Tag Archives: conservative

Left And Right

For several years, one of most annoying (and misleading) aspects of American political debate has been the insistence of participants on defining our differences as “left” and “right.” The MAGA cult, especially, has delighted in portraying all non-MAGA Americans as hated “libruls,” and–far from challenging their policy preferences–has displayed a child-like delight in “owning the libs,” seemingly unconcerned that their “successes” in that effort tend to hurt them more than their targets.

America’s liberals have historically been far more centrist and un-ideological than those in European countries, but today, the terminology simply fails to convey the reality of MAGA versus everyone else. So it may be useful to ask ourselves a question: In today’s political environment, what constitutes the “Left”?

Two paragraphs–an aside, really– from one of Heather Cox Richardson’s recent “Letters” provides an accurate answer to that question. While Richardson’s letter wasn’t focused on political language, the introduction to her discussion of the Trump administration’s devotion to Project 2025 aptly captured the essence of today’s political divide:

The craziness going on around us in the first two months of the second Trump administration makes a lot more sense if you remember that the goal of those currently in power was never simply to change the policies or the personnel of the U.S. government. Their goal is to dismantle the central pillars of the United States of America—government, law, business, education, culture, and so on—because they believe the very shape of those institutions serves what they call “the Left.”

Their definition of “the Left” includes all Americans, Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats, who believe the government has a role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, promoting infrastructure, and protecting civil rights and who support the institutional structures Americans have built since World War II.

Let me repeat that second paragraph, because it is an incredibly important description of our current reality:

Their definition of “the Left” includes all Americans, Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats, who believe the government has a role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, promoting infrastructure, and protecting civil rights and who support the institutional structures Americans have built since World War II.

The differences that existed between Left and Right when I was first involved in politics were far different than they are today. The Republican Party in which I worked for some 35 years (a party that no longer exists) had firm principles about the proper, limited uses of government power and authority. Admittedly, that party had its far-Right fringe, just as the Democrats had its collectivist-Left, but the GOP’s establishment was generally successful in isolating the Christian Nationalists and neo-Nazis that have always been in its midst.

Back then, establishment Republicans and Democrats argued about policy–about what constituted the proper and improper uses of government power, and/or the efficient/effective management of government programs.

What should government do about the struggle of poor families to feed their children? Should ameliorative efforts be left to the voluntary sector? To the states? If the federal government should be involved, how should its programs be fashioned?

When it came to foreign affairs, there was broad agreement that policy squabbles should not extend beyond the ocean’s edge–and a common commitment to a government that stood by America’s allies and promoted peace and democracy abroad. It’s true–and unfortunate– that America’s leaders too often misused the nation’s power and lost sight of the country’s fundamental philosophical commitments, but never in our history did either party heedlessly and overtly side with the country’s enemies over our allies.

Our internal fights to extend civil rights did tend to break down over party lines, but when I was an active Republican, the vast majority of Republicans I worked with rejected racism and agreed that the nation’s laws should be applied evenly and fairly. Today, MAGA Republicans’ devotion to Donald Trump rests largely on their wholehearted support of his efforts to take the country back to the days of Jim Crow.

Bottom line: The “libs” that MAGA delights in “owning” are the Americans who believe in retaining a government that operates under the Constitution and respects the rule of law. Full stop. We may disagree strongly about aspects of that operation, about the extent of federal authority, about the optimum contours of our social safety net, over what constitutes “merit”–but today, the “Left” that MAGA hates is composed of all conservatives and liberals who believe in retaining a government that answers to We the People.

According to MAGA, any American who wants to retain our democratic republic is a Leftist.

Comments

Words Fail

In a recent article titled “The New Rasputins,” , Anne Applebaum argued something I’ve long believed: the words “right” and “left” are not remotely accurate descriptors of the political world we currently inhabit. 

Believe it or not, I was long considered–and long considered myself–a conservative. During those years, the term was defined as someone concerned with fiscal prudence, respect for legal tradition and the rule of law, and for conserving the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Fidelity to what used to be seen as conservative principles now label me “progressive” or “liberal” or–for MAGA folks–a “commie.”

As Applebaum correctly noted, “left” and “right” are outmoded descriptors of today’s GOP and Democrats. The GOP is currently a White Christian Nationalist cult with a corporatist (crony capitalist) economic agenda. The Democratic Party has been left with a nearly-impossible-to-corral amalgam of Americans ranging from center-right conservatives and former Republican “never Trumpers” to actual Leftists. And everyone in-between. We are experiencing the downside of a two-party system–it cannot function properly when one party goes off the rails.

