On Becoming a Conservative

[ymarkov]

People always ask me how I came from my generation and became a conservative. It's hard to pinpoint where the rebellion began, but I can tell you the moment I knew I wasn't of the left.

I was going to a big antiwar demonstration in Washington. I think it was the spring of '71, and I think we were going to shut the government down. Early that evening, before we got in the buses that would take us down the Jersey Turnpike, we went to a rally in the student union and a guy got up and made a speech. I think he was high. I think we were high. He said words to the effect of, Let's face it, man, this is a country whose greatest contribution to humanity is Coca-Cola, which we make in a lab, sell on TV, and force down the bloated throats of Third World children who are dying of malnutrition.

Hooray, everyone said.

I listened to the kids on the bus. They were very earnest. I listened to the grown-ups, women with intense faces and men who were starting to wear beads and medallions. Everybody's liberal parents, hurtling down the turnpike toward mayhem. I couldn't get in the spirit, into the swing. I kept observing. There was contempt for the nineteen-year-old boys who were carrying guns in the war or in the Guard. It was understood that they were uneducated, and somewhat crude. There was contempt for America:

-What can you expect of a culture that raises John Wayne to the status of hero?

-We were founded on violence and will meet our undoing in violence.

-We're at the collective mercy of a bunch of insecure males who have a phallic fascination with guns.

-We're a racist, genocidal nation with an imperialistic lust for land that isn't ours, and... and...

And get me off this bus! I looked around, and I saw those mouths moving and shrank in my seat. What am I doing with these people? What am I doing with these intellectuals or whatever they are, what am I doing with this - this contemptuous elite? As far as I was concerned they were encouraging the real bastards of the world. As far as I was concerned from here on in I would use my McGovern button as a roach clip. And what was the Democratic party doing on the side of these people?

Peggy Noonan, "What I Saw at the Revolution", page 15

Comments

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

Very interesting. I'm sure I'd have had a similar, if less drastic, reaction. I'd see this as one "elite" fighting another.

We have learned since then - even we liberals. Note that there are few (if any) protests and demonizations against the troops themselves. While there are always extremists (on any side) who believe that participation, no matter how remote or indirect, is an indictment, most of us are now ready and willing to separate the action from the actor. Many of us who were most opposed to the war at the start are still trying to be ardent supporters of the troops themselves.

But this brings up another discomfiting parallel: are we willing to absolve the soldiers of the problematic responsibility because they were "just following orders"?

[24816.livejournal.com]

Just today it came to me that the leftists seem as pretentious and perverted as crusaders.

Пастор встречается с раввином и говорит:
- Мне сегодня приснился странный сон. Будто попал я в еврейский рай.
И там такая грязь, вонь и толкотня!
- А мне, - говорит раввин, - снилось, будто попал я в христианский рай.
И там так чисто, светло, сплошное благоухание - и ни души!

This article has been around for awhile, but just in case: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3020
-FI

[bringing-peace.livejournal.com]

well said and to the point

[antidos.livejournal.com]

FI, do you support allowing abortions in the case of a rape ?

[24816.livejournal.com]

I don't have an opinion on every issue.
-FI

[yyi.livejournal.com]

the interesting question here (about troops) is how much this recognition is a fundamental change of attitude and how much just a political expediency (or even paternalism, in the other extreme). it is also interesting how leftists tend to always place themselves into the position of an "absolver" and not "absolvee" ;)

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

I can only truly answer for myself and those with whom I'm close, but I think it is a change in attitude - people seem to be willing to recognise that not everyone involved in an enterprise may support or be responsible for the goals of that enterprise. Especially in a military situation, where the soldiers have sworn an oath to obey orders - not to think about them.

Personally, I find that people from ALL points in the spectrum tend to be less than willing to admit wrongdoing and ask for forgiveness. And, sadly, those who are least willing to admit/ask are often the ones who most need to do so.

[yyi.livejournal.com]

there are three options:
1. to absolve
2. to seek absolution
3. to seek truth/understanding or simply mind one's own business/responsibility

clearly few (whatever political orientation) like to choose option 2 (not counting as a "better" representative of a larger class - e.g. "seeking absolution" for US). but my sense is that leftists are more likely to do 1 while rightists tend towards 3. perhaps I am just biased - but it seems to jive with, say, Hayek's or Johnson's interpretations of the left/intellectuals as those "who know how";)

[yyi.livejournal.com]

as any generalization this is way oversimplified, so I probably should not have...

