On both sides of the political divide, name-calling has become a common way of dismissing those who say what we do not like. Calling someone liberal or conservative has become much more of a way of dismissing the person than attending to the individual’s arguments. This is most unfortunate. The truth is not conservative or liberal; and it is manifestly false that either conservatives have greater access to the truth than liberals or, conversely, liberals have greater access to the truth that conservatives.
We have used name-calling as a reason to stop attending the actual argument that a person gives—even when that person says what is unequivocally true. Alas, it turns out that the truth can make us very uncomfortable precisely because it requires us to re-think our views.
For example, some feminists have argued that pornography contributes in a significant way to men raping women. Many conservatives, as it turns out, like this view of pornography, thus resulting in a most unholy alliance between some feminists and some conservatives. But guess what? The best evidence suggests that it is the other way around, namely that watching pornography makes it less likely that a man will rape a woman. Why? Because pornography serves as a very successful release for sexual tension; and with that release in place, a man turns his attention to non-sexual matters.
Professor Tod Kendell produced this study: “Pornography, Rape, and the Internet”. His actual study is neither conservative nor liberal, although there is a straightforward sense in which his conclusions favor a certain liberal view of freedom.
Recently, I noted that in general straight people who support gay rights get rather bent out of shape if someone mistakes them for being gay. Although this truth is neither conservative nor liberal, it clearly speaks to the concern that conservatives have that we need to be careful about exactly what we are doing in publicly embracing the gay life style as on a par with the heterosexual life style.
In the future, it could very well turn out that straight people have no trouble at all in being mistaken for gay; and if that should come to pass, then certain conservative concerns will be undermined.
Sometimes the facts tell us that what we want is a very good thing; sometimes the facts tell us that what we want is a very bad thing.
The evolutionary facts tell us that phenotypical differences have no significant whatsoever in terms of human intelligence. Alas, these evolutionary facts have not at all been a barrier to people privileging their ethnic group above others: not just whites above blacks (in some cases); but Arabs above Jews; blacks above whites; and Asians above whites. And so on.
The evolutionary facts resoundingly support the ideal of human equality. It is just plain absurd to refer to these facts as liberal rather than conservative ones.
Now, here is an interesting fact that is neither conservative nor liberal. A single piece of behavior that does not follow the appropriate rules may be excusable, whereas as a pattern of that very same behavior may be most unacceptable.
Here is an example: A professor may very well be late for class once during a semester. If, however, the professor is regularly late, this is downright unacceptable. Of course, sometimes it does not matter whether we are talking about a single instance or a pattern. Murder or rape would presumably be cases in point. It is insult to argue: “It makes no sense to argue that a murderer should not be punished because the murderer only murdered on individual”.
I have been deemed by some readers of this blog to be a conservative. I often characterize myself as being so conservative that I am radical. My views are not ideologically driven as such.
For instance, what is unequivocally clear is that straight men want women who act like women rather than men. Likewise, straight women want men who act like men rather than women. So this tells me that the female-male divide is not just about anatomical differences—but about different ways of being-in-the-world for women and men. In turn, these considerations are in keeping with the point that straight people do not like to be mistaken for being gay.
I am radical in the sense that I start with the facts and then work towards the theory.
I, for instance, do not hold that a person should always be kept alive. It is manifestly clear that a life can no longer be worth living. Of course, the fundamental issue is how to embrace this view without occasioning great abuse. And to that challenge, I do not yet have a response.
When it comes to the family: I hold that we do better to underwrite the family then to introduce a practice that undermines it. No matter what we do, there will be costs. This means, then, that we must choose wisely which costs we should bear. Thus, my remarks about Planned Parenthood are in keeping with the general view that we do better to maintain respect for the family than to undermine the family in a systematic way. This means, alas, that in some cases things will go wrong. If, however, we undermine respect for the family in a systematic way, then a lot more will go wrong. There is nothing that we can that will guarantee that nothing whatsoever will go wrong. I would surely opt for such a practice were that indeed a possibility.
One aspect of the problem of misplaced compassion, then, is to focus upon the single case while ignoring the general good of the practice. This would be rather like saying that flying is unacceptable because sometimes there are fatal accidents. There are times, to be sure, when the focus is properly the single individual rather than the general good of the practice. This holds for severe prison sentence such as life in prison or capital punishment.
As far as I can see, though, with the family we must generally focus upon the idea of respecting it. Otherwise, we undermine in a most profound and nefarious way the development of children. That is not good for the children; that is not good for society. It is an unexpurgated truth that in general no nation is better off, either as a whole or individually, when children have less respect rather than more respect for their parents. And this is neither a liberal nor a conservative truth.
Here is a final thought. Consider two sets of parents. Set A gets furious over the fact that their under-aged teenage daughter became pregnant. Yet these parents come through in the end. Set B, by contrast, will only give their daughter money if she studies what they want her study and if she attends the college that they attended. And so forth. Set B-parents are in many respects the far worse parents. Parents should not force their children to live their lives.
By contrast, moral outrage when a child has acted most irresponsibly in fact very much has a place. Indeed, it sometimes turns out that one of the best signs that our parents care deeply about us is that they become enraged when we have acted in an utterly responsible way. This is not a conservative truth. This is not a liberal truth. Unfortunately, though, many liberals wrongly suppose that the forgoing truth is a conservative one. Not so, however. Love at its best is susceptible to outrage when, in the face of everything that we have done to help them, those about whom we care most profoundly destroy their own lives.
In the words of Solomon: Unto everything there is a season. There is indeed a time and a place for parental anger. It is a mistake to overlook this truth because we are so busy worrying about the feelings of the child who is rightly the object of that anger. To dismiss this line of thought on the grounds that it is conservative is to substitute ideology for reality. And that is the damning of the American society whether it is conservatives or liberals who so behave.
