BDN columnist Matthew Gagnon makes an interesting case ( “The new conservatives,” Dec. 16) for why he is not a conservative, even though he says he claims to be a “member of the right-wing of American politics in virtually every way.” If he is not a conservative right-winger — a redundancy — then could he be, contradictorily, a “progressive right-winger”?
He seems to suggest that because he aspires to change, not conserve, those programs that protect vulnerable citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, he is something of a right-wing radical. The real conservatives today, he says, are those liberals on the left who wish to keep the social safety net protecting the aged and the infirm.
A right winger attacking conservatives! It seems that Gagnon has stood conservatism on its head, like Alice in Wonderland, by defining words not by their meaning but by what he wants them to mean.
Modern conservatism’s godfather, Milton Friedman, is marginally clearer. Friedman believes in limited government as the best way to disperse power and protect individual freedom. Friedman understands that we need government to preserve our freedoms but also argues that a government with too much power can be a threat to freedom.
In that respect, as Friedman himself admits, he is a 19th century liberal — one for whom individual freedom is the highest value — yet laments that in the 20th century the purveyors of welfare and equality appropriated the label of “liberal,” hence forcing Friedman and others to latch on to the label of “conservative.” Individual freedom, Friedman asserts, has been compromised by the new liberals who regard the state, or government, as the only institution in modern society capable of protecting the public welfare, social equality and the social safety net that both Gagnon and Friedman dislike.
How confusing!
But label confusion does not stop there. A “Rockefeller Republican,” after former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, is one who likes small government but is willing to let government grow in order to provide social services and a safety net to society’s most vulnerable.
Perhaps a “LePage conservative,” on the other hand, wants business to be big, government to shrink and everyone else to fend for themselves.
Then there is what we might call a “Cuomo liberal,” a person who accepts what LePage might call a “nanny state,” but also like LePage wants government to be smaller and more efficient.
And then there are the tea party folks, neither conservative nor liberal, just libertarians who hate taxes, laws, foreign wars, treaties, and progressives of all stripes. Yet even they insist that government keep its hands off “their” Medicare.
The public probably should declare political party labels irrelevant in this topsy-turvy political landscape. Keep distinctions simple, based on values rather than tribal loyalty.
Unfortunately, it’s a difficult chore to bury party tribalism. Recently, an animated conversation ensued between me in my role as head of the Gouldsboro Democratic Party and the head of the Hancock County Democrats, John Knutson. It centered on whether Eliot Cutler, an independent, should receive support from Democrats in the next gubernatorial election, failing the nomination of a compelling Democrat such as Emily Cain and given a decision by Cutler to test the electoral waters again.
As the Gouldsboro chairman, I argued that in order to make LePage a one-term governor, Democrats should support the very electable Cutler who would not likely pursue LePage’s inhumane campaign to strike 65,000 vulnerable citizens from MaineCare.
“That is illogical,” argued Mr. Knutson. When pressed, he explained that what is “illogical” is for Democrats to support a non-Democrat for governor. God save us from “logic”!
Labels in this day and age should be less important than fidelity to certain values, such as the value of all citizens having access to the means of life, namely health care. This is a value that transcends partisan party politics because it is based on the simple proposition that in order to enjoy American freedoms, citizens require physical security, namely health care. Supporting that value is more important than supporting a particular political party.
After all, denying 65,000 citizens the means to life bespeaks not a conservative value but instead an immoral indifference to the health of fellow citizens.
And that position, alas, is a 19th century one best known as “social Darwinism,” a paean to survival of the fittest befitting a Dickens novel. Even Friedman, the 20th century liberal having a 19th century liberal sentiment, recognized: “If the objective is to alleviate poverty, we should have a program directed at helping the poor.” That program here in Maine is MaineCare.
Roger Bowen is a political scientist living in Prospect Harbor.
RE: “social Darwinism”
Darwin was known as a “progressive”. Just to get your labels straight. In fact social Darwinism was a philosophy adopted by many early 20th century progressives. M. Sanger et al.
RE: “alleviate poverty” of Friedman’s time has been replaced by “create dependence” in ours.
First, Charles Darwin was NOT know as a progressive. Actually, he was not known at all for his political leanings.
His maternal grandfather, Josiah Wedgewood, was known for his anti-slavery work. Otherwise, it is difficult to determine whether Charles Darwin had any political interest whatsoever. If Darwin was anything at all politically, we understand that his family tended to be Whigs, neither the right nor the left of the political spectrum, but more in the middle (today’s descendents of the Whigs, the Liberal Democrats, are junior partners in the present Conservative government).
Second, Charles Darwin never espoused “Social Darwinism.” Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin’s ideas, and does not come from Darwin, but is based on ideas that were circulating before Darwin published his “Origin of Species.”
