, but when given nearly unlimited authority, what else do we think would happen?

In the end, we’re a democratic state.(4) If a majority can’t advance legislation, what’s the purpose of a legislative branch?

Such a state quickly loses its value when a majority is able to trample on the rights of everyone else. That’s not the type of society we were founded as several hundred years ago. It’s certainly not the one I’d like to live in today. The ability to create meaningful legislation and protecting the rights of political minorities need not be mutually exclusive.

To top it off, wouldn’t this all have been averted if people found the idea of jail for unpaid tickets an unacceptable punishment? Arguing over the strip search seems like accepting the right of the state to create the unjust circumstances for the strip in the first place.

________________________________________________

Footnotes

(1) We’ve spent quite a bit of time over the past year discussing Rorty’s ideal of a liberal society. (I guess Dr. Kohen can one day be that liberal college professor I’m linked to by political rivals.)

(2) Straw man alert! It had to be done. Take comfort in knowing I also use one on conservatives.

(3) One of which, the GOP, I am a member

(4) Albeit one with republican institutions. I will never tire of snarkily reminding this fact to people who think 50+1 should give unlimited power to the state.

On the Social Contract

My friend PoliticalProf has written a rather scathing post directed at libertarians. Here’s the conclusion of his piece:

Stop claiming no decision or action taken by anyone else can ever be legitimate over you in any way. Just stop.

Let me presume (correct me if I’m wrong) that PoliticalProf was responding to this recent post from my friend LaLiberty.

This debate warrants further discussion. Before going further, allow me to post a quick disclaimer:

While I hold (to a degree) a libertarian streak, you won’t find the non-agression principle at the core of my political philosophy. It strikes me as something that, while admirable, isn’t going to happen. Political societies are built on complex webs of loyalties, power relationships and myths. That might not be ideal, but it’s the reality.

So let’s chat about the social contract. Before proceeding, please make sure you’ve read (in full) the posts by PoliticalProf and LaLiberty. They should help clarify a few questions that may arise on the way.

Men may live more truly and fully in reading Plato and Shakespeare than at any other time, because they are participating in essential being and are forgetting their accidental lives. The fact that this kind of humanity exists or existed, and that we can somehow still touch it with the tips of our outstretched fingers, makes our imperfect humanity, which we can no longer bear, tolerable. The books in their objective beauty are still there, and we must help protect and cultivate the delicate tendrils reaching out toward them through the unfriendly soil of students’ souls. Human nature, it seems, remains the same in our very altered circumstances because we still face the same problems, if in different guises, and have the distinctly human need to solve them, even though our awareness and forces have become enfeebled.

Allan Bloom, “The Closing of the American Mind,” pg. 380

I read Bloom’s conclusion every day. If I had to name a manifesto for my blogging, reading and academic pursuits, this is the one.

Richard Rorty was one of the few 20th century philosophers capable of pulling off the glamor shot in a garden for a book cover. He also did a little philosophizing, although most of it was about how pointless modern philosophy was.

So this afternoon, I’ll be enjoying a second round of Rorty. Trust me, he’s worth it.

Also, yes that is indeed a Nebraska dry fit featuring the American flag.

If you’d like to read a few things I’ve written regarding Rorty, here’s a list:

Rorty and “Human Truth”

Does Political Philosophy Matter?

Responses to Rorty

Arguing with Politicalprof and Squashed

Enjoy, and feel free to ask questions. I’ve got Rorty on the mind.

Perspectives on Rights

My Tumblr friend and fellow #Politics editor Squashed has written about Conservatives and their views on political rights. His thesis seems to be something along the lines of “Conservatives think that anything which is not free cannot be a right.”

To illustrate his point, he’s provided a helpful list of things which such an understanding would take away as “rights:”

The right to vote;

The right to a fair trial;

The right to counsel;

The right to petition your government;

The right to due process of law;

The right to an education;

The right to safety from violence;

The right to equal protection of the law;

There are several problems with this critique. The first is that this critique ignores the distinction between positive and negative rights. Second, using the language of “rights” creates unnecessary tensions between well meaning policy makers.

While I don’t doubt that many so called “Conservatives” would be fine with removing many of these from the label of being called political “rights,” it seems that Squashed has missed the key distinction between positive and negative rights.

The Bill of Rights, for instance, is comprised primarily of negative rights. These rights are limiting rights. The state cannot, for instance, arbitrarily impose a nation religion or ban the free press. Along the same lines, the state cannot quarter soldiers in your home or take away your right to due process.

A commenter on Squashed’s post said the following, which I will happily endorse:

Just as this post failed to recognize the distinction between positive and negative rights, there is a clear problem in attempting to wrap policy wants in the language of “rights.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), ratified in 1948, lists a number of things as “rights” that are quite controversial here in the United States.

What, for instance, can we make of the tension between Articles 20 and 23 of the UDHR, at least as occur when discussed in our nation?

Article 20, Section 2 states that “No one may be compelled to join an association.”

Article 23, Section 4 states that “Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions for the protections of his interests.”

So, is it a violation of the UDHR to allow “closed shop” workplaces? Can someone be compelled to join a trade union in order to work at a job? Which of these two rights takes priority?

These rights are not mutually exclusive. Just as people should be allowed to form unions, they cannot force their fellow laborers to enter said organizations. Any trade which forces people to be unionized in order to practice is a violation of that person’s human rights, no?

At bottom, the principle concern many Conservatives and Libertarians can hold about draping policy debates in the language of “rights” is that rights naturally incur duties. Duties are fine to to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Americans, for instance, have long understood habeas corpus to be a right, which means the State is obligated to respect said right. No other citizen is harmed by this action, which is not the same that can be said for many positive rights.

We can work to alleviate suffering without enshrining every policy “want” as a “right.”

When we read the Illiad, everybody likes Hector. But he can’t win. If he did a proper risk assessment, he should know all along that he can’t win. The odds are terrible, but he goes and he behaves heroically and does his best. In failure, there’s still something impressive in it.

Ari Kohen, in the fourth episode of The Hero Report, which you can find on his blog at kohenari.net.

Having read The Illiad over Christmas break, I can attest to being drawn to Hector over Achilles. Nietzsche may call me weak, but socialization is a powerful thing.