"While serving as bishop for the local diocese, current San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer liked to say that society needed both conservatives and liberals because a car needed both an accelerator and a brake.
When he offered Catholic sacraments to a homosexual couple not long ago — prompting an outcry — he was working the accelerator.
Now, by calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who supports abortion but still takes communion — and asking her to meet him for a chat, the archbishop is apparently applying the brakes."
I think this analogy is not quite correct. It makes it sound like this country has only one direction to go and the speed is either fast or slow. We use the terms "left" and "right" for a reason. We are deciding the direction much of the time, not the speed. My advice to the left (which I freely offer because I know it won't be heeded) is to go in small increments rather than huge leaps. No one worries too much about small increments, but huge leaps (like currently well-known liberal issues in MA and CA) cause backlash and hurt the liberal cause.
7 comments:
Yup, its hard to whip a U-turn with the Queen Mary. Change is best handled when it comes slowly.
I have been anxious to respond to this posting by Alan.
First of all, Alan's choice of this article as a point of departure is very perceptive. And his analysis is tempting. However, after thinking about it a bit, I must disagree.
The terms left and right, conservative and liberal are themselves traditional terms that don't work so well anymore. Other countries have continued to use them as well, but what those terms mean can be quite different depending on the width of the political spectrum. Conservatives in Canada may not like gay marriage or abortion, but they cannot base seriously any party platforms on them. It is just too late, the population has moved on. The same with other social questions such as the abolition of the death penalty, euthanasia, welfare issues, and socialized medicine, depending on the country. In Poland, a much more religious, conservative country, the conservative party is very interested in these social questions. In highly secular and increasingly less religious countries like Canada, England and France, the conservative parties realize that they are no longer on the table for discussion. And there is no going back.
I don't like the word liberal and left really. Many on the 'left' agree and so the word 'progressive' has been claimed by the left. I like it a lot. It is my attachment to this word that causes me to disagree with Alan. I do indeed believe that there are only two directions: forward or backward. The word 'progressive' embraces the notion of forward. In this way of thinking, the Archbishop is very right: liberal notions do indeed connote an accelerator advancing us forward and conservative reactions are usually a brake. We lurch ahead herky-jerky, but we move ahead.
Many would say that gay marriage, euthanasia, women's reproductive rights, cessation of the death penalty etc would be a step backwards. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that policies that open up more privileges and rights to people are progressive. As well policies that allow for more personal choice are progressive. Policies rooted in empathy and compassion are progressive. And on the contrary, policies that restrict these notions are restrictive and regressive
The balancing act is making sure that one person's access to rights and privileges do not impede someone else's. Gay marriage in no way impedes anyone else to marry and in no material way I can imagine harms anyone. Euthanasia prevents no one from struggling to maintain life and forces no one to choose euthanasia. Both examples are simply a broadening of options the exercise thereof harms no one else. It is simply free agency working. There may be a lot of traditional and emotional (read religious) reasons, but no logical reasons based on the increase of or access to personal liberties.
I believe that there are indeed only those two directions: progressive and regressive. And I acknowledge that progressive change can come too fast. However, quick progressive change is not dangerous and is less disrupting in very secular societies. It can be dangerous and very disruptive in religious societies.
As well, small increments are relative: it's been 40 years since the the most tumultuous of modern years-1968-and so much has changed so dramatically, and all this in our lifetimes. I should think that progressive social, and environmental, and social economic change will only accelerate.
This is all the more true if observed in a spectrum of only 150 years: abolition of slavery, suffrage, social security etc. Compare the last 150 years with the previous 150 and you will see what I mean. Conservatives have always clung to the status-quo and the past. I think that conservatives have their place: they help us to progress wisely by throwing on the brakes and forcing reflection.
You are right to say that societies are unlikely to turn back (i.e., to 'regress') to former ways once a change has been implemented, especially in large countries. I don't think that should imply that the change was inevitable, or that the change had to happen the way it did. To say that we can only progress in one direction at a variable speed is typical one-dimensional thinking. I suppose that is ok if there is only one acceptable outcome, but certainly there are other possible outcomes (acceptable or not). Therefore, I do not accept your premise that liberals ('progressives') accelerate forward and that conservatives ('regressives?') brake or move backward. Your statement that "conservatives have always clung to the status-quo and the past" is clearly incorrect. Take the following examples.
---
It was the Republican Party that fought against Copperhead Democrats for emancipation of the slaves. Incidentally, much of the media at the time was virulently anti-Lincoln. Let’s suppose that the Democrats and the media got their way. We may have wound up with two countries: The Free North and the Slave South.
It was mainly early western states (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and other states inhabited mainly by those insufferable conservative Mormons) that pushed for women's suffrage (which was opposed by many newspaper writers, but initially recognized by the US congress, and then revoked when they didn't vote they way congress wanted them to).
