If you think less of me for that statement, fine. If you want to discount my writing on other aspects of the practice of law, that is okay as well. Because, I think we know that the most conservative among us are an excluding and dismissive bunch by nature.
Sure we can define the wedge issues as being the difference between pro-choice and pro-life (please do not call it pro-abortion because that is often not accurate), or the sanctity of marriage issues such as whether gay marriage is an abomination or a civil rights issue. (On the latter issue I think religions get what they deserve given the age old desire to impose religious principals on others by allowing the state to perform the sacrament of marriage. For, if the state can do it, has to be available to everyone. I guess I am one of the few that believes that marriage should be left to the exclusive domain of the religions and that the government should only grant civil unions to anybody, gay or straight). But, what seems to really define us and divide us is the issue of transit.
Transit?
Sure. Nothing defines us more as a nation. Nothing brings us together or divides us more than transit. Things like healthcare are important but you have still got to get healthcare to the people and the people to healthcare. Since we brought horses to this continent, transit has been the defining issue. And, where are we on this point?
Admittedly, the Internet and broadband help, but it is not a replacement for a proper transit policy.
Just as with electricity policy, which is going terribly wrong in my opinion, I am fearful that we are not going to ever get to these arguments given the blind discontent and name calling in this country.
There was an interesting article the Public Discourse published by The Witherspoon Institute entitled Why Conservatives Should Care About Transit. Here is what the article says in part:
"Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the ’70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of ‘normalcy.’ This dynamic was fueled by headlines mocking ill-conceived transit projects that conservatives loved to point out as examples of wasteful government spending. Of course, just because there is a historic explanation for why Democrats are “pro-transit” and Republicans are “pro-car” does not mean that these associations make any sense.
"Pro-highway, anti-transit, anti-pedestrian policies work against the core beliefs of American conservatives in another and even more important way: they create social environments that are hostile to real community. Once again, the ways in which automobile-oriented development prevents communities from forming are too numerous to list exhaustively. They range from the very obvious to the very subtle.
"Walkable settlements are not just a pleasant lifestyle choice. They are a precondition of the strong, inter-connected communities that social conservatives desire. It is not difficult to envision how these communities can make our lives comprehensively better. Americans are not obliged by any law of nature or rule of the market to live in mediocre, anti-social places. With changes in public policy, over time we can begin again to create neighborhoods that promote real community".
I basically agree with this analysis. Certainly it is easy to blame our current plight on these policies. You can ignore these other social issues for the sake of this argument. But, for me it is a bigger issue. The definitional definition of conservative does not work for me -- a blind adherence to the past. It too often represents a stubborn opposition to progress. Even the modern conservative movement defines a key tenant of a belief in established institutions, and an belief in exceptionalism.
Liberalism is really a belief in positive law and a faith in progress.
Contrary to the ideologues, we are not Utopians or the search for a Utopian end. It is a belief that every tomorrow can be made better than the last and that the world can be substantially improved from its present state.
It is really not a debate about capitalism because liberals and conservatives both support capitalism. Capitalism, after all, is essentially about the economy an nobody wishes to abolish the economy. It is not about socialism because we all believe that property needs to be primarily privately owned, and that profits need to provide incentive for investment and the employment of labor. And, this talk about socialism, fascism and communism is just idiotic. Getting past the name calling, most of these arguments are simply discussions over efficiency vs. fairness and freedom vs. equality. Conservatives want an informal capitalistic system that leave the system alone to do what it wants (freedom) no matter what its ultimate impact on the self-interest of anybody else. Liberals want a more formal system (equality) that provides some protection for everyone.
Sure conservatives would like to classify liberals as bent on economic and social experimentation, but I think that is too harsh because what we promote here at the Third Wave is a break from the old Second Wave structures that hold us back. The Third Wave concerns itself in the perfectibility of us individual lawyers in the reworking of our business lives.
That is why the transit debate is so important. That is why the debate over what is and what is not the true conservative vs. liberal debate is important. We have just got to get past the name calling and back to the discussion over freedom vs. equality and the proper balance between the two.
You sound more like a classic liberal to me, which is almost the polar opposite of "extreme radical left", which some might think "flaming liberal" means. Your views on marriage are more rational and intellectually consistent on the topic than anything coming out of the two main political parties.
Posted by: Matt | February 28, 2010 at 12:05 PM