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

Well, you didn't include that third one as an option originally... ;-)
There may be some bias involved; I'm a center-leftist overall (toward the center in some issues, to the left on others, and on the right for a very few). for charged topics, I see few of any stripe actually *doing* #3, though many *claim* to. But for many, seeking out a situation which confirms pre-determined biases is what masquerades as truth-seeking.

It's all human nature, and I don't think that one political orientation is significantly more predisposed toward this behaviour than another.

[yyi.livejournal.com]

I guess I should have included as a sub-option simply stating and defending a position (without absolving anyone or asking for absolution).

>seeking out a situation which confirms pre-determined biases is what masquerades as truth-seeking.

that very well may be - it was not my point. I was talking about judging others as opposed to judging/justifying one's own actions. and even there, not just judging in the context of an argument ("me right - you wrong"), but in a sort of "absolute" way, from the point of view of "The Truth". it is this propensity that imho correlates with the central planning, government-oriented solutions, etc.

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

Ah, I *think* I understand now.

From what I can tell, in US politics the right/left divide isn't as much about the level of government intervention as the objects of it. There are, of course, exceptions: on the more extreme right (well, sometimes, anyway) we have those who believe that government is automatically evil (and we often see them in militae, or calling themselves "anarchists") while on the more extreme left we have people who believe that the collectivisation is automatically good (we tend to call them "nut jobs"). In the vast middle, though, and in the majority of both the Republican and Democratic parties we see people who seem to disagree more on the targets of government intervention than its existence. Then we have those libertarians (both left and right) who agree that government should just stay the heck away most of the time, but again disagree on what the rest of the time is.

For example (gross generalisations follow), Democrats want government to stay out of the bedroom. Republicans want government to stay out of the boardroom. True libertarians would look at the same-sex marriage debate and say that government has no business making that decision and should simply solemnize the partnerships that people choose to make - and that no tax revenues should be used to finance it, that businesses should not be forced to pay for it, etc.

As soon as we get into *values* - family, or otherwise - and an insistence that the government should be enforcing them, we're still talking about central planning and the like. There is so much reliance on "The Truth" in the American right that it is as scary (if not more so) than the left.

[yyi.livejournal.com]

if Reagan is "extreme" (the most articulated and sharp form of this position I think belongs to him), then perhaps you are right. but my impression is that he actually represents more of a republican mainstream. this position is definitely not equal to anarchist or even libertarian.

as to the specifics, I do not know of modern day (last 30 years, say) republicans (or any other rightists) who want the gov in the bedrooms. they do not wish to regulate who is sleeping with whom and how (some extreme cases, like statutory rape, etc, are excluded, of course). the most logical (последовательные) adherents of libertarian approach, as you said, will argue that the marriage is none of the gov's business. so, the "gay marriage" issue has nothing to do with "staying out of the bedroom" - if anything it is the opposite: a desire to obtain a "stamp of approval" on the particular bedroom practice. after all, if it were otherwise, the gay-activists should have happily pursued the civil unions option (I'd even extend it - e.g. a brother and sister might live together supporting each other with no sexual union, or for that matter any two people might opt for a union which has no sexual/family connotation). but the gay agenda here is to modify the "centralized" notion of the family.
the right in this example is on the "defensive" they do not want a societal change to be forced down their throats by the gov. the gay community wants exactly that - they do not like the societal status quo and try to change it centrally. the "do not ask do not tell" policy in this case imho reflects the right approach (though there might be some who will deviate from it in the "right-wing" direction, but I am uncomfortable including them in the "right-wing").

of course, we cannot get away from values completely. after all human rights is a value too (an interpretation of this leads to the right position on abortion) - and we do not wish to give up that. could you give an example of where the right imposes their values through the gov?
(gay marriage is a negative example, and a trivial, imho - gov should not give its approval to views that do not reflect consensus, at the same time it should not discriminate against those who hold to dissident views).