Worldview: Political Philosophy
by A Concerned Citizen
back to the Main Menu
Retired on 31 December 2007
Table of Contents
Introduction
Democracy
Left vs. Right (Take 1)
What Makes a Conservative?
Introduction
This 'Worldview' website is primarily about politics, and even the religious discussion on these pages emphasizes the political ramifications. (For a fuller description of my spiritual views, you may go here.) Let me begin with some general observations. (Note: Upon review, this page seems less clearly written than most of my other pages, because I am ruminating about general impressions. I should perhaps rewrite it...)
It seems that most people form their political opinions based on some variation of 'groupthink', propelled by a strong current of personal and collective self-interest. Everybody thinks they are 'right' and the other side is 'wrong'. I don't want to sound like a moral relativist, but it is often distressingly easy to argue your case, whatever that case may be, as any good lawyer knows. It is enough to make one doubt the value of so-called 'reason' to determine the truth and settle disputes, though I certainly don't want to go down any post-modern path of skepticism and nihilism.
This is particularly clear in the case of war. Let us take the current (as of March 2006) war in Iraq as an example. The central problem, as usual, seems to be the distinction between 'offense' and 'defense'. President Bush justified the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of defending the United States from WMD and bringing democracy to the Middle East. Leaving aside the WMD fiasco for the moment, consider the notion of 'democratizing' a repressive state. This is interesting because, if we ignore the WMD aspect, then the invasion would surely seem belligerent according to the international norms which created the U.N. in the first place. Bush believed, and believes, not implausibly, that terrorism and the general stagnation in the region are caused or exacerbated by a lack of democracy and freedom. In his view, the long term goal justifies the means, including all the destruction, injury and death, and one could even argue that in the long run lives might be saved. In essence, he would claim that, not only Americans, but also Iraqis and civilization itself are being 'defended' by his policy. Not surprisingly, most Iraqis (according to this 2004 poll) view the Americans as occupiers and aggressors, even if the Shias are glad to be rid of Saddam's tyranny. Furthermore, Bush and the neocons simply brushed aside the question of whether Iraqi society is psychologically prepared for democracy, or whether the prevailing Islamo-tribal mentality presents a likely insurmountable obstacle to social engineering. (In fact, when has anybody even bothered to ask whether the Iraqis themselves wanted to be 'democratized', especially given the risk of anarchy and civil war?) Thus, Bush's argument for 'defending' Iraq rested on weak assumptions and did not represent the will of the Iraqis. It seems to have been based on a certain classical liberal ideology regarding human nature, developed during the European Enlightenment, whereby all people naturally yearn for freedom and democracy, rather than on hard contemporary facts. (Needless to say, the history and culture that conditioned the European Enlightenment were rather different than what prevails in Iraq today.)
There are countless further examples from history where each side was convinced that it was following moral principles. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to find anybody who thinks he is not right! The exception might be brazen pirates and gangsters. During the Cold War, the West was viewed by Marxists as dominated by a greedy and exploitative capitalist class, while the West pointed to the genocidal atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and other communists. Today, the militant Muslims are convinced that Islam should take over the world, because it is proclaimed by Allah. Islam takes precedence over any democratic ideals, which are in fact viewed as a kind of blasphemy against the word of Allah as revealed in the Sharia (Islamic law). Naturally, any argument based on a fanatical belief in some prophet or scripture is impossible to refute by logic; indeed, it seems designed to be impervious to reason. Once again, the distinction between aggression and defense depends heavily on one's ideology and principles, which in turn are strongly correlated with the social group to which one belongs.
A common problem is that people are inclined to see what they wish to see. This in turn is aggravated by the tendency to exaggerate and jump to conclusions. Again, the Iraq war can serve as an example that is still fresh in our minds. The 'far left' is convinced that Bush lied (regarding WMD in Iraq) and people died (due to the unwarranted American invasion). For them, it is as simple as that. This ignores the facts that many intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD (or was about to), that 9/11 had recently occurred, that Saddam wanted revenge against the U.S. even if he was not an Islamic terrorist per se, that Saddam had a long history of lying and stiffing the U.N., and that Saddam had proven himself capable of torture, genocide and other atrocities. There is much more to say on this, but clearly it is simplistic and unfair to assume that President Bush intentionally lied, despite the fact that WMD were not found after the invasion. On the other hand, one can accuse the Bush administration of being simplistic and even disingenuous in its selective presentation of dubious evidence regarding WMD. It seems that it cherry-picked the available intelligence to make its case, and this could be as misleading as outright deception, depending on just how the evidence was treated. Now one could argue that in such a dangerous and uncertain situation, the U.S. could not afford to take a chance with Saddam, and that it was up to Saddam to come clean with his weapons programs. (In fact, recent documents indicate that Saddam bluffed even with his own generals. Then again, Colin Powell recently said he never believed Saddam was close to having a nuke. So much confusion!) My point is that the truth is often ambiguous and uncertain, yet people assume otherwise in the heat of political emotion and blurt out simple-minded slogans. (A stronger case for deception on the part of the Bush administration is with respect to the alleged Saddam-Al Qaeda link.)
