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.