What became known as “Social Darwinism” without Darwin’s endorsement, comes more from people like the Anglican clergyman Thomas Malthus and Darwin’s half-cousin, Francis Galton (they were not political “progressives,” either). Galton coined the term Eugenics. The “classical liberal” (which means “conservative” to many today) Herbert Spencer was also a principle proponent of Social Darwinism. Many of today’s conservatives claim to be followers of “classical liberals” like Spencer, Malthus, and the 19th century British Whigs. Social Darwinism, then, comes not from Darwin, but it does arise from a political position best described today as conservatism.
RE: Social Darwinism I was referring to the writers use of social Darwinism which indeed was a progressive value of the early 20th century. I disagree with your analysis that it sprang from conservative thought as both Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger were adherents.
Here is a good reading on Theodore Roosevelt.
https://wikis.nyu.edu/ek6/modernamerica/index.php/Imperialism/SocialDarwinism
We have had this discussion before and I know that you are desperately trying to deny that Progressives ever championed these theories, nor even entertained them, but you are incorrect. If you are a Progressive adherent you need to accept all that they were.
Can we start by agreeing that 1) Charles Darwin was not known for his political ideas, and 2) that he never advocated social Darwinism? That would be a good place to begin.
Social Darwinism comes principally from Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton. They were British “classical liberals.” “Classical liberalism” was concerned with limited government, free markets, liberty of individuals, the rule of law, due process, and freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press. Many modern conservatives find their heritage in classical liberalism — as do many modern liberals.
Yes, some American progressives, and some American conservatives, embraced social Darwinism in the early 20th century.
Why are you so fascinated with eugenics and social Darwinism, and why is it so important to you that you blame these essentially conservative ideas on progressives?
P.S. I smiled when you said, “both Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger…” I’m not very good at math, either.
1) Agreed.
2) Never advocated Social Darwinism, Agreed.
3) Again you are correct about the origins of Classical Liberalism and those ideals of modern conservatives.
4) “and why is it so important to you that you blame these essentially conservative ideas on progressives.”
Social Darwinism:
My point is that that historically it is not “essentially conservative ideas.” They are progressive ones. The ideas were grasped full on by the progressives of time and they made the most use of them during the early 20th Century. Hitlers most heinous laws were modeled on American Progressive ones.
The writer above: “And that position, alas, is a 19th century one best known as “social
Darwinism,” a paean to survival of the fittest befitting a Dickens
novel.”
If Mr Bowen would make that statement it is best he and other Progressives would know that folks in their tradition made use of it in very real ways in the early 20th century.
Okay, I see why this is important to you. You want to blame Hitler on the progressives. It’s a long stretch, since both conservatives and progressives embraced Social Darwinism, and its origins and flavor are essentially conservative. And Hitler, who allied himself with the conservatives and monarchists, was a violent opponent of the Communists, Socialists, leftists of all stripes, and liberals.
But if it is important to you to associate Hitler with an idea that some progressives (and many conservatives) advocated long ago, I can see why you want to try make that very long leap.
If I don’t get another opportunity (as I don’t expect to be on the computer much), Happy New Year, and the very best to you in 2012!
Nice rewrite :)
I just would like to remind the writer of his own tradition before tarring someone else with it.
Happy New Year!!!!
You wrote the fallacy, “Darwin was known as a progressive.” It’s right there in black and white, plain as day. So you can stop back pedaling now.
Call it what you want.
Conservatives are just Mean @%^ tight wads!
Yea, wanting fat, lazy, people to work for a living is so mean.
http://www.drunktiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-rich-lifestyle.jpg
Lazy Bums!
I know tons of fat lazy conservatives who don’t work complain about the fat, lazy people who don’t work
Just to keep individuals informed with truths versus myths; it was in the late 70’s that a Democratic bill was enacted into law creating “Workfare” where municipalities could, at their discretion, require individuals to earn their welfare, to work in exchange for assistance. Most municipalities opts not to utilize this for a number of reasons (they are exempt from Worker’s Compensation) but mainly because if they implement workfare they do not get reimbursed from the State for general welfare. If individuals want welfare to be a local issue get your selectmen/woman, municipal councilor, town managers to implement the State’s Workfare law.
Since the line of the year is; “Government doesn’t create jobs, private businesses does.” Isn’t it about time those private mutli-national corporation making record earning because our military are providing them global protection and the American public have provided them a market that allowed them to reap the profits show a little economic decency and create some employment opportunities so a few could move from a dependent (jobless) status to an employed, self supporting status.
Elliot Cuttler…, isn’t he the guy who raked in millions assisting corporations to leave America and move to that great free enterprising place call China? Thought so.
As a long time union guy Charlie you should know, business doesn’t create jobs merely for sake of creating them. The mills up your way closed down, in part, because of the effect of unions. Why doesn’t the union create a job or two?
