These words are really meaningless to me except in the sense that they represent the titles that we place on people. We say, “You are a Conservative!” But, what does that mean? I am just labeling someone much as I name something a “Hummer.” “You are a Hummer.” What does that mean? Calling someone a Liberal now means something different than calling someone a Liberal in the 1950s or calling someone a Liberal in the 1910s. And you hear people call themselves “Classical Liberals.” It is a name with varied meanings and when you start modifying the label you know that the title has lost any specific meaning.
A conservative person, to me, is someone that either tends to hold on to what is, or, is someone that doesn’t like to take risks. Conversely, a liberal person is one that is open to many different ideas or is more willing to take risks than is a ‘conservative person’. But, a conservative person or a liberal person is not a platform or a dogma or an ideology. When we move these terms into the realm of titles everything becomes confusing.
I have worked with a lot of people in the world of Information Technology, both in teaching at a major university and in working with young entrepreneurs that are attempting to develop the next “big” thing. In this area, people have gotten away from the terms conservative and liberal and use such terms as adaptive and innovative. These terms possess similar meanings, but get away from some of the baggage of the other terms. A person that is conservative seems to be holding onto the past whereas a person that is adaptive knows that change must take place but wants the change to be slower, moving only when there is real justification for the change. A person that is liberal seems to be open to many different possibilities whereas a person that is innovative is someone that attempts to put a new idea into practice. From this we can see that with this terminology it is easier to discuss a continuum of behavioral tendencies running from adaptive to innovative than to just speak of the two extremes. Thus, it is better to say that individuals are more adaptive than others, or, less innovative. It is not appropriate to say that individuals are either adaptive or they are innovative.
Clayton Christensen, who has written a great deal on technological innovation, has distinguished between innovations that are sustaining and innovations that are disruptive. Here the idea is that all change is innovative in nature. However, a sustaining innovation is one that tends to improve the performance of what exists. It can be ‘discontinuous or radical in nature’ or just ‘incremental’, but, the key factor is that sustaining innovation is change that remains within the existing paradigm. A disruptive innovation, on the other hand, is one that changes how things are done rather than just improves them. A disruptive innovation is a change that introduces a different paradigm. Within this framework it can also be seen that one innovation might be more sustaining than another innovation…or more disruptive. We have once again gotten away from the extremes and have established a continuum.
Why do we need to move away from the liberal/conservative labels? We need to move beyond the liberal/conservative labels because they are very, very misleading. For example, to say that someone is conservative may be something entirely different than to call someone Conservative. And, this is true of the distinction between liberal and Liberal. Why?
For one thing, I don’t believe that most of today’s Conservatives are conservative! In many cases, I find that leading conservatives are more innovative than they are adaptive and that many of the programs that they are presenting or are promoting tend to be more disruptive than they are sustaining. The same thing can be said of Liberals and the programs that they are presenting and promoting.
An example comes to mind. In the early history of the United States, Washington’s first term in office, we see the break occurring between Alexander Hamilton and his supporters and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and their supporters. The former group was labeled Federalists while the latter group, who later became the Democratic-Republican Party, was originally called the Anti-Federalists. The rivalry between the two parties became rancorous and bitter. The difference was not, in my mind, between conservatives and liberals, but was between different pictures of the world that were more innovative than adaptive and were more disruptive than they were sustaining. This is why the divisions between the two parties were so great.
In the early stages of the battle, Jefferson and Madison attempted to link the Federalists with England and with monarchy. Since the Federalists were attempting to create a stronger central government that overcame the difficulties experienced in the original confederation of states, it seemed a natural defense of the more decentralized confederation to accuse the Federalists of wanting to return to the English model of government and even to create a monarchy. Hence, the Federalists were conservatives as opposed to the more liberal Anti-Federalists. Since a war had recently been fought for independence, these were fighting words…and so the battle was engaged. Emotions ran high.
The Federalists, however, were not conservative…they did not really want to return to the English model. As Benjamin Franklin said, something new had been created. But, there were two visions of what this ‘new’ should be. The Federalists saw a world that included finance and manufacturing and trade (international as well as domestic) and in such a world they believed that there needed to be more power lodged in a centralized, national government because there were just some things that a loose confederation of states could not handle. The Anti-Federalists saw a world of farmers and small businesses that were free and independent of these less civil pursuits. They believed that a more decentralized government would better serve the people. Thus, there was a battle of two world-views.
