Conservatives and Progressives on Identity and Rights

In my two previous blog posts on political theory (here and here), I explored some of the fundamental ideas that separate conservatives and progressives. Here, I want to examine one other difference and add libertarians into the mix: the question of the relationship between primary identity and rights.

I argued in Conservatives and Progressives redux that conservatives and progressives have fundamentally different concepts of identity: conservatives see identity primarily as an individual matter defined principally by our choices; progressives tend to see identity primarily in terms of membership in a group, typically defined by involuntary, generally immutable characteristics. While there is much more that can be said about this (such as whether some of these “groups” really exist over time or whether the characteristics are in fact immutable), here I want to look at the implications of identity on conceptions of rights.

Conservatives argue that rights are an individual matter, and that true rights are beyond the reach of government. In the language of the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights—that is, rights that cannot be taken away by government. These rights come to us as individuals, not as members of any particular group. Thus equal protection under law is a vitally important principle to the true conservative.

Progressives acknowledge individual rights but tend to argue primarily in terms of group rights. Membership in a group can give special rights that are conferred on the group by the government, particularly if the group can claim past oppression. These group rights trump individual rights when the two come into conflict. As a result, equal protection under law is not a useful concept to progressives.

As an example, look at hate crimes legislation. A conservative says, if I murder you, it doesn’t matter whether the motive is robbery, a thrill kill, revenge for a perceived wrong, or race; I am guilty of murder, and I should be punished accordingly. A progressive says, no, if the motive is race, it’s more serious, as long as the person is in a protected category. Thus whites that attack blacks are presumed to be guilty of a hate crime, but blacks who target whites are not. Equal protection under law does not apply—some people get more protection than others.

Similarly, affirmative action laws say that members of protected groups have to be given special consideration in hiring or admissions to school. All other things being equal, if it comes down to a choice, the minority gets in and the member of the non-protected group does not. This is usually justified on the grounds that it is a remedy for past discrimination, but the person who is not admitted is not the one who was guilty of discrimination. In other words, to ensure equality, some candidates are given preferences based on race or gender, while others are in effect disadvantaged for the same reasons through no fault of their own.

Unionization is another example. If I want to work for a unionized company, I must join the union whether I want to or not. The union’s rights as an identity group trump my right to free association and to enter into a contract freely with my employer. And what’s more, I have to pay for the privilege of joining the group that I am forced into if I want my job.

All of these are defended on the grounds that without them, we would be back in the bad old days when racial discrimination was rife and when businesses routinely abused their employees. The conservative response is that you do not fix one kind of discrimination by instituting another: violating individual rights is wrong, no matter what the reason and no matter who the victim.

The conflict between group and individual rights can get very complicated. Same sex relationships are a case in point. How do the different groups negotiate the balance between individual rights, group rights, and other social considerations in this case? I will explore this issue in a future article or blog post.

New article: Biblical Succession

My new article is up at the Colson Center. It's about biblical models of succession and is based on a devotional I did at the Centurions graduation this year.

Echoes of Eden

I’ve been away for five of the last six weekends, with the sixth being Easter, and the end of the semester hit this past week, so my blogging has been almost non-existent lately. I have been thinking about different things, though, and so I’d like to put in a bit of theological speculation here.

I have a friend from China whom I’ll call “Faith” (not her real name). She was visiting us at one point and commented that she couldn’t figure out why Americans like to have animals in their houses—it struck her as a strange thing to do. I don’t know if that was just Faith, or if there was something in her cultural background that led her to that conclusion.

She’s not alone. Some Puritan divines thought that having pets was a frivolous waste of resources.

As the owner of an Australian shepherd and two cats, I must admit that there are times when I’m inclined to agree with Faith. I didn’t grow up with normal pets—all of ours were cold-blooded, invertebrates, or rodents. And sometimes, they can be a pain. But I would genuinely miss the animals if they were gone, especially Scooby (our Aussie), who is getting on in years.

So I began wondering about pets. I know they exist in lots of cultures. Dogs are used for hunting and herding; people keep birds and sometimes hunt with them; cats have been used to control vermin and even as guard animals. But even aside from working animals, people around the world keep animals for companionship. Shar Peis were bred to be companions in China, as were Pekinese. Dogs and cats are common pets in all European cultures, and our Compassion International child in India had a pet goat. I know very few young children who aren’t fascinated by animals and want to pet them.

So what is it about animals that so intrigues us?

I think the answer lies in our past and our future.

The Bible tells us that with the fall of humanity into sin, it estranged us from God, from our neighbor, from ourselves, and from nature. The vision the Bible gives us of Eden suggests a place and time where people lived in perfect harmony with the natural world, a harmony that is now broken.