First, I started my own business selling home-made blocks of ice to fisherman, sportsmen and outdoor enthuses in the mid 50’s in my very early teens, spent nearly thirty years as a business owner. I am not opposed to profits, or return on investments. I retired on the expectation of those things. I support an economy that ensures a society, a country to not only thrive but to exist. I believe it is patriotic to use wealth to provide a stable existence/economy otherwise the economy collapses and then society (country) collapses, and wealth will only provide so much until judgment day when we’ll all answer as to how good a christian (or whatever god you believe you need to appease). Greed is one of the deadly sins.
Second, the mills up here closed because the capitalist owners (money worshipers) ran it into the ground, divided the parts for short term monetary gains, deep sixth an entire region, stole pension funds and bankrupted healthcare funds, took the money and screwed a fair number of people who worked years and decades, making a profit for the companies while the looting was going on, and you want to blame unions? Get real.
Third, since you brought it up, what did the unions get that management didn’t offer or agree to in all those years? Please be specific.
Fourth, the last four, maybe five contracts were concessions by labor. Today’s mill worker is earning less then they were two decades ago, and the business owners, their income has more than double. I not opposed to individuals making money, nor a lot of it, but, in a lot ways if the thrust is to exploit the populous as a whole, well, we’re doomed a country like many before in the annals of time.
Maybe you should look at it another way. He is not cutting funds to those that did not earn it he is letting those that earned the money keep it. You are one of the folks who instead of bringing money to Gouldsboro vie the former antenna site shot it down. You are anti busniess and pro huge oppressive government. We have tried the welfare state long enough to know it does not nor will it ever work. Lets try another way now.
Your job as a party leader is to elect members of your party, not to defeat the opposition. You personally should support whomever you want, but Knutson is right – your job as a party chair is to elect members of your party. If you don’t want that job, you shouldn’t be party chair. If your primary goal in politics is ideology, rather than working to elect all members of your party, you should find a different way to be involved in politics. Party officials should support their party’s candidates, period.
Milton Friedman will be remembered for his contributions to finance and politics. He will be remembered as the father of disaster capitalism, the architect of trickle down economics and the executioner of the commons. I do not expect that to be kindly treated in one hundred years.
What concerns me greatly that the voice of conservatism has become cruel and punitive. The GOP debates have devolved into hateful rhetorical exercises where the most insensitive comments and policy suggestions are rewarded by thunderous applause.
The danger in relying on labels is they occasionally serve a the rationale for bad choices. An example is the label that liberals are tax and spend types and conservatives are fiscally responsible. If you look at deficits under the modern administrations, you find that the labels are actually backwards. The biggest tax increase in modern times came from Reagan. The biggest cut to federal spending came from Obama. The last three presidents to run no deficits were all democrats. Now, people chose the GOP for fiscal restraint and that is not what they get. They actually get policies that give money to the wealthy very liberally while pointing at the “entitlement” programs that keep people alive and calling them superfluous.
The biggest problem with the use of labels or sweeping generalizations is that they steer attention away from the real solutions that can only come from looking at the situation in it’ s totality. Presently, the US economy is stagnating under exceedingly regressive policies that have manifest over the last 20 years or so. Wage stagnation is the obvious culprit. Still, there is no movement or will to increase wages. If you want to see a snapshot at why the American dream is dying, click through the to the chart below. It shows labor wages in industrialized countries. Note where the US is and also note how the countries that are doing well now are at the top of the chart paying twice or three times the wages we pay here.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/usmanuf_int.png
Why play by their rules?
They own the left and the right.
This is only further propaganda to make you think you have a choice!
Two-party politics is a stifling, ineffective way to go. Especially when both ” groups” are owned by the same folks!!!hello!
Do you really need anymore proof than the current group of half wits and morons they try to tell us are the GOP ” candidates” for president? I find that very insulting. Newt Gingrich? It amazes me that America accepts this non sense.
Just another liberal bashing anyone who thinks differently than his own agenda, I’m sure you’ll get a lot of “likes” but tell me – how many of us can afford paying more taxes for liberal pipe dreams that were never funded properly by previous democratic legislatures?
Roger I would like to agree with you but I can’t. First, the Democratic Party has to support a Democratic candidate because the candidate has to support the Democratic platform. It is absurd to think they would do otherwise. If you want to support an independent Cutler campaign then you would have to move over to his campaign. Second, Social Darwinism is a perversion and a fiction espoused by maladjusted fools. It has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution or natural selection. Third, Gagnon is an ill-informed greenhorn who blows with the wind and his ideas are worthless in my opinion. Finally, it won’t be difficult at all to beat LePage in the next election. Any candidate with a pulse would be able to do it.