The current misuse of terminology matters, because when language loses its connection to reality, political life is threatened. Authoritarianism thrives when the words citizens use are insufficient to convey an accurate meaning. Worse, when terminology is not just inadequate but misleading, we fail to recognize the reality we inhabit and the nature of the threats we face.

Applebaum’s point was expanded upon by Jennifer Rubin in the new publication Contrarian (link unavailable). 

Contrarian contributor Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written: “[A]uthoritarians turn language into a weapon, as well as emptying key words in the political life of a nation such as patriotism, honor, and freedom of meaning. We are well on our way in America to what I call the ‘upside-down world of authoritarianism,’ where the rule of law gives way to rule by the lawless; where those who take our rights away and jail us pose as protectors of freedom; where the thugs who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6 are turned into patriots; and where ‘leadership requires killing people,’ as Tucker Carlson recently put it, justifying Vladimir Putin’s killing of Alexei Navalny.”

 

We cannot accept MAGA terminology. Since an “executive order” denotes a proper, legal exercise of power, that term should certainly not be applied to President Trump’s cascade of executive pronouncements (most over-reaching and unconstitutional, others just meaningless). They may be “edicts” or ‘bogus decrees,” as historian Jonathan Alter noted in our recent Talking Feds podcast. But they do not dignify the term “executive order.”

“Pro-life,” is another example, in that it no way defines a movement that supports forced birth laws that kill women and have increased infant mortality. In the abortion arena, the right-wing comes up with non-words like “post-birth abortion”)to express fantastical charges. And while we are at it, “abortion ban” is not nearly descriptive enough. Laws robbing women of bodily autonomy and forcing them to go to term with a pregnancy should properly be called “forced birth.”

For years, the culture warriors of the GOP have used coded and inaccurate language to hide their true identity, which is anything but conservative. It is radical and reactionary, irredeemably racist and misogynistic. To label these people “conservative” is to deprive that term of all meaning.

Those of us who are appalled and terrified by the coming administration are constantly asking ourselves: “What can I do?” At the recent Hoosiers 4 Democracy rally, the “call to action” identified a number of organizations we can join and/or support. But there’s one thing everyone can do–even people unable to volunteer or donate: we can refuse to use inaccurate language. We can call fascism what it is.

And it sure isn’t “conservative.”

 
Comments

A Different Kind Of Homelessness

I recently had breakfast with two former faculty colleagues. The bulk of our conversation focused on the upcoming election, and thinking back on it, a couple of things struck me: despite MAGA folks’ belief that all college professors are left-wing socialists or communists, in a former, more rational time, all three of us would have been considered somewhat right of center.

But of course, the center has moved. A lot.

In 1980, I ran for Congress as a Republican. I won a Republican primary. I was pro-choice, and (to the extent it even came up then) pro-gay rights. For a couple of years after I lost the general election, people came up to me and said things like “I just couldn’t vote for you because you were so conservative.”

My husband and I met as officials in a Republican city administration; when we married, a reporter who covered the city (we had those back then) told me “the press guys like both of you, but you are both kinda right-wing.”

I don’t think I was ever “right-wing” –my positions were more consistent with what was then the GOP mainstream than with the Rightwing fringe of the party–but I was a traditional Republican.

Since 1980 I’ve changed positions on a few issues, because I learned more about them, but my basic political philosophy and approach to policy has not changed–yet today, I’m considered “far Left.”

I stood philosophically still, but the Overton window moved.

Part of the problem is political vocabulary. Americans talk about Liberals and conservatives, but those terms don’t describe our contemporary politics. MAGA and Trump are anything but Conservative as that term has historically been understood. (For that matter, they lack any coherent political philosophy at all, unless grievance and animus can be considered political positions.)

That reality has left genuine conservatives politically homeless. There’s a reason so many prominent conservative Republicans have endorsed Kamala Harris. (When George Will supports Harris, you know the GOP has jumped the shark.)

To the extent Trump has any policy positions, they are anathema to real conservatives. When the GOP was a genuine center-right party, it championed free trade, not tariffs and protectionism. Conservatives wanted limited government– Barry Goldwater insisted that “Government doesn’t belong in your boardroom or your bedroom.”  As Reagan left office, he made a speech about the importance of immigration. In foreign affairs, conservatives were strong supporters of NATO and opponents of dictators–and they understood the importance of joining with liberals in a unified approach to issues beyond the “water’s edge.”

Real conservatives venerate the Constitution and its checks and balances. They celebrate freedom of speech and a free press. When the GOP was conservative, it stressed the importance of respect for democratic processes and institutions, for law and order. Trump and MAGA constantly attack the very foundations of a working democracy– the press, the Department of Justice, the FBI, even our military leadership and especially the integrity of the electoral system. The old GOP might have disagreed with Democrats and liberals about how these principles should be applied, but they endorsed the principles.