The harmony of Eden is something we long for, and its restoration is promised in Scripture. Isaiah gives us a picture of our eschatological hope, a redeemed world in which:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. (Is. 11:6-9)

In other words, in the New Heavens and New Earth promised in Scripture, the harmony of nature will be restored. The Gospel of the Kingdom promises no less than Jesus, who is Lord of all, making all things new and restoring and redeeming our broken world to wholeness once again.

In light of this, I suggest that our love for animals is a distant echo of Eden and an anticipation of the redemption of all Creation in Christ. It’s something people are instinctively drawn to, as the image of God in us cries out for its fulfillment in being stewards of God’s Creation.

So I’m sorry, I can’t agree with the Puritan divines on this one. Hopefully, Faith, if she reads this, will understand a little better the charm in having animals. And for those of you who do have pets, I encourage you to see yourself as stewards of Creation before God as you take care of them, and look forward to the day when the harmony of nature is fully restored by Christ.

New article: Robert Grosseteste (c.1170-1253)

Robert Grosseteste

Chuck Colson

With all the many tributes to Chuck Colson in the wake of his death, one more would seem to be superfluous. But although I can’t say I knew him long or well, he meant a great deal to me, and I too would like to add my voice to the chorus of people whose lives he touched.

My involvement with Chuck came about by an improbable collection of events that I wrote about briefly in the Acknowledgements of Why You Think the Way You Do. To make a long story short, Chuck was given a copy of a talk I had given on Jonathan Edwards’ worldview by someone who had not heard it. Although he got cassettes all the time and rarely listened to them, for some reason he put mine in the cassette deck in his car. He liked what he heard and wrote me a very nice letter telling me how much he’d enjoyed it, and asking me if I’d like to collaborate with him some time. My mama didn’t raise no dummies, so of course I agreed.

Chuck asked me to teach in the Centurions program, which has been one of the greatest joys and privileges of my life. Why You Think the Way You Do grew out of the teaching I did there. I have taught the Centurion for eight years, and after every live training with only a very few exceptions, Chuck sent me a personal note thanking me and commenting about specific aspects of the weekend. He frequently mentioned divine providence in bringing us together to work on the Centurions … and on other things.

What I didn’t know was that Chuck had a way of finding people he liked and pulling them into projects. As T. M. Moore, Chuck’s theological mentor, once said to me, “Glenn, God loves you and Chuck has a wonderful plan for your life.” Chuck asked me to be the content consultant for Wide Angle; years later he brought me in to bring together the very different styles of Alpha and Breakpoint to produce the Walk the Talk series. He informed me that I would need to be in Princeton on a particular date to film Doing the Right Thing, only this time I’d be on the panel. He had me helping with the workbooks for each of these as well.

Then there were writing projects. I do a bimonthly column at the Colson Center that I suspect he initiated. He asked me to produce a short book expanding on his worldview grid, which should be out shortly if all goes well. I just wish I had gotten it out quicker so he could have seen it. Then he liked one of my talks at the Centurions so much that he asked me to convert it to articles and a video series for pastors. That was the origin of the Christians who Changed their World series. We’re still working on how to make the videos happen.

The point of all this is that Chuck changed the direction of my life in some pretty profound ways. All of my worldview and apologetics ministry, many of my publications, and the future direction for much of my work stem from the fact that Chuck took an interest in me and believed in me. He gave me opportunities to make a difference in his ministry, with the result that my own efforts were multiplied far beyond what I could ever have accomplished personally.

I want to mention two things about Chuck that I haven’t seen in the many tributes to him that I have read since his death. First, when we were working on Wide Angle, he was going over the outlines for the session after breakfast and before we started filming. As he was going through, a particular subject came up that I knew had appeared in some of his other talks prior to this. I don’t know if he noticed a change in my expression as he summarized the point, but he looked at me and said, “Is that right?” I told him, not exactly, and explained it more precisely. He then used the more accurate content in Wide Angle and every time I heard him teach the material since. I don’t know many people at Chuck’s level who are humble enough to look for clarification in areas that they are considered experts, and who can integrate new information as thoroughly and seamlessly as he did.

Second, my wife and two kids came with me on some of the Centurions weekends. Chuck was always very gracious to them and made the time to speak into my kids’ lives whenever he could. Their lives and thinking have been profoundly influenced by Chuck both directly and indirectly ever since.

I can’t claim that I knew Chuck well or that we were close friends. But I think I can call him a friend, as well as a mentor and a colleague. And I know I loved him. I am deeply and profoundly grateful for the difference he’s made in my life and in the lives of Lynn, Elizabeth, and Brendan, and I am especially glad that I had the opportunity to tell him that after one of the Centurions weekends. I don’t know what direction my work will take without him, but I do know that I am part of his legacy. And for any of you Centurions who are reading this, you are, too.

