Conservatives are ostensibly anti-big-government. They believe government has a place in society, but that its role ought to be minimal, impinging on citizens' lives as rarely as possible. This belief comes from a certain trust that people, left to their own devices, have brains and common sense, and they can figure things out on their own without the need for a Big Daddy, Big Nanny, or Big Brother. On the economics front, belief in the "invisible hand" posited by Adam Smith is an example of conservative confidence that (1) the masses ultimately know what they are doing, and (2) they can do it better than any centralized authority can.
However, there's a bit of static when we factor in the idea that political conservatives, who are also often religious conservatives, believe that Man is a fallen creature prone to sin and not redeemable through his own actions, but rather via some form of "salvation by grace through faith" that comes from outside of himself.
Let's leave that mini-paradox aside, though, to focus on a paradox that I think is more urgent these days: conservatives' support for the police despite conservatives' hatred of big government. The police are, inarguably, an arm of the government (the same can be said of the military, which conservatives also unquestioningly support), and conservatives often support the police in far greater numbers than liberals do. Is this a tacit concession by conservatives that people are sheep and therefore need sheepdogs? Is this an example of the Judeo-Christian belief in human fallenness and frailty peeking through the conservative psyche? If so, how is this belief in the need for a ubiquitous, ever-patrolling authority any different from the current liberal belief that people cannot be left to their own devices and must rely on ever-pervasive big government for solutions to many (if not most) of their daily problems? For that matter, why are liberals ensnared in the mirror image of this paradox—despising the police (who are an arm of the government) while crying out for more and bigger government? Does neither side see the conundrum, or am I missing something such that this isn't a conundrum or a paradox at all?
From where I stand, both sides look profoundly hypocritical.
The paradox in a nutshell (from the liberal side):
6 comments:
Kevin,
I think you are equating two different uses of government, with the police being used as a symbol of both. The liberal/leftist side of the argument wants government to provide everyone with a false sense of security by providing a total control of their lives. The current defund the police arguments are simply to create chaos from which they hope to establish their vision of the future like a phoenix arising from ashes. Once that is established there will be a police force like nothing that currently exists. Think GRU or Stassi.
The conservatives see people in their imperfections needing limited control of impulses that effect their fellow humans. For this purpose government is established with a legitimate use of force, but circumscribed by laws and regulations. The police and the armed forces are, at least in theory, subject to the will of the people.
True conservatives want only as much power for government as is necessary to keep people civilized. They have no visions of a state providing anything except protection for all people. Thus we have police for internal security and armed forces for external security.
That being said it must be admitted that there is a need for some social support by the government since charity is sometimes unavailable, ineffective, or inapplicable. In those cases there is a need for the government to provide some minimal assistance in survival, but not the huge bureaucratic machinery that currently exists. nor the support that is greater than the income from actually working.
The hypocrisy is in those who want to do away with the current police forces knowing that in the future they will have to re-establish such forces, and most likely a force that is more repressive.
I'm assuming this is Bill. I don't normally publish anonymous comments, but I'm taking a risk and making an exception to my usual policy.
That said, thanks for the food for thought. I'm not convinced that the police constitute anything like a "limited" presence (they strike me as being everywhere), but I agree with what you've written in your third and final paragraphs.
I'm really not seeing the hypocrisy on the right here. Conservatives have always been about law and order which are necessary components of a society in which conservative/libertarian values can thrive. As the commenter above mentioned, the left is literally trying to tear down and destroy those values so they can implement their hell-like version of utopia. Freedom must be defended, hence the need for the police. That said, it is good and right to maintain restrictions that prevent the abuse of police power and conservatives have been very supportive of doing so. A small example would be traffic enforcement. Freedom-loving righties would vehemently oppose a proposal that stopping for a red light be optional. But many also oppose the use of red-light cameras which are seen as an abuse of power and an unnecessary infringement on the privacy of the people.
So what you gents are saying is that I need to reread and internalize the "paradox of freedom" I had written about in this post.
HaHa! I remember that post. So yeah, what YOU said!
Post a Comment