Or take the case of the supposed torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I do not deny that misdeeds took place, but one can debate whether they rise to the level of torture as commonly understood, namely, the breaking of bones or electrocuting of testicles. (Even 'waterboarding' does not quite rise to that level, though I do not condone it. And did you ever read this story in the MSM?) What bothers me very much is that the left, in both America and throughout the world, is fixated on American misbehavior while remaining oblivious to the vastly worse and more frequent crimes of militant Islam, which include 9/11, terrorist bombings in Israel and elsewhere, genocide in Darfur, the torture and death of apostates and homosexuals, the mutilation of female genitals, the frequent oppression of non-Muslims, and so on. Furthermore, the American political process has put an end to the abuses of POWs, while such corrective action rarely occurs in the Muslim world. You would think that the left would at least notice the aggression against homosexuals and women! It seems very much as though much of the left is in the grips of a nasty and infantile attitude in which 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', where the prime enemy is the big, bad capitalistic world, as epitomized by the United States. This allows them to focus on the anomalous crimes of the Americans, while ignoring the everyday crimes of barbaric societies, whether these be Communist or Islamic. The basic political dirty trick is to shine the spotlight of attention on one small piece of the picture. Such behavior is typical of a group of people more concerned with resentful identity politics than with knowing the truth. And it is such a cheap and easy game to play, as well as emotionally combustible. Perfect for demagogues! Democracy cannot survive if too many people allow themselves to be resentful, angry, and dishonest.
Another glaring example of collective prejudice involves the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. As I have argued elsewhere, Israel does have the right to exist, and I will return to this issue. For now I wish to focus on the world's reaction to the recent decade of Palestinian intifada in response to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. First of all, the occupation arose due to naked Arab aggression by the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria which led to the 1967 war, from which Israel emerged victorious. Furthermore, the charters of the PLO and Hamas have never accepted Israel's right to exist. Given this background, the occupation is certainly justified as self-defense. It is up to the Arabs to prove that they have accepted Israel, before Israel withdraws from its buffer zone. Even the settlements can be viewed as the price the Palestinians must pay for their failure to negotiate a sincere peace. But instead of facing reality and cutting a deal, they have indulged in pointless and hideous terrorism, blowing up civilians in public places on many occasions, sometimes using women and children as suicide bombers. From reading the BBC online — hardly a 'right-wing' media outlet — it seems to me that Israel usually launches commando raids into the occupied territories in response to Palestinian atrocities, as they must. Rather rarely, they engage in a pre-emptive attack when they receive intelligence of impending terrorism, which again is justified provided the intelligence is reliable. Needless to say, the Palestinian terrorists make little attempt to separate their operations from the general civilian population, but rather seem to follow an odious policy of protecting themselves with human shields. Yet an amazing fraction of the world, including supposedly educated, civilized and liberal Europeans, condemns the Israelis as 'murderers' and 'Nazis' and sympathizes with the Palestinians as 'oppressed victims'. That large fraction of the world seems to correspond with the left of the political spectrum, which suggests that the left reflexively takes the side of the perceived 'underdog', without asking whether that underdog might nevertheless be engaging in criminal behavior. Again, this is a case of group bias filtering the facts of reality according to prejudice and resentment and drawing up a subjective distinction between 'offense' and 'defense'.
Such depressing observations have made me eager to liberate my thinking from all forms of group and personal bias, including the political partisanship to which the chattering classes are addicted. At the same time, one must avoid an insipid and ultimately hypocritical refusal to take any sides at all. We must at least declare the truth, even if we are reluctant to take strong measures for coping with it, such as resorting to violence. I can forgive a pacifist, but not a naive or lying pacifist. At the same time, some conflicts are truly ambiguous, and it may not be at all clear that there is even a 'right' side.