Let’s be accurate: whatever else today’s GOP may be, it is not conservative.

As an essayist in USA Today recently put it,

As someone who works in the world of words, I understand that their meaning – and use – can change over time. Yet, something I greatly resent is how the Republican Party has conflated Donald Trump with conservatism… To me, conservatism means a belief in free markets, individual liberty and limited government.

As a result of the party’s move toward neo-fascism and theocracy, authentic conservatives have found themselves homeless. Thoughtful conservatives–appalled by what the GOP has become and unwilling to call themselves Democrats–have nowhere to go. Many of them will vote Blue this year rather than holding their noses and voting for Trump (or, in Indiana, for our Hoosier Christian Nationalists). Some won’t vote at all.

The disaffection and homelessness of genuine conservatives will help Democrats this year, and in a year where our choices really are between good and evil, that’s something to celebrate. But going forward, the transformation of one of the major parties in a two-party system into an anti-democratic cult is a disaster, and not just for real conservatives.

Good policy requires negotiation and compromise among good-faith advocates of varying perspectives. Civic peace requires respect for democratic institutions. This country needs two adult parties equally committed to the democratic process.

It is increasingly doubtful that the GOP can be redeemed from its current status as the new Confederacy, but unless that happens– or a third party somehow emerges– genuine conservatives will remain homeless.

NOTICE: TOMORROW evening at 7:00 P.M. I will introduce a Zoom event featuring four candidates who have the ability to shift four seats in the Indiana House from Republican to Democrat and break the super-majority’s stranglehold:  Josh Lowry, District 24; Tiffany Stoner, District 25; Victoria Garcia Wilburn, District 32 (incumbent); and Matt McNally, District 39. I will begin the event by explaining why one-party rule keeps dragging Indiana in the wrong direction.

You can register here. There is no charge.

Comments

Which End Is The Deep End?

What does it mean to call a political figure “conservative” or “liberal” today? Our political communication has been (accurately) described as a “fire hose” of propaganda and misinformation, and in that chaos, the original meaning of much terminology has been lost. MAGA Trumpers are anything but conservative. (Just ask some of the genuinely conservative “Never Trumpers,” who will explain the significant differences between conservative beliefs and fascism.)

Liberalism used to mean embrace of the political positions first articulated in the Enlightenment–beginning with what has been called the libertarian principle requiring government to respect the rights of individuals–among them, the rights to speak freely, worship or not as they choose, and go about their business without official interference unless government has probable cause to think a (legitimate) law has been violated. Over time, it came to include issues of fundamental social fairness.

Efforts to denigrate the “liberal” label may have begun earlier, but they really gained steam when the late, un-lamented Rush Limbaugh used it as a term of opprobrium, along with his own constructs like “feminazi.”

The debasement of language has certainly had an effect on America’s political discourse. These days, terms like liberal and conservative are more often used as insults than efforts to communicate a point of view. But a column detailing a recent exchange on CNN with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz points to a possible way out of the linguistic morass. Walz responded to what was intended as an attack on his “liberalism” by putting new meat on the bone of that phrase.

Told that he’d been labeled “too liberal,” Walz responded

What a monster. Kids are eating and having full bellies, so they can go learn, and women are making their own health-care decisions. And we’re a top five business state, and we also rank in the top three of happiness.

Look, they’re going to label whatever they’re going to label. He’s going to roll it out, mispronounce names to try and make the case. The fact of the matter is, where you see the policies that Vice President Harris was a part of making, Democratic governors across the country executed those policies, and quality of life is higher, the economies are better, all of those things.

Educational attainment is better. So, yes, my kids are going to eat here, and you’re going to have a chance to go to college, and you’re going to have an opportunity to live where we’re working on reducing carbon emissions. Oh, and, by the way, you’re going to have personal incomes that are higher, and you’re going to have health insurance.
So, if that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the label.

Walz took the opportunity to redefine liberalism as the delivery of things Americans want. As the linked article notes, at least 75 percent of Americans favor: green energy subsidies for the cost of equipment to produce clean energy; requiring police officers to intervene when another officer is using excessive force; establishment of a national database or registry of police misconduct; responding to 911 calls related to mental health issues with mental health professionals rather than police officers; taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for those making more than $1 million; adopting a 4 percent surtax on income above $5 million; adopting a 1 percent surtax on corporate income above $100 million; and making wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax; keeping the Affordable Care Act; allowing Americans over the age of 55 to purchase Medicare; increasing SNAP benefits; expanding the earned income tax credit and raising the minimum wage.