In 1 Cor. 11:1, Paul tells the church in Corinth to follow his example as he follows Christ’s. For me, that verse applies to Chuck and to others like him. Are they perfect? No, and they would be appalled if they thought anyone believed them to be. But they are worthy role models nonetheless. I only hope that I will have sufficient courage and faithfulness to follow in their footsteps, so that with them, I will hear Jesus say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter now into the joy of your Lord.”

Rest in peace, my brother.

New Article: the Naumburg Master

The next article in the Christians who Changed their World series, featuring an anonymous medieval sculptor known as the Naumburg Master.

Conservatives and Progressives redux

Nearly two months ago, I posted on some of the assumptions that lie behind conservative and progressive ideas in America. That was a pretty widely read post for my blog, so I decided to do a follow up with some additional thoughts about the subject. This one’s likely to be a bit more controversial than the last, but it is based on my experiences and observations with people on both sides. Your mileage may vary, but if you disagree and feel the need to respond, please explain where I’ve gone wrong rather than just tell me I’m wrong. Thanks.

OK, let’s go.

Another difference in underlying assumptions between conservatives and progressives is how the two sides conceive of individual vs. group identity. For the progressive, group identity seems paramount: we are seen as part of groups identified with race, class, gender, and sexual orientation; similarly, we identify with labor (i.e. unions), and possibly with other types of groups as well. This is why progressives frequently are involved in identity politics.

If you are part of a group identified as among the oppressed—women, racial minorities, homosexual, etc.—it is assumed that you will hold progressive views. Conservatives from these groups are seen as traitors: Black conservatives are routinely labeled as “Uncle Toms;” conservative women are savaged by the media with nary a peep from feminists and accused of “not being women,” etc. Of course, if you are one of the privileged, then holding progressive views demonstrates that you are enlightened and have risen above the limitations of your class.

To take this further, problems are also caused by collective entities. The most recent villains are greedy corporations, “Wall Street,” bankers, etc., though it could also be the rich (“the 1%”), or as was the case a few years back, upper class white heterosexual males. Perhaps the reason for this is that progressives tend to believe people are basically good, so they generally don’t want to blame individuals (other than the Koch brothers or members of the Bush administration). It’s easier to blame a group and then challenge individuals to cross sides and align themselves with the good guys. Thus because he sided with the Occupy Movement, Michael Moore isn’t part of the 1%, despite the fact that he is well within the 1% top incomes in the country.

If collective entities are the problem, they are also the solution. Unions must balance the power of corporations and increasingly of governments, and progressive government (i.e. government in the hands of the Democrats) is the ultimate solution to undermining the power of those that exploit or abuse less powerful groups.

Conservatives tend to think in much more individualistic terms. They genuinely do not see group identity as being primary. Thus when Mitt Romney says “corporations are people,” he does not mean that a corporation is a person. He means that corporations are made up of people—the owners and employees are the corporation. As a result, you can’t pit corporations against “the people” because “the people” include those that make up the corporation. Progressives misunderstand his statement because they think in terms of the corporation as an entity, not as a collection of people working together for a common economic purpose.

Similarly, criticism of Pres. Obama is often seen as racism, as were Newt Gingrich’s comments about welfare—despite the fact that race was never mentioned. Conservatives hear criticisms of the president as being about policy, and comments about food stamps as being about increasing rates of poverty; progressives hear a racial subtext that must be present even if not stated because they see things in racial terms and because they assume conservatives are racist, along with sexist, homophobic, etc. The difficulty in communication comes about because of different assumptions about collective vs. individual identity.

For conservatives, group identity is secondary, but it still exists. The most important groups, however, are not based on race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Rather, they are the groups which you join voluntarily. This includes churches and service organizations, political parties and PACs. This idea of voluntary association even extends into your job—you are not owned by the company that employs you, and you can always quit and work elsewhere. This emphasis on voluntary association is the reason why conservatives support right to work laws. Where union membership is mandatory, rather than voluntary, it violates the right to free association. To put it simply, if you want to work for an employer, you should not be required to pay another organization for your right to do so.

Conservatives tend not to see problems as being caused by a clash of interest groups per se; rather, they see them as driven by individuals promoting specific ideologies and translating those into policy. It isn’t typically a matter of group identity. As a result, the solution is to promote a different agenda built primarily around entrepreneurial action on the part of individuals acting for their own and for their community’s good. This is where many of the voluntary associations conservatives support fit in: religious groups and service organizations can deal more effectively with many problems than the government can, and thus they should to be promoted ahead of government action.

None of this is absolute, of course, and there are exceptions. For example, there are conservatives who are bigots, though not nearly as many as progressives seem to think there are. But based on my observations, the distinction between individual and corporate identity seems to be another piece in the puzzle behind the thinking of progressives and conservatives in America.