the happy conservative

In which I define liberalism for a liberal:

Ben:

We are not discussing things like driving on the right side of the road. We are discussing political issues and values.

Also, you seem to be mistaking liberalism for anarchy.

Throughout the years, conservatism has endorsed things like slavery, segregation, homophobia, and prayer in school. It’s an aggressive, oppressive version of an “don’t fix what ain’t broke” mentality, as you have demonstrated in your overreliance on the word “tradition”.

The thing, though, is that when conservatives’ pet issues are discussed or challenged, conservatives can become incredibly passionate in defending their old-fashioned values.

And the conservative side of an issue almost always oppresses someone else.*

I think it is unnatural to fight so hard to deny other people the rights they deserve. It’s a lack of empathy, desire to make things better, and open-mindedness, all of which are key for productive, functional members of society.

There you go. Unnatural.

The best argument presented here against tradition is that it’s oppressive, except when it isn’t.

Let’s start with the low-blow about homophobia, slavery, and prayer in schools. Like homophobia and prayer in schools are just as bad as slavery. Come on. And as I recall, the conservative movement won the Civil War. But listen, your history is no better or worse than mine is. Secession - that’s a liberal idea. But maybe you missed my little point about tradition.

Liberalism’s track record is a little better. Thanks for Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler. Appreciate that. They liked their own rules better than the old ones as well. But at least they liked the gays.

And the issue of which side of the road we drive on is precisely the point. Some rights have negative spillovers; your right to worldwide cradle to grave health care impedes my right to keep more than half of my income. Your right to pick which side of the road to drive on impedes my right to not hit you with my car. Rights are not defined in a vacuum if they present negative externalities. I have a right, do I not, to smoke in a restaurant? According to your definition of liberal, I should. What about in school? Can I smoke in school? In an elevator? In a plane? Are my rights completely unrestricted?

A conservative says no. My rights are restricted by “tradition,” a set of social norms that make society work. These norms do not oppress; they keep us from killing each other. Tradition states not just the extent to which my rights are curtailed, but more importantly the extent to which you must respect them. Tradition tells you just how far you can go against my rights before you must stop for the common good.

Conservatives rely on tradition to keep society out of our rights, not to keep society in everyone else’s. Tradition is as natural as it gets.

(To be fair, however, smoking bans in restaurants are not actually a good example. Restaurants own the property rights to the air; they can allocate them to smokers or to non-smokers at their discretion, and as a conservative I trust that they can decide that better than the government can. But for demonstration, forgive me.)