Hi Steve,
I don't know about this. You write:
What Goldberg clumsily labels fascism is the liberals’ eternal imperative to care.
What I don't know is if there is an imperative to care that is essentially liberal. I think some liberals operate on that principle, some don't. Some might operate on some more disinterested notion of justice or fairness on the Kantian model. But aside from that, the limits of that care is what people argue about--and that argument is the one that Goldberg ignores in favor of the perpetual straw man. So I think you're right about the need for that kind of argument, but I think we have that kind of argument anyway, without Goldberg's, um, help.
Interesting post. I would make a distinction between our public and private lives, and argue that the sort of impartial concern you discuss is only required when we take up the former role, i.e. that of a deliberating or voting citizen. The apathetic may simply keep out of politics, and trust the rest of society to set up good laws (incl. redistributive taxation) within which one's private actions will effortlessly serve the public good. (See, e.g., The here.)
(Huh, I don't know what that 'The' is doing there!)
The major problem with "conservatives"?
They do not even believe in the words of their "own" Jesus:
(from TNIV)
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
I think you are wrong to accept the debate as it is set up. First, there is no imperative to care. The reason one would hand over jobs, like redistribution of wealth and welfare programs, to a central government, is because most of us don't really care so we can put the responsibility into someone else's hands and not feel guilty about what we have.
This should be the natural state for a government. It is why we leave our "nasty, brutish, and short lives" to go and join civil society. It is in our best interest to tacitly accept a social contract. There is no- all things being equal how much do I have to do before I can stop caring- scenario. To make that claim is to suggest that "conservative" policies rest on neutral grounds. They don't. They are nefarious policies designed to redistribute wealth upwards, to insure that those at the bottom properly serve those at the top of the food chain. The question he is really asking is "why should I care that I am consciously hitting you upside the head with this mallet and taking away your livelihood?" I don't think liberals can be called fascists for insisting he not be able to hold the damned mallet!! Before you take him seriously perhaps you should just insist he do no harm.
Lastly, there is a rational basis for fairness. The simplest answer is you don't have to care; just use the veil of ignorance. Would anybody accept a social arrangement in which they were at the wrong end of the mallet?
You may have correctly characterized some "spirit of conservatism" and some "spirit of liberalism," but in practice the two sides may be thinking in different terms. Global climate change can be opposed on the grounds of self-interest for anyone under the age of, well, maybe 55. Caring about others has relatively little to do with it. Likewise a single-payer health plan need not be advocated for protection of the poor, but simply to reduce the waste of redundant arguments between a doctor and the 15 different insurance companies he or she must deal with. Large corporations' health care costs could likely decrease with a single-payer model.
It seems to me the big operational difference between liberals and conservatives is the degree of trust one has for one's fellow humans. Conservatives believe that the government, i.e. humans, cannot devise a single-payer healthcare plan that doesn't end up being a massive boondoggle. They don't believe that scientists can objectively prognosticate the effects of human activity on the climate. I used to think these were just excuses for not caring, but I think the conservatives themselves have convinced themselves that they are the fundamental reasons they believe what they believe. The fact that the government does manage to oversee huge enterprises with a fair degree of competence (the military) and that scientists have successfully prognosticated other developments (as in medicine) somehow is made to seem like the exception rather than the rule.
Isn't the question the same for the liberal and the conservative?
Given that we live in a world in which power and resources are scarce, and are distributed unequally, [which] rewards and punishes people for accidents of birth and their labor, and by nature, I am driven to preserve and increase my own power and resources, how much am I required to resist those self-centered impulses in order to help all living things, especially the most vulnerable, live a better life ...
Oddly, those who actually have power and resources to spare seem the most intent on preserving them to themselves.
When Liberals say they care, it usually means my freedoms are about to be curtailed. Smoking, trans-fats, seat belts, car-seats, wealth redistribution etc are all in the mix and my choices get made by 'experts'.
Please stop caring so much so I can live my life you fascists.
Keith,
I no longer care about you. Please have drive your exorbitantly expensive car down a wet road with no signage, without your seatbelt on, eating fois gras and trans-fat fries, sucking down an unfiltered cigarette with no warning on the pack.
Ha! Beware the liberal nihilist. We know that we give you libertarians freedom of choice you'll kill yourselves off. Makes our job easier.
> When Liberals say they care, it usually means my freedoms are about to be curtailed.
We are very sorry,
for that.
Um, and the trans-fats prohibitor (plus the no-smoking in New York) is a Republican. Bloomberg. If we're going to be an adolescent "I do what I want" pseudo-libertarian, let's at least get our "fascism facts" straight.
We are very sorry,
for that.
We are? Since when? I didn't get the memo.
If we're going to be an adolescent "I do what I want" pseudo-libertarian, let's at least get our "fascism facts" straight.
That's funny. So far as I can tell, it's these damn neo-hippie lierbals who want to legalize marijuana, and prostitution. And I say: jolly good show, mates! Tax the hell out of it, and pay for my health care. Spark it, and park it where you like! Just give Uncle Sam his cut.
The neocon rise to power by claiming to be against big government, foreign nation building, federal deficits and nanny state intrusion while in reality actually favoring all of these liberal fascist practices is a new high/low in double speak. If control of this country comes down to simple word association then I think we're all freedom fried.
Commenting by HaloScan