I believe that the same type of situation exists today. I don’t believe that either the Conservatives or the Liberals want to keep the existing structure. The United States is going through a period of transition and there exists (at least) two world-views as to what the future should look like, and it is not the America now in existence or the America of the past. In this sense, what the Conservatives and the Liberals want, in their own way, is innovative and disruptive in nature. The Conservatives do not want to conserve and the Liberals are not liberal in the sense of being ‘open-minded’ about what should take place. They both have a vision and their visions diverge rather than converge…hence the rancor and bitterness of some of the debate.
Where does this leave us? If we take the earlier experience as a guide we can conclude that this division will not be resolved soon. In my interpretation of past events, the Federalists had an immediate victory and a relatively strong, centralized government was formed, much to the benefit of the United States. However, the Democratic-Republican Party controlled the Presidency and the Congress for a lengthy period of time beginning in 1800 and won many battles in the 19th century. We still, as a nation, from time-to-time, long for the idyllic America, the one composed of small farms and small businesses. The heritage of this past still lingers with us. Yet, one can argue that the United States that evolved is really more ‘Hamiltonian’ (see New York Times columnist David Brooks) than it is anything else.
If this is the case and the conflicting world-views continue to do battle we must adjust our mindsets and perceive the situation as it is and not as a battle to conserve or liberate the country, but as one in which there are (at least) two perceptions of how the government should be structured. I, personally, don’t have any suggestions at the moment as to what these world-views should be called. All I know for sure is that they should not be called Conservative and Liberal.
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Comparing the Idealist and the Realists
I was just reading the book, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace by Donald Markwell (Oxford University Press: 2006) and came to a section titled Idealism. Markwell had been discussing the Peace Conference held in Paris after World War I, the peace conference from which Keynes resigned his position in protest and wrote a scathing book entitled The Economic Consequences of the Peace that reported what had gone on at the conference, described the roles of the leaders of the conference and projected the consequences of the peace treaty that resulted from the conference. In the section just mentioned, Markwell contrasts Keynes’s ‘idealistic’ approach to the ‘realistic’ approach followed by the French leader Clemenceau. This contrast struck me as relevant for what is going on in the United States today.
Markwell defines “the realist or Carthaginian approach” as one that “saw man as ‘congenitally ordained to prey upon his fellows’” with the result being that history was “a perpetual prize-fight.” (Page 109) “The idealist or Keynesian approach saw ‘humanity and (European) civilisation struggling towards a new order.’” (Page 109) Along with this, Markwell states, there were two conflicting conceptions of justice: one stating that the righting of wrongs was ‘the essence of justice’; and the other urging that “nations are not authorised…to visit on the children of their enemies the misdoings of parents or of rulers”.
Within the context of the aftermath of World War I, the realist was “committed wholly to the interests of his nation” and, since the conflict between nations would not change, “a Carthagian peace was inevitable.” (Page 110) No alternative was possible and no thought could be given to the future…only the past. Keynes, we are told, argued that this plan would be impoverishing and would continually need to be enforced,
Within a ‘realist’ view of the world there is little in the way of hope or of improvement or of advancement. There is no place for ideas, for innovation, for bringing people together. There was no place for peace and justice free of retribution.
It seems to me that this contrast can be applied today to the political situation in the United States and it applies to a war…the cultural war that has been going on for the past forty years or so. It is young and old again, as in the sixties, but now those from the sixties are the old ones. And, the young ones are tired of their battles.
The ‘realists’ from the sixties contend that they represent a list of ‘victims’ and there are those that are ‘congenitally ordained’ to prey on them: that this situation is one of ‘a perpetual prize-fight.’ To these ‘realists’ justice is a matter of righting wrongs and of setting things straight. Therefore, the trenches are the only place to be! There is no alternative and there is no future…only the past.
But to this I agree with Keynes: this is impoverishing, not only because it continually keeps us ‘at war’ but because it does not free us up to work in any other direction. We are imprisoned!
And, what of the ‘idealists’? The ‘idealists’ argue that we need to move to a new order and a new sense of justice. We need to move beyond the trenches and get on with life. We need to contemplate a ‘new order’. We can never achieve retribution for the sins of our fathers and mothers; we can never gain full satisfaction for the wrongs that have been done in the past. We need to use our ideas and our hopes as fuel to conceive of a different paradigm. We need to put the ‘war’ behind us!
It is impossible for me to move on, however, without stating, again, that politics is a matter of balance. Almost every situation we experience has, at least, two parties that have conflicting programs aimed at resolving the problems embedded within the situation. Politics is a matter of achieving balance between the competing solutions so that the parties involved can go forward and co-exist in some form so that life can go on. The important thing to realize is that this balance can change from time-to-time as people and situations change. Thus, looking at the current political situation in the United States I would argue that the balance between the ‘realists’ and the ‘idealists’ needs to be changed and moved toward the end of the spectrum occupied by the ‘idealists.’