Back to Political Philosophy
Democracy
My Concern (29 July 06): On several occasions, I have declared that I am a 'liberal democrat' in the classic sense, by which I understand a government under a democratic constitution, with a balance of powers, separation of church and state, and a bill of rights that protects minorities and guarantees maximum personal freedom consistent with public security. We Americans tend to consider democracy as a kind of sacred cow and the very definition of 'justice'. However, democracy by no means guarantees good government (either in a moral or bureaucratic sense) and is by no means a panacea for society's problems. Eventually, I hope to discuss this paradox in detail and with taboo-defying candor.
Strongman Sometimes Necessary (24 Nov 06): Daniel Pipes mentions an article by John F. Burns in the New York Times advocating a strongman for Iraq before democracy can become feasible — something Pipes himself has long advocated. Quoting Burns,
President Bush and the necocons were very naive to think that all we needed to do was get rid of the bad guy and democracy would spontaneously bloom. Democracy may not be appropriate for a society until it reaches a certain level of stability, education and maturity. Pipes and Burns emphasize only the stability. What about the other two more esoteric qualities? Is a true democracy possible in a Muslim society?
UPDATE (8 Dec 06): I just wrote an article along these lines here.
Back to Political Philosophy
Left vs. Right (Take 1)
The Big Picture (16 Jun 06): David Warren, whose articles I enjoy reading, has raised an issue that I've been wanting to discuss for a long time: the distinction between 'conservative' and 'liberal', or between the 'right' and 'left' of the political spectrum. I use these terms too, even though I know they are deeply flawed. Something about politics demands a degree of polarization for there to be a coherent discussion, or so it seems to one-dimensional minds. Being blessed with a multi-dimensional mind, I will disagree with Warren's premise that one is reduced to this binary choice.
This is a very important discussion. There is no doubt that many 'liberal' and 'left-wing' political activists talk this way, especially about crime, and it has done incalculable harm to the Democrats and to the true, responsible liberals. (Note: Warren is Canadian, but I am speaking as an American.) I am in favor of vigorous but fair law and order. To understand how the 'Left' got the reputation for being soft on crime, at least in America, we must recall that from the '60s onwards, though perhaps not so much in recent years, a disproportionate amount of crime has been committed by black people, particularly poor blacks from the inner city. Following the civil rights era, there was a tendency to sympathize with black people and to feel guilty for slavery, which, combined with anger over the Vietnam war, cause some soft-headed and/or viciously anti-American leftists to indulge in an inexcusable apologetics for minority crime. Actually, this was a huge betrayal of the original idealistic color-blindness of the civil rights movement. There has also been much middle-class anger over quotas, in the workplace or at school, and again I am sympathetic to those who call the quotas racist, despite the legacy of slavery for which the quotas are supposed to be a remedy. Poor Asian immigrants succeed without quotas, and so can other minorities; it has more to do with character than with handouts. Furthermore, the very real and obnoxious phenomenon of 'political correctness' is the curse of the Left, which often has undertones of reverse racism against successful white people.
Thus, as far as crime and political correctness are concerned, I suppose that I would be categorized as a 'conservative', though I reject the label, at least in this context. Everybody should be serious about crime, and everybody should tell the truth, even about sensitive subjects like race and religion. This means avoiding either bigotry or whitewashing. As far as crime or truth are concerned, the distinction between liberal and conservative is largely bogus. Those liberals who have excused criminals and totalitarians are simply criminals themselves, at least in principle. However, there are some specific issues within the broad subject of crime where the distinction might make sense. For instance, I am appalled at all the exonerations of death row inmates due to DNA evidence. For this reason alone, I think it would be best to avoid the death penalty, except in the most dire cases. However, even this is a question of basic justice, rather than of any political ideology. Another issue where I might be considered 'liberal' is on the punishment for non-violent crimes, such as drug possession. I feel it is too severe to send ordinary drug users to prison to mingle with the hardened criminal population. This rather 'medieval' punishment reminds me of the hysteria of witch hunting. Unfortunately, politicians of all stripes are too cowardly to resist public sentiment on this hot-button item, though I doubt that the sentiment is as widespread as supposed.
As for the breakdown of the family, I agree that having children is a very serious business, and no one should have them unless fully prepared, both psychologically and financially. That is one reason I favor the woman's right to choose in the first trimester or so. In general, a lack of morality and personal responsibility can undoubtedly destroy society, or at least civilized society. So I agree with the conservatives that reproduction entails a sacred responsibility, namely that of another life who is there through your choice. However, this same sense of responsibility makes me favor the woman's right to choose, which is generally considered a 'liberal' cause, and which again shows the spurious nature of the liberal vs. conservative dichotomy.
