Risk and politics

This is an issue that Sullywatch has expounded upon in some detail and I’m inclined to agree with their view is that it’s a particular rhetorical style that conservatives are good at which explains some of their success. Not so much easy for/against statements, but a structure where every sentence is on the attack.

I think liberals need to get better at on-message name calling e.g. a week where Republicans are referred to as “economic supremacists” at every opportunity. Frum loves that tightrope, for sure, but does he ever really think that he would fall off?

But, as William James pointed out a hundred years ago, the exclusive worship of the bitch-goddess success, together with the squalid cash interpretation of the word success, is the American national disease. And if this is where you worship, then it’s obviously true that the risk of breaking your neck which concentrates your mind on stsying up there is a good thing. To suggest otherwise would be heresy.

What the non-right really faces is the task of convincing the great American public that there are more important things in life than coming a long way from St Louis. It’s a taller order than merely arguing about degrees of risk mitigation.

Steve, what ‘abundant leftist talk’? Seen any sign of it since, say, 1975?

I think abb1’s point is that:

1) leftists are pretty clear about what they want

but

2) they are shut out of the national political conversation, so that although they show up occasionally on the so-called left of the blogosphere, they are virtually absent from TV and major news outlets

Where’s the contradiction?

Ah, OK. Let me clarify: yes, the left has plenty to say, but the left doesn’t exist in the US politics. To make it real simple: where are leftist NYT ot WP or LAT opinion columninsts? Where are the leftist TV talking heads? Do you know one?

As an actuary I love reading about risk in a practical sense as opposed to a theoretical sense, but Frum and conservatives don’t seem to be singing from the hymnal on this one. The implication of risk is that sometimes the thing will happen. You can be a risk seeker or a risk averter; you can welcome the higher returns (financial and otherwise) that reside in the presence of risk; and in limited cases you can actually hedge your risk perfectly. But the thing about risk is, you can do all these things, and sometimes the thing you are at risk for will still happen, and you will find no shelter in the definition. Conservatives fail because, as ben alpers was getting at, they believe that as long as they are hedged everyone else can take a flying leap.

Yeah, so, basically what the liberals need to be saying is this: we’ll take good ideas from the egalitarian internationalist left and from the libertarian nationalist right and mix them together into something acceptable to almost everyone. But there’s nothing on the left of them, so they have to keep trying to prove that they are not communists and traitors. That’s sad.

On a quick perusal, no different to my centrist – liberal eyes from the more widely publicized pronouncements of such windbags as Chomsky and Moore. (Wow, a speech by Hugo Chavez- be still my beating heart.) Giving more outlets to this stuff is supposed to hurt conservatives? Dream on.

If I were the kind of person who gets to dictate the public framing of issues, I would make sure that every sentence that starts with “Conservatives” uses “fear” as the verb. As in: “Conservatives fear future terrorist attacks,” or “Conservatives fear women’s reproductive rights,” even “Conservative fear paying taxes.”

I would consistently link conservatism with fear and cowardice, with aversion to change and progress, and with giving in to threats and intimidation. I think it would be an effective frame, and it has the advantage of being true.

I’d like to keep this practical and incorporate your suggestion as to the risk component. How’s this for a slogan:

Vote Democratic: It’s like fucking in the Seventies.

You’re getting warm, Henry.

Speaking as a conservative, I’ll grant that my worldview entails a cavalier and somewhat cold-hearted attitude toward personal risk and disaster; and I agree with David Frum, more or less as you present him. This attitude necessarily rises from the moral, historical, and philosophical foundation of American conservatism. However, it should not be mistaken for the foundation. I do not start with a grin at my own callousness, then think “where do I go from here?”

Like any informed person, I have seen many efforts lately, to come up with a handy rhetorical container for conservative principles. Conservatives want a “strict father” government; are a coalition of bigots, scared animals, dupes and rogues; regard risk as a good thing; etc. There may be a bit of truth in these assertions, but it’s all rather presumptuous, like psychoanalyzing someone you never met based on his shopping list. And the result, invariably, is a handy rhetorical container…with nothing in it. Conservatism isn’t in there, because the container doesn’t fit.

No amount of rhetorical inventiveness (or think-tank investment, or talk radio) will improve the fortunes of the left-of-center in America. Believe me, there is no “difficulty in saying”; everybody hears what you’re saying, and knows what you mean by it. Everybody knows, in aggregate and detail, in practice and in principle, what you stand for.

Some of us disagree, is all.

Steve, but I am not saying that the left is necessarily better or more coherent than the right. All I’m saying is that when one side of the argument is not presented at all, then the other side’s dogma achieves legitimacy it doesn’t necessarily deserve. Concepts like ‘capitalism’, ‘free trade’, ‘individualism’, etc. win by default, just like when one of the boxers fails to show up for the fight.

Heh, the reason the left can’t come up with snappy one liners that hit home with the right is that if they are premised on something like this “[For the Right]…it’s less concerned with increasing individuals’ ability to make choices, than ensuring that they’re exposed to the brisk winds of chance and market forces.” they’ll think you’re a loon.

