Here’s a question:
Are some people inherently superior to others?
This question, if answered honestly, says a lot about a person’s overall worldview.
Most people, even if they actually believed the answer is yes, would probably answer no. Because the obvious follow-up to a yes answer is: Which people do you think are superior? And why? People usually would rather not, or cannot, acknowledge their prejudices and biases.
Here’s another question:
Should we try to effect change in society, or leave things as they are now?
To answer this question, we should ask: are things the way they are now optimal, or can we improve?
Most people would answer that we can improve. And so it immediately follows that we should try to effect change.
The answers to these questions seem so obvious to me. No, no one is inherently superior or more valuable than another: every life is unique and irreplaceable. No, society is not optimal: we have immense economic and social inequality, political polarization, and general fear and suspicion of one another. Yes, we should try to change society for the better.
It’s unfortunate, then, that so many people seem to reject these ideas.
The definition of conservative, according to Webster’s Unabridged 1913, is:
Tending or disposed to maintain existing institutions; opposed to change or innovation.
Now, things worth conserving, like national parks, should indeed be preserved and protected. But defaulting to preserving things only because “that is what has been done” is not valid.
We should constantly be challenging, and perhaps updating, our positions and beliefs, by considering new data and viewpoints. Yet conservatism is a tendency to default to, or exclusively demand, a lack of change. This is deeply, fundamentally incorrect. The only constant in life is change.
A little while ago, I was wondering about why sometimes people talk about “conservative” and “liberal”, but also about “right-wing” and “left-wing”. At the time I understood that right-wing is associated with conservatism and left-wing with liberalism.
I also knew that any leftist will be quick to point out the key difference between liberalism and leftism, which is, in brief, that liberals like capitalism and leftists do not.
So I wondered, is there any difference between right-wing politics and conservatism? I looked up right-wing politics and found:
Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable.
The shock I felt when reading this is what mainly drove me to write this post. Here it was, staring me in the face: a fundamental disagreement with the idea that we area all equally, inherently valuable. An affirmation that some kinds of people really are superior to others.
As with the tendency to reject change by default, I find this viewpoint deeply unappealing and strongly disagree with it.
But it’s now clear to me why conservatism and right-wing ideology are intertwined.
Right-wingers believe that there should be social hierarchies. Conservatives tend to reject change. Combine these, and we get the belief that existing social hierarchies should not be changed.
The belief is that the people who are currently favored by existing, entrenched hierarchies indeed should be favored, because they have been in the past.
As noted before, I believe that there are few who would publicly defend this viewpoint when stated as such. So conservatives tell others, and perhaps even tell themselves, that what they’re really concerned about are things like “making government more efficient” and “stopping illegal immigration”. This is convenient, because indeed, who would oppose increased efficiency or enforcement of law?
Indeed, I support government efficiency and the rule of law. That’s why I support policies that allow the government to collect the revenues it is owed by law, so that it can provide the services that are expected of it. And I support sentencing, and ideally rehabilitating, those convicted of crimes, regardless of whether the convicted is in a position of immense power, such as our President.
But conservatives do not appear to actually be concerned about all of that. Their effort to increase government efficiency is driven by political ideology, not return on investment. They cheered when their guy, a convicted felon, got the unprecedented sentence of “no sentence”.
The rich and powerful support slashing regulation and taxes (and enforcement of taxes) because it will enrich themselves, at the cost of the health, safety, and comfort of rest of us. They decry the social safety net while accepting massive tax breaks, subsidies, and grants.
It makes sense when we understand the core idea that underlies their various positions. The core idea is that they are superior, and thus deserve superior treatment. That’s why they accept government welfare for rich people, like tax breaks and loan forgiveness and bailouts, but scoff at welfare for the structurally disadvantaged. That’s why they say they’re against illegal immigration, but when it’s one of their guys, it’s OK.
Sometimes they slip up and say the quiet part out loud. But usually they are more subtle, more careful.
So I’ve devised a simple test which I use to evaluate policies, both existing and proposed:
Does this policy tend to benefit those who already have structural advantages and privileges?
If yes, I tend to oppose the policy, or, if I would support it, do so conditional on the enactment of other policies that aim to remove those structural advantages.
If no, I tend to support it.
This is not a hard and fast rule: few things are. And when I say “I’ve devised”, I don’t mean to imply that I’m the first person to have thought up these ideas. But I strive to have this be a core idea for me that informs my decisions and actions.