Welcome!

This blog grows out of my conviction that every aspect of our lives is sacred and is to be nurtured and celebrated as a good gift of God. Most of the posts will be the sorts of things you would expect from a historian and worldview teacher, but some are likely to be a bit surprising. Since God created all things good, including all aspects of human life, everything is interesting and important from the perspective of a biblical worldview. Everything under the Sun and under Heaven is thus fair game here. I hope you find it interesting and enjoyable.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

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.

3 comments:

  1. "Thus equal protection under law is a vitally important principle to the true conservative."

    Except if the person violating the law is rich, and buys the best attorneys to get him off scot-free

    "In the language of the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights"

    Interestingly enough, written by a progressive. Your case is weaker by the minute.

    "affirmative action laws say that members of protected groups have to be given special consideration in hiring or admissions to school."

    Veterans are one such "protected group" as are those with disabilities. I again disagree with you here and fully support special considerations for them.

    Progressives have been champions for the individual, pushing for Miranda Rights, Habeus-Corpus, child labor laws, workplace safety laws, and many others.

    Conservative beliefs at one time in this country backed the owning of slaves. It was radical progressives like Lincoln that helped rid us of that horrible abuse of individuals.

    And the Citizens United ruling more recently made a mockery of the alleged conservative support of individuals by granting corporations the same rights.

    You seem to be looking at this issue through a highly selective straw. It would behoove you to take in the entire picture, which I chose to do when I no longer aligned myself with either political party. I couldn't be happier or freer...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let’s take these in order, shall we?

    I don’t know anyone, conservative or progressive, that argues that the guilty should get away with crimes because they can hire expensive lawyers. Further, the use of high priced lawyers is not unique among conservatives—limousine liberals do that routinely as well, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about here.

    Jefferson was not a progressive in the modern sense of the word. He distrusted the federal government, supported states rights, etc. These are causes of the modern conservative. So I’m sorry, your argument seems rather weak on this point.

    You do have a better case for Lincoln in some ways, though he did suspend habeas corpus (which dates to English Common Law, by the way, not to “progressives”). But he was a Republican, and if you’re going to associate present figures with the past in the anachronistic way you’ve chosen to do so, then you should properly credit the Republicans for emancipation. Somehow, I don’t think you want to do that. Historical parallels are a bit of a problem, aren’t they?

    I haven’t seen any affirmative action programs that establish quotas for veterans or people with disabilities. I have seen them for racial minorities. Veterans are given preferences in some arenas as a form of compensation for services rendered. I don’t see that as a problem. Disabilities legislation focuses on non-discrimination (which a conservative would champion) and on appropriate accommodation so as not to de facto discriminate against them. Again, that’s a bit of a different category from affirmative action.

    By the way, do you support the right to abort children because they have disabilities, as is current practice?

    Concerning Citizens United, once a progressive (IIRC) court defined campaign spending as speech, the first amendment applies. Political speech is protected speech, and anyone or any entity that has the ability to give out messages has a right to do that unfettered by the government. Unless you don’t like the first amendment, I don’t see how you can get around that logically.

    Concerning the rights supported by progressives, I agree with you there. I would refer you to Michael Novak’s Three-Legged Stool for an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you don't know who you are, it's unlikely that you have any business running the country - from the Presidency or the Congress or the Supreme Court.

    These people in political parties appear to have identity confusion all along the human spectrum as it affects and influences government and government policies, and laws.

    ReplyDelete