That same 75% also agree that DACA recipients deserve full legal status and a path to citizenship, that visas for skilled workers should be increased, and that the U.S. should hire more personnel to speed up processing asylum claims. They also want to reaffirm our commitment to NATO.

Sizable majorities also want to protect abortion and gay rights, and ban assault weapons.

The liberalism of Walz and Kamala Harris are reflections of that widespread public consensus–not, as MAGA Republicans assert, evidence that liberals have gone “off the deep end.”

Today’s liberals continue to support the “libertarian principle” that individual rights and civil liberties must be protected from government interference. But they also recognize government’s important role in providing an economic and physical infrastructure within which individuals can flourish. Government’s role has always been to prevent the strong from preying on the weak (the problem with that “state of nature” Hobbes wrote about). That role extends beyond protecting citizens’ physical safety–it includes guarding against misuses of economic power and includes measures to mitigate economic hardship.

If that’s the “deep end,” I plan to swim in it.

Comments

Clarifying The Stakes

I have often remarked upon the dramatic changes during my lifetime in what people consider “conservative.” I’ve speculated about the causes, pointed to the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the contemporary GOP, and speculated that the current “conservative” movement (note quotation marks) is basically an intellectually incoherent expression of MAGA’s underlying fear and racism.

The fear and racism are certainly there, but recently I came across an essay in Persuasion that described an all-too-coherent philosophy underlying the current assault on the American Idea. 

Broadly speaking, there are two different kinds of contemporary American conservatism. The more familiar—traditional conservatism—holds that the founding principles and institutions of the American polity remain sound but have been distorted by waves of progressive activism that have eroded our commitment to individual liberty and limited government. The task is to preserve these fundamentals while restoring their original meaning and function. 

The second kind of conservatism claims that America was flawed from the start. The focus on individual rights comes at the expense of community and the common good, and the claim that government exists to preserve individual liberty creates an inexorable move toward moral anarchy. These tendencies have moved us so far from traditional decency and public order that there is little of worth left to “conserve.” Our current situation represents a revolution against the forces—religion, strong families, local moral communities—that once limited the worst implications of our founding mistakes. The only remedy for this revolution is a counter-revolution. Instead of limited government, we need strong government capable of promoting the common good and defending moral common sense against the threat posed by unelected elites.

This proposed counter-revolution has little to do with conservatism as traditionally understood. It seeks not to limit the flaws in our founding principles but to replace them. Specifically, it is a revolt against liberalism, the political theory rooted in the Enlightenment that inspired the Declaration of Independence. This New Right is unabashedly anti-liberal, at the level of philosophical principle as well as political practice.

The essay distinguishes between different kinds of anti-liberalism. Fascism, for example, finds legitimacy in the “culture and spirit of a specific people.”  Then there is what the essay calls integralism, defined as a distinctive form of religious anti-liberalism that originated within Catholicism.

It arose many centuries before the emergence of liberalism, as a justification for the integration of Catholicism and political power that began under the Roman emperor Constantine and was completed in 380 by emperor Theodosius I, who embraced Christianity not only as his personal religion but also as the religion of his realm. At the end of the next century, Pope Gelasius I formalized the Catholic understanding in his famous distinction between priestly and royal authority. In matters concerning religious practice and ultimate salvation, Gelasius argued, political authorities are required to submit to the authority of the Church. 

The essay proceeds to outline the history of this melding of church with state, and its eventual decline, thanks to the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. While MAGA voters are highly unlikely to have heard of integralism, its resurgence among intellectuals on the Right is clearly influencing and shaping our current culture war. “Integralism” is at the root of current attacks on the very basis of the Enlightenment liberalism that undergirds America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Liberal philosophy distinguishes between public and private, and prohibits government from invading the zone of personal autonomy. Liberals may argue about where the line between public and private should be drawn, but they agree that the distinction exists and–more importantly– that it is morally fundamental.

Integralists “reject freedom of religion, and they are prepared to use government power in the name of public morality to control what liberals consider private and individual decisions.” They reject the goal of a legal or public culture that is neutral– that accommodates different beliefs about morality and/or religion.

That philosphical approach explains a lot.

For Integralists, culture war is the only war: seeing neutrality as a myth, they see the battle as Manichean, a war between advocates of personal autonomy and defenders of (their version of) traditional morality. 

This explains one of the most confusing aspects of Republicans’ U-turn from their former commitment to limited government. These “common good constitutionalists” want a government with the power to impose their version of the good society on everyone.

If political power always shapes culture, as increasing numbers of traditionalists are coming to believe, they will conclude that they must seize and use this power—if necessary, without the limits they have long advocated.

It’s a war between fundamental–and irreconcilable–world-views. One is consistent with American constitutionalism; one is unambiguously not.

Comments