What this means at the present time is that we do not forget history. We do not forget the problems in American society that were identified in the fifties and sixties and of the efforts that were made to resolve them. We cannot dismiss what happened. But, we can move to a different level. We can go beyond the ‘prize-fight’ mentality and work toward a ‘new order’, an order we define as ‘us’ and not an order defined as ‘us versus them.’
What is this society going to be like? What are the programs and policies that are going to get us there? I don’t think anyone exactly knows that at this time. But, I think attitudes are changing and that they need to change further. We need to reset the balance between the ‘realist or Carthagian’ view of the world where the assumption is that every one preys upon his or her fellows and the ‘idealist’ view of the world that “references ‘hopes’ and ‘expectations’ for a ‘new age.’” (Markwell, page 110)
The ‘idealist’ may be called impractical or a dreamer, but being willing to seek new answers is the only way that human beings and the societies they construct can realistically solve new and more complex problems. And, solving problems is what humans do best!
Markwell defines “the realist or Carthaginian approach” as one that “saw man as ‘congenitally ordained to prey upon his fellows’” with the result being that history was “a perpetual prize-fight.” (Page 109) “The idealist or Keynesian approach saw ‘humanity and (European) civilisation struggling towards a new order.’” (Page 109) Along with this, Markwell states, there were two conflicting conceptions of justice: one stating that the righting of wrongs was ‘the essence of justice’; and the other urging that “nations are not authorised…to visit on the children of their enemies the misdoings of parents or of rulers”.
Within the context of the aftermath of World War I, the realist was “committed wholly to the interests of his nation” and, since the conflict between nations would not change, “a Carthagian peace was inevitable.” (Page 110) No alternative was possible and no thought could be given to the future…only the past. Keynes, we are told, argued that this plan would be impoverishing and would continually need to be enforced,
Within a ‘realist’ view of the world there is little in the way of hope or of improvement or of advancement. There is no place for ideas, for innovation, for bringing people together. There was no place for peace and justice free of retribution.
It seems to me that this contrast can be applied today to the political situation in the United States and it applies to a war…the cultural war that has been going on for the past forty years or so. It is young and old again, as in the sixties, but now those from the sixties are the old ones. And, the young ones are tired of their battles.
The ‘realists’ from the sixties contend that they represent a list of ‘victims’ and there are those that are ‘congenitally ordained’ to prey on them: that this situation is one of ‘a perpetual prize-fight.’ To these ‘realists’ justice is a matter of righting wrongs and of setting things straight. Therefore, the trenches are the only place to be! There is no alternative and there is no future…only the past.
But to this I agree with Keynes: this is impoverishing, not only because it continually keeps us ‘at war’ but because it does not free us up to work in any other direction. We are imprisoned!
And, what of the ‘idealists’? The ‘idealists’ argue that we need to move to a new order and a new sense of justice. We need to move beyond the trenches and get on with life. We need to contemplate a ‘new order’. We can never achieve retribution for the sins of our fathers and mothers; we can never gain full satisfaction for the wrongs that have been done in the past. We need to use our ideas and our hopes as fuel to conceive of a different paradigm. We need to put the ‘war’ behind us!
It is impossible for me to move on, however, without stating, again, that politics is a matter of balance. Almost every situation we experience has, at least, two parties that have conflicting programs aimed at resolving the problems embedded within the situation. Politics is a matter of achieving balance between the competing solutions so that the parties involved can go forward and co-exist in some form so that life can go on. The important thing to realize is that this balance can change from time-to-time as people and situations change. Thus, looking at the current political situation in the United States I would argue that the balance between the ‘realists’ and the ‘idealists’ needs to be changed and moved toward the end of the spectrum occupied by the ‘idealists.’
What this means at the present time is that we do not forget history. We do not forget the problems in American society that were identified in the fifties and sixties and of the efforts that were made to resolve them. We cannot dismiss what happened. But, we can move to a different level. We can go beyond the ‘prize-fight’ mentality and work toward a ‘new order’, an order we define as ‘us’ and not an order defined as ‘us versus them.’
What is this society going to be like? What are the programs and policies that are going to get us there? I don’t think anyone exactly knows that at this time. But, I think attitudes are changing and that they need to change further. We need to reset the balance between the ‘realist or Carthagian’ view of the world where the assumption is that every one preys upon his or her fellows and the ‘idealist’ view of the world that “references ‘hopes’ and ‘expectations’ for a ‘new age.’” (Markwell, page 110)
The ‘idealist’ may be called impractical or a dreamer, but being willing to seek new answers is the only way that human beings and the societies they construct can realistically solve new and more complex problems. And, solving problems is what humans do best!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)