In private life, I favor as much personal freedom as possible, which would seem to be 'liberal'. Or is it? If conservatives want the government out of our lives, as they so often claim, then that makes them 'liberal' in the classic sense. But in that case, the pious 'conservative' Christians who are so powerful in the Republican party seem rather totalitarian in spirit, though one should not go overboard with any insults. My desire for personal freedom is not a mere lifestyle preference but something that my soul craves. I detest conformity, which goes a long way towards explaining my disgust with Islam and with totalitarian ideologies in general. The state can never force people to be moral; it can only prevent them from being grossly immoral. How curious that those 'liberals' who strayed too far to the left fell in love with Communism! Again, we see the deceptive nature of simplistic labels. Furthermore, let's be honest that the very definition of 'moral' is somewhat ambiguous, which in no way makes me a 'moral relativist'.
And for religious organizations, I do agree with their social importance, but I would prefer that they resemble the Eastern religions in spirit, with an emphasis on inner spirituality and theological freedom. This spirit may include some kinds of open-minded Christianity or Judaism. Sincere agnostics or atheists can also be 'spiritual', if they care about the psychological well-being of all humans. Pious Christians like Warren often seem to imply that, without the support of a traditional theistic religion like Christianity, one is condemned to a nihilistic void, but this is mere parochialism.
Regarding popular culture, I will admit that I have mixed feelings. Freedom of speech has always been one of my sacred cows, but sometimes I have doubts, when I consider the vulgarity of much of popular culture today. In particular, I am impressed with how easily youths are brainwashed. They often think they are being 'cool' when they are only being stupid and insolent, all of which is amplified by the mind-numbing power of groupthink, to which adolescents are particularly susceptible. And there may indeed be a connection between crime and violence in the media. There must be some limits to rudeness and insanity, even in the media, but what about freedom of expression? A good example is the movie 'Clockwork Orange', which is ingenious and disturbing. As it happens, this movie encouraged me to dislike the excesses of popular culture by portraying them so vividly. Banning 'crucifixes in urine' could soon lead to banning brilliant and challenging books or films which actually help to understand the diseases in society. Surgery isn't pretty, either. Or what about Fellini's 'Satyricon'? (I know only old movies!) It is a portrayal of decadence with no apparent redeeming value, just pure entertainment, but I consider it quite brilliant and spectacular, and watching it does not make me insecure about my sexuality. (On the other hand, I also appreciate a good edifying classic like 'A Man for All Seasons' or Errol Flynn's 'Robin Hood'!) What Fellini and Kubrick have in common is intelligence, which is often lacking in popular culture. I guess we'll just have to live with that.
Anyhow, let me get back to my main point. I see no reason why we can't strive for a society which allows complete freedom of thought and expression, while expecting civility and responsible behavior. The Hindus have largely achieved this; they are famously tolerant yet invariably polite (at least until they become Westernized). It is too defeatist to say or imply that freedom and civility are mutually exclusive; rather, they are a balancing act we must learn to perform if we want to enjoy a high-quality life. It starts with a good family. If you are too dim-witted to perform this balancing act, then go join a Muslim society, where all your thinking is done for you, and even your personal hygiene is regulated by Allah. So if 'freedom' stands for 'liberal' and 'civility' stands for 'conservative', then obviously we need both, and again the liberal vs. conservative distinction is spurious.
So much for the cultural aspect of the false liberal/conservative dichotomy. Now on to economics and politics, as briefly as possible. Economically, I am in favor of a progressive tax which does not exceed 33% or so, even for the richest. The number is somewhat arbitrary, but 50% is surely too much. I see nothing wrong with fiscally responsible government aid such as scholarships or low-interest loans on housing, which helps less advantaged people, and which they eventually pay back according to their ability. The GI Bill after WWII boosted thousands of veterans into the middle class and led to unprecedented prosperity. It is the excesses of such programs, and the corruption that they attract, which have given them a bad reputation. Also, I am inclined towards some basic safety net of universal health care, if only to keep poor people from using the emergency room, and to help those who have lost their jobs or who are otherwise struggling, but at the same time I am well aware of the dangers of an out-of-control and politicized social program. Again, it is a question of the intelligence and sense of responsibility on the part of the public, and not of 'right' vs. 'left'.
