I've been watching Johnathan Haidt's TED talk on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives, and I realized that I actually have quite a lot in common with conservatives. I don't have a high level of openness to new experiences. I like things that are familiar, safe, and dependable. Mr. Haidt says that liberals "want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos" and conservatives "want order, even at cost to those at the bottom." I don't necessarily want change, except when it's necessary for justice or to improve things. I wouldn't say "at the risk of chaos", the strongest I'd go is "at the risk of reasonable sacrifice." I rather like order as well (although not when it's code for authoritarianism), just not at the cost of anyone - especially not those at the bottom! Overall, I like the rut I'm in and would very much like to stay here. My politics come from my personal desire not have my comfy rut taken away, and my socialist value that anyone who would like to do so should be able to enjoy the same benefits from the status quo that I do.
The more conservative people around me seem to think that I should be more conservative, and based on Mr. Haidt's theories it seems like the potential is in me. So why am I not there?
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it comes down to two things: the status quo is not satisfactory, and there is sufficient will among people who identify as conservative to change the aspects of the status quo that I find positive to make me nervous. I am naturally inclined to unquestioningly accept the status quo, and to fiercely cling to the aspects of it that I see as positive. Elimination of threats to positive aspects of the status quo is the most likely way to make me conservative.
So what does that mean in specific terms?
1. Good jobs for all Employment gives me money which buys me my comfy rut. If I could be confident that my earning potential (along with that of people I care about, people I identify with, and people I look at and think "there but for the grace of god go I") is not going to vanish due to circumstances beyond my control, I could feel safe and secure enough to be conservative. However, as long as the status quo is moving towards contract hell for all, I will be disinclined to protect the status quo.
2. Maintain our rights Everything else that I value about the status quo can fall under the broad category of retaining our existing rights, and everything that I want to change can be defined as either expanding existing rights to everyone, or restoring rights that were eliminated in living memory. I feel secure because I have access to all the tools I need to remain childfree, and I want that available to everyone. I feel terrified that the police could just round up everyone who happened to be in a particular area of a public street during the G20, and I want to go back to a world where that couldn't happen. If I could be confident that my rights (along with those of people I care about, people I identify with, and people I look at and think "there but for the grace of god go I") are not going to vanish due to circumstances beyond my control, I could feel safe and secure enough to be conservative. However, as long as the status quo includes people very loudly trying to take them away, I will be disinclined to protect the status quo.
4 comments:
As Summerspeaker puts it, "As one of the many living unhappily on the margins, conservatism of any kind has minimal appeal to me. What do I have to defend?"
Between being transsexual and being asperger, I can't even imagine myself being de-marginalized, which I understand to mean having gainful rather than contingent (or as you call it, contract hell) employment. I can almost imagine serious improvements to the status quo during my lifetime, but I don't think even that would put me at peace with the status quo. I'm of what they call the 'progressive worldview.' To me, this means I think it's the future's job to be better than the present. That job never ends. Why should it? Besides, assuming we will someday bring everyone in from the margins, which is to say, to a place which is economically viable in terms of present-day expectations, there is every reason to believe that economic or social reality will again move the goalposts through necessity creep or something similar.
I will confess to having been relatively apolitical during the halcyon 1990's. Perhaps that should be considered conservative relative to my normally anticapitalist attitude. I think the technical term for what you are describing is "buy in."
I think there's some confusion between being personally conservative in one's life and comfort levels and politically conservative. Political conservativism is often regressive. I know many people who, like you, are personally conservative but politically progressive, and I've interviewed many people who are are thrill-seekers, adventurers, and who are very right-wing politically.
So I don't know if you have a lot in common with political conservatives, really.
(Also, if it seems like my comments are coming too close together for me to actually have read your posts, that's because I've read them all at work, where I can't comment... and now am commenting from home.)
What I got from the original TED talk is that these are personality traits that predispose one to political conservatism. The whole theory makes quite a lot of sense to me, except for the fact that I most definitely do have the personality traits and most definitely do not have political conservatism.
In other words, you're a counterexample.
Post a Comment