April 03, 2011
ranking the impurities of the outranked
Not that I needed a reminder of how impure I am, but Glenn Reynolds has linked a couple of great posts on libertarian purity by Tom Knighton which reminded me that I hardly alone in grappling with this problem.
Knighton's latest post discusses a touchy subject for some libertarian purists -- moderate libertarians.
I too would be unable to vote for a pro-gun control candidate as I feel very strongly about that issue. But even saying that brings to mind the question -- what is gun control? I am reminded of libertarian purists in Berkeley who once devoted the better part of an evening debating whether the sale of handguns in elementary school vending machines should be allowed. Such people may be pure, but they are not living in the real world. Not allowing guns to be sold in school vending machines is gun control, and I support that. So does that mean I am in favor of gun control? I don't think so.
To many libertarians, though, my greatest shortcoming is my tendency to support a strong defense, and even intervention into countries posing a threat to us. For supporting the war in Iraq I was repeatedly attacked as non-libertarian, so I graciously accepted the title of "pseudo libertarian." (Oh the pain.)
After years of struggling with ideological terminology, I still don't know what to call myself. Usually it's just "small-l libertarian." But if I had to be honest, I would have to admit that I am most likely either a conservative libertarian, or a libertarian conservative. (But don't ask me to define the difference; this stuff is hard enough as it is.)
I'm also an admitted pragmatist who doesn't especially like arguments, especially over ideology. These days especially, libertarian (better yet libertarianish) is a vague enough label that by calling yourself that you can keep a fairly low profile, and maximize your chances of avoiding interrogation or criticism from most purists as they don't know where to start. And in places like Berkeley or Ann Arbor, if you call yourself a libertarian people won't like it, but you won't face the same sort of reaction as if you call yourself a conservative. This is not to say there aren't genuine conservatives here; only that libertarians tend to have an easier time admitting to being libertarian than conservatives have to admitting conservative -- even though both tend to be in the closet for obvious reasons.
Not that what other people might think should ever influence what people call themselves, but this touches on the difference between what is admitted publicly and what is the truth. I have long suspected that some of the people calling themselves libertarian in leftist lalalands are actually conservatives who are trying to avoid flak. Whether that helps dishonestly expand libertarian ranks, I do not know. I am not interested in policing other people's purity, as I can barely police mine.
What is more dishonest? Being a conservative who calls himself a libertarian to make himself more palatable to liberals, or a libertarian who calls himself a conservative to make himself more palatable to conservatives?
And which term is more binding in the "purity" sense: libertarian? or conservative?
And exactly what is purity? How is it to be determined without reference to what other people think? I did not create these labels, so why should I have to live up to them? I mean, is it "my" purity I am talking about here, or is purity to be defined according to other people's standards?
I have recently felt obligated to discuss my conservative impurity, for if one thing is certain, it's that I do not measure up to the standards of many of the ideologues who define the term. A problem I have had for some time is that there are generally more people whose politics I cannot stand (and would not want to identify with) who call themselves "conservative" than there are people whose politics I abhor who call themselves libertarians. And because conservatism is an imprecise term, there is a natural tendency to allow it to be defined by default -- to the loudest self appointed conservative ideologues. Which means that if Michael Savage's political views constitute conservatism, it becomes easy to say, "If Michael Savage is a conservative, then I know I am not a conservative." Ditto Alan Keyes, WorldNetDaily, Robert Knight and the three-legged stool, and Steve King's statement of conservative principles (which I find too statist for my liking).
But does that settle it? Should whatever conservatism I possess be defined and measured by what I disagree with, or by what I agree with?
Ronald Reagan (known for saying that libertarianism is at the heart of conservatism) famously said that someone who agrees 80% of the time, is not a traitor but an ally. How that is to be squared with the "three-legged stool" phrase commonly attributed to him (but which I cannot find anywhere as a Reagan quote) I do not know.
But how is any "ism" to be measured? By listing all of the issues and totalling them up? Are not some issues more important than others? For example, I think it might be possible to disagree over marijuana laws or gay rights and still be philosophically conservative, but for the life of me I cannot see how anyone who supports gun control or socialized medicine can be considered a conservative. Notice that I did not list abortion, which looms ever larger as a litmus test for conservatism. If you are running for any political office, you might not be asked about drug laws or health care, but you absolutely will be vetted on the abortion issue, and given a RTL rating.
I don't make these rules, but it makes it difficult to figure out how to apply the 80% agreement rule, which doesn't seem to factor in the relative weight of the issues.
So, in coming up with a scale to measure someone's isms, it isn't just a question of listing the various issues and checking them off, but weighing them in terms of ideological importance.
Does it come down to what issues are the biggest deal killers for the greatest number of people? That sounds as if "purity" is an external measurement, enforced by others, and subject to change depending on the mood of the majority.
But is that really it? Is "purity" simply determined by a given majority of people at a point in time?
Or do the "leaders" get to decide these things. Is that it? Do those who outrank me get to rank my impurity?
Have I no impurity of essence to call my own?
Help me! I'm more confused than ever.
posted by Eric on 04.03.11 at 10:43 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
Why you might get more of what you try to stop
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?