As for politics, I will just mention war. The current war in Iraq is a good example of how the 'conservatives' go wrong (and do wrong) with misleading rhetoric. I happen to think that this particular war is a bad idea, as do many other moderate and reasonable people, but the Republicans go out of their way to paint dissidents as 'appeasers' and to conflate the Iraq war with the fight against terrorism in general. Sometimes I am amazed at the foolishness of the rhetoric, on both sides. The question of war is never a 'hawk' vs. 'dove' issue, but rather requires a very careful examination of what is truly in our interest, what is the most probable outcome, and what is morally justified. Furthermore, one must be based in the empirical facts of the present reality, so that mindless slogans like 'stay the course' should play no part. The Republicans are doing little to raise the level of the public discourse, but then neither are the Democrats. There is a curse upon us!
Some Further Points:
Back to Political Philosophy
What Makes a Conservative?
Introduction (16 Jan 07): This section was inspired by something Heather Mac Donald said in a blog called Gene Expression, where she was answering some questions on Christianity and conservatism. She is a political conservative and an atheist, who feels increasingly irked by the overt sanctimony and self-righteousness of the Republican party. The discussion of religion and politics is for another page (called, appropriately enough, Politics and Religion). Here, I would like to address her concise definition of what it means to her to be 'conservative', highlighted in the following excerpt.
Hmmmm. The fundamental conservative principles of personal responsibility and the rule of law? I consider myself rather 'liberal', in both the classic and modern senses of the word, but I always believed that responsibility and respect for the law were essential to any intelligent and mature notion of liberalism. This will require some discusssion...
Back to Political Philosophy
Let me interject that I am not a 'conservative' as normally understood in America today. For example, I am inclined in favor of some form of universal health insurance, and I have doubts about 'free trade' that seems not to be 'fair trade'. Also, I am very secular on matters involving religion and the state and look with apprehension on the power of Christian conservatives over the GOP. I will discuss this in more detail later.
Consider the following excerpt from an interview with Claire Berlinski: 'In a poll conducted by researchers at the University of Bielefeld, it was found that 51 percent of Germans believed Israel's present-day treatment of the Palestinians to be equivalent to the Nazi atrocities against European Jews during the Second World War; 68 percent believed that Israel was waging a war of extermination against the Palestinians; 82 percent were angered by Israel's policies toward the Palestinians; 62 percent were sick of all this harping on about German crimes against Jews, and 68 percent found it annoying that Germans today were still held to blame for Nazi crimes. In a triumph of understatement, the German pollsters remarked that the findings may be worrying.'
Wikipedia: Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy
Wikipedia: George Lakoff (importance of metaphor)
James Bovard: Attention Deficit Democracy
It is something ordinary Iraqis say with growing intensity, even as they agree on little else. Let there be a strongman, they say, not a relentless killer like Saddam Hussein but somebody who will take the hammer to the insurgents and the death squads and the kidnappers and the criminal gangs who have banished all pretense of civility from their lives. Let him ride roughshod, if he must, they say, over the niceties of due process and human rights, indeed over the panoply of democratic institutions America has tried to implant here, if only he can bring peace.
De Tocqueville: Democracy can be tyrannical too
David Warren: Left vs. Right: The Great Divide
Briefly, Warren deplores the welfare state, which 'redistributes half of income'; the nanny state, which prevents people from smoking in public or even in special bars and restaurants; and the anti-traditional state, which erodes the moral order by destroying family, church and other institutions which have long served as bulwarks against the atomization of society. 'Break them', he says, 'and the citizen becomes a kind of jelly to be fit into any desired new mould.' He even accuses the 'Left' of promoting just enough crime to keep people afraid and subservient to the state, all the while taking their guns away or passing laws against using them except in the most desperate situations, by which time you may already be dead. The 'liberal', he says, instinctively identifies with the criminal, and the 'conservative' with the victim. The average 'liberal' doesn't have the guts to be a criminal, but he loves 'soiling the respectable'.
This mindset continues with the whitewashing of militant Islam, all because the Muslims are seen as another 'minority' which is 'oppressed' by the West, and by America in particular, all of which is untrue. The problems of Muslims arise from the aggressive, intolerant and anti-rational ideology of Islam itself, which simply makes civilization impossible. (The brief moments of 'Islamic Civilization' were but feasting on the spoils of the conquered.) Even our 'footprint' in the Middle East, which I would like to see reduced, is not to blame, since we also have a footprint in Asia and other successful regions. No, the problem is Muslim culture and thinking, or lack thereof. The dictators and the mullahs are both manifestations of this mentality.