It was mainly the Republican Party that lead the way and fought for Civil Rights against southern Democrats (Bull Conner being one of the worst). Newspapers early on were not kind to the Civil Rights Movement or were at least ambivalent (the NY Times hardly covered it at all, but that changed later). We would be horrified to think of the state of the nation had the Democrats got their way.
There are more examples, but over history it has been Democrats who have been against social change issues. When conservatives see the rightness of an issue, they are passionately for it. The term 'conservative' seems to imply 'little or no change,' but that is not what history teaches us.
---
Suppose we were to take the analogy out to its logical conclusion and we were to drive in a straight line (ignore obvious turns in the road, just barrel over hill and dale) in our heavily bumper-stickered vehicle at 55 mph with the conservatives in the back screaming "you're driving like a bat out of hell!" Eventually we arrive at the 'progressive' utopia that every 'progressive' desires. Does the vehicle we are all happily riding in conveniently come to a stop? Do we pitch our tents and sing Kumbaya (oh yeah, that is a religious song which will probably be banned from the public arena)? Of course, no one believes such a thing will happen. I have my ideas as to what would happen, and I am not sure that the 'arrivists' (we can no longer use 'progressive' at this point because there is no more 'progress' to be made – we have arrived!) would be too happy about the result. I realize that all analogies breakdown at some point and perhaps I have taken it too far.
Alan, your last paragraph was brilliantly written. Bravo! You may well have chosen jobs beneath your talent. Or maybe you are equally talented in the areas you currently pursue. No matter. Your writings are intriguing because you write thoughtfully and with passion.
Your analogy works fine and arrives at the inevitable conclusion that plagues all utopias. The utopia that your 'arrivists' have delivered themselves to has the principle problems of all imagined utopias including the ever nebulous notion of heaven, what DO we DO once there? Utopias of perfect social justice and the perfect society manifestly cannot exist in this life and can only exist in any spheres our imaginations conjure up. It is our nature to pursue them.
As for your examples regarding the Republican Party, you are certainly right regarding the examples given. But I never mentioned the word Republican in my post. I intended to compare the notion of conservative and liberal. I don't believe that the current Republican Party is the same Republican Party of one hundred and fifty years ago. Times and parties change...often a lot. Democrats of 80 years ago were dramatically more conservative compared to today's. At times, Republicans of the past were not so conservative, they were the ones pushing the liberal ideas as you pointed out. Certainly Democrats have taken conservative positions. Both parties have progressed in many areas, and both have in the past held appalling positions by modern standards. I maintain that the Republican Party of today is the one that puts on the brakes. I think Dems are more responsive to those changes. I do not dispute that the Republican Party has in the past taken positions that Democrats in that same past saw as radical and liberal.
An example of how conservative/liberal notions weave through history in interesting ways: Joseph Smith was seen by non-Mormons as very radical and even libertine because of polygamy. Mormon ideas of God, eternal progression, and a pre-existence are indeed very radical still today when compared to staid Christian thinking. I don't think that Joseph Smith would have been called a conservative in his time.
My point remains. Conservatives, regardless of the name of the party assuming conservative positions, tend to conserve the status quo, and liberals tend to be first to embrace change which is often progressive. Today's Republican Party takes many conservative positions in the face of social change.
Unfortunately, social change is the first litmus test that we apply these days to decide if one is to the right or the left (conservative or progressive as I prefer). I have fallen prey to that conundrum. There are many other problems that matter a great deal.
Deadlines, deadlines, deadlines.
They are coming fast and heavy, so I will keep my comments short.
In my mind, conservatives are happy for change that is the right kind of change. Just because the change doesn't agree with the liberal agenda doesn't mean conservatives are against change. Conservative are simply for a different kind of change.
I perceive an implication from liberal writings that liberals consider themselves enlightened whereas conservatives are stodgy and stupid (religious conservatives) or simply evil (fiscal/business conservatives), because they are against change.
However, an example of change that conservatives like would be a return to a balanced budget. Conservatives have always desired this, but have given up the fight as hopeless. Reversing the direction of the national debt is another concept that conservatives wish for, but have thrown up their hands in despair. Remember the balanced-budget amendment? Liberals hated the concept and fought it tooth and nail. Why? Because it would prevent them from growing the government. Why do liberals want to raise taxes (even though they state otherwise for election purposes)? Because it grows government. What is the end result of an ever growing government? Look even further down the road than you are imagining right now. The end is not pretty.
Yes, conservatives are for change, just not the change that liberals want.
Also, thank you for the Bravo.
I can't speak worth a lick (like in church). I can lecture about Japanese grammar because I know it well, but when given time to think and write (and erase a lot) I do a bit better. Thank you for being a good sparing partner.
Thank you, cher frère.
Post a Comment