The Defining Premise

Have you ever wondered what makes a person a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican? Or to be more precise with language, what makes a person a socialist or not?

Is it the old joke -- a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged? Or the other old joke -- he who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart and he who is not a conservative at 40 has no brain?

Is it just environment? Do children tend to take on the opinions and beliefs of their parents and their peers? This probably explains many people, especially the passive-minded people who are content to go along with the crowd. But what shaped the opinions and beliefs of their parents and peers? There can't be an infinite regress; at some point, somebody had to have an original thought.

Is it the belief in God? Many more Republicans than Democrats believe in God. But how do you explain that Objectivists, up until lately, voted mostly Republican? With the growth of religion, the belief in God might become the defining premise in American politics in the near future -- and a baleful day that will be indeed. But we're not quite there yet.

Is it pressure group politics? Do people gravitate toward the party that serves their interests best? This would explain why minorities and unions vote Democrat and why the middle class, small business and military vote Republican. But it does not explain why rich educated whites vote Democrat, nor does it explain why many poor people in the "heartland" vote Republican. Both parties are such broad coalitions that it is hard to determine sometimes who they would not give money to in order to buy votes.

In my opinion, the defining premise is the belief in moral absolutes. Liberals are moral relativists. Both the religious right and Objectivists are moral absolutists. (The problem with the religious right, of course, is that their morality comes from religion, not reality. Their morality is grounded in faith, not reason, and is therefore dogmatic.)

In issue after issue, you can see politics determined by morality. Take crime, for an easy example. As moral relativists, liberals tend toward lenient punishment; they shrink in horror from the death penalty. Those who believe in moral absolutes, on the other hand, see vigorous punishment as justice; when someone kills in cold blood, he deserves to be executed.

In the 19th century Thomas Jefferson, a product of the Enlightenment, thought rapists deserve the death penalty. Today, after two centuries of the radical subjectivism of modern philosophy after Kant, most people would think Jefferson was a little harsh. One wonders how much modern philosophy has affected even those of us who oppose it.

Guns are another issue. Liberals think, "Who are we to judge other people?" It's a short step from that idea to, "Who are we to hold the power of a gun? Only the state should have such power." (Granted, the state is just comprised of fallible individuals as much as any other institution; this is a contradiction of statism.)

Liberals support intervention in the economy because it's not fair that employers with their subjective judgment can fire whomever they want or pay "slave wages."

The belief in moral absolutes has been the defining premise in politics all my life. But things are changing, and not for the better, with the increasing religiosity of the Republicans and the increasing radicalization of the Democrats (see Daily Kos). What does the future hold?

If the Republicans become the party of religion and the Democrats the party of modern philosophy, then we will have a pure, classic rationalist-empiricist split in American politics, with the left mumbling skepticism and the right shouting dogma detached from reality. Neither party will be a comfortable fit for those who advocate reason, except on an ad hoc basis. We're close to this situation now, although both parties show moments of lucidity and reasonableness.

We come to an interesting question: Why has President Bush, a seriously religious man, advanced socialism with his spending and big government?

Well, he is actually being consistent with Jesus Christ with his socialism. Christ was no capitalist; his Sermon on the Mount sounds outright communist to me. Christ was an altruist who believed the individual should sacrifice.

The contradiction between capitalism and Christianity has always been present in the religious right. Throughout the 20th century, as traditionalists, they rode the last waves of our enlightenment heritage and were for free markets (to some extent, or at least in lip service). As modern philosophy advances and we get further from the 18th century, the right will become more altruist and socialist. Combine that statism with nationalism and religious dogma and you will have fascism. Religion does not protect the right from modern philosophy.

Although the defining premise now is the belief in moral absolutes, the difference 20 years from now might be whether or not one subscribes to reason and reality -- with a vast majority on the left and right who do not uphold reason and reality and a small minority who do.

UPDATE: Revision.