17 Jun 06: The Republicans would have us believe that the ACLU exists to protect criminals and terrorists. I don't deny the excesses of the civil rights groups, and many of them do seem insufficiently concerned about the enormous danger of nuclear terrorism. But let us remember that prominent conservative groups with a libertarian flavor, like CATO, have also expressed much concern about what the War on Terror may be doing to civil liberties.
17 Jun 06: I am no fan of Michael Moore and his now forgotten and no doubt worthless documentary on the Iraq war. However, it just occurred to me how he was excoriated for calling the Iraqi insurgents 'freedom fighters'. This is worth examining, because he was both right and wrong, but his poor choice of language displayed his prejudice. The insurgents have been 'freedom fighters' to the extent that everyone hates a foreign occupier. The Republicans, with their trumpeting of patriotism, should understand this better than anyone. However, the label 'freedom fighter' also suggests a virtuous group fighting a tyrant, and this only betrayed Moore's anti-Americanism. Our Iraq adventure may have been a blunder, but our intentions were good; indeed, they were to establish freedom and democracy.
17 Jun 06: My previous point reminds me of how some on the left vilified veterans returning from Vietnam. Not only was this despicable and grossly unfair, it was also a major political blunder. I think I know why this happened. Many hawks, then and now, tend to come from rural or Southern parts of America, the kind of people that blue-state urbanites sometimes refer to as 'rednecks'. Most of the anti-war protesters were in fact from urban areas, or from college campuses full of urban people. Many veterans, on the other hand, were from rural areas, so they were smeared by the protesters regardless of their actual views. This was sheer bigotry. Everybody should be judged on an individual basis. I am sure that all parts of America have many fine people who can think for themselves. Besides, there were honorable reasons to be in favor of the Vietnam war, though I tend to agree that the war was unnecessary and a result of the usual failure of good judgment on the part of the American government. Anyhow, that is history. I just want liberals to realize that they can be bigots too.
19 Jun 06: When I read conservative articles, it seems that the most scorned of the lefties are those who sum up their opposition to the Iraq war with the catchphrase 'Blood for Oil'. Actually, I think this would be one of the better reasons for being in Iraq, if it did come down to that. A sudden loss of oil would precipitate a catastrophic shock in the American economy, with repercussions throughout the world, and ensuing political turmoil. Many thousands could die, and widespread famine is not inconceivable. The same realism which makes me skeptical of the neo-conservative neo-colonialism also gives me an honest appreciation for the importance of oil in our foreign policy. However, I think that dictators and theocrats would continue selling us their oil, as they did before, so that regime change is not justified for this purpose.
28 Jun 06: The right shows its foolishness with flag burning and the charge of 'cut and run' against those who have well-considered reasons for withdrawing from Iraq. But the left also shows its foolishness, and two issues that spring to mind are Israel and global warming. There is a growing antagonism on the left towards Israel, matched by a growing sympathy for Palestinians. As I have discussed elsewhere, this is to me quite clearly a case of political bigotry. The Israelis have certainly behaved no worse than the Palestinians. It is the left instinctively siding with the 'oppressed', i.e. any and all losers, no matter how criminal their behavior. I am even more bemused by the left's almost religious devotion to the cause of global warming. I am sure that 99% of them have no idea about the science and are simply believing some 'consensus' concocted in the liberal press. Now if they were simply inclined towards global warming, that would be one thing. But behold the almost fanatical zeal for this cause on so many left-oriented sites. This is clearly identity politics rather than science.
Michael J. Thompson (Logos): The Crisis of American Liberalism
Ottawa Citizen: Dream world a strange, scary place for liberals
Arnold Kling (TCS Daily): From Far Left to Libertarian
10 QUESTIONS FOR HEATHER MAC DONALD
Gene Expression blog, 02 Jan 07
So in the American Conservative piece I wanted to offer some resistance to the assumption of conservative religious unanimity. I tried to point out that conservatism has no necessary relation to religious belief, and that rational thought, not revelation, is all that is required to arrive at the fundamental conservative principles of personal responsibility and the rule of law. I find it depressing that every organ of conservative opinion reflexively cheers on creationism and intelligent design, while delivering snide pot shots at the Enlightenment. Which of the astounding fruits of empiricism would these Enlightenment-bashers dispense with: the conquest of cholera and other infectious diseases, emergency room medicine, jet travel, or the internet, to name just a handful of the millions of human triumphs that we take for granted?