Hah, can you imagine Rush spouting off, not about liberty, but how corporate corruption builds character in investors. HAHAHAHAHAA, that is crazy talk. Seeing the right through the eyes of the left, what a trip.

I would consistently link conservatism with fear and cowardice, with aversion to change and progress, and with giving in to threats and intimidation.

That would explain the Iraq war, Social Security reform, and the pathological fear of guns.

Conservative people tend to be comfortable viewing the world in black and white. Liberals love shades of gray.

I’m a conservative, and I prefer color.

Emerson argues that both mindsets are useful—liberals pull us toward change (making many crazy errors along the way, but also advancing us to new and better states), while conservatives keep us grounded in the pragmatic realities of today.

When Emerson wrote that, the words “conservative” and “liberal” meant the opposite of what they do today.

“When Emerson wrote that, the words “conservative” and “liberal” meant the opposite of what they do today.”

I haven’t read Emerson’s essay on conservatism in about 20 years (and I don’t feel like looking it up and re-reading it right now so I’m going out on a limb here a bit), but from memory I don’t think the way Emerson defines liberalism in that essay necessarily links with the kind of 19th century liberalism you are refering to, which indeed does resemble current laissez faire conservatism. So liberal may have meant something different to many people at the time (and opposite of today’s meaning), but if I recall correctly, Emerson’s idea of liberal in his writing is more akin to “revolutionary” and more like what we currently think of when we think of liberals.

Anyway, his point is really to compare people who seek to change things with people who are comfortable with the way things are. Call them what you want. One more reason why I try to avoid the silly terms conservative and liberal and ultimately reject the whole dicotomy.

Where would I put myself? I think the 2nd amendment is absolutely as important as the 1st and I own (and use) guns . . . and believe Americans have an inalienable right to own assault weapons if they want. But I give money to the ACLU and don’t like the NRA. I believe, like Scalia, that the Constitution is essentially “dead” as he jokes and am a strict interpretationalist. But I think the 9th amendment means something and I think one of the (possibly infinite) 9th amendment protected Constitutional rights is a right to privacy. (Isn’t that conservative that the government should stay out of our private lives? But most people think supporting a right to privacy is a liberal position . . .) So am I liberal or conservative? Beats me . . .

I would agree with dipnut about at least one thing (which probably surprises him as much as it surprises me): today’s conservatives are much more active change-agents than today’s liberals. That’s why the word “radical right” better describes the current leadership of the GOP than does “conservative.” They decry present-day realities as something only political wimps need to deal with; real men make their own facts. They appeal to much of their political base by claiming that America is headed straight to hell (quite literally) and that massive change is necessary to prevent that disaster.

By contrast today’s liberals (or at least the leadership of the Democratic Party) truly have been guided by fear and cowardice in the face of these right-wing challenges to American traditions of pluralism, science, and so forth. I wouldn’t agree with dipnut’s examples of this, of course, or at least not as he means them. The vast swath of lukewarm and cynical Democratic support for the IWR in October 2002 was an act of supreme cowardice, in my view, as was the party’s decision to nominate a Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate who supported this war. Their current stance on Social Security, by contrast, is relatively brave (though the vast public opposition to GOP plans to dismantle our most successful social program makes the Democrats’ decision to take a stand a little easier). To give the Dems some credit, in the last few months, they’ve shown some renewed signs of life.

“ECONOMIC SECURITY”

THAT is the simple phase suggested by this post that describes something popular with the public that conservatives do not like but cannot actually come out against either.

Of course, conservatives ARE for economic security, but only for a select group of people. Creditors and shareholders.

Sebastian, are you implying that Marxism is somehow ubiquitous? Name one Marxist oped writer for any major (hell, even minor) US newspaper. What was the last time you saw a Marxist on TV? Maxism is all but banned from the US mainstream political discourse. ‘Socialism’ is a swear-word. The dialog is between the far-right and the center-right. It’s obvious, then, that the center-right has nothing exciting to say; their only slogan is: we are like them, but not extremists; ‘capitalism with a human face’. Not too arousing.

One observation on the broader issue of the left’s current inability to articulate an effective position on anything right now . . .

We shouldn’t forget that until Ronald Reagan came along, no one on the right really connected with the American people in any significant way. FDR’s New Deal was the dominant political ideology and the Republicans were the “me-too-but-less-of-it party.” Success in American politics depends on connecting with the vast Middle Class. For many years, the New Deal made that connection and most Middle Class people identified themselves as Democrats. Lots started to change in the 60s and especially the 70s though. The Democrats (smug in their power) failed to notice the changes and lost out when Reagan was able to define a new paradigm that connected with the Middle Class’s new reality.

Here’s what happened:

1. A new generation of Middle Class Americans who were more likely to be college-educated than their parents began to identify themselves with their employers and management rather than identifying themselves with labor. The Democrats, however, continued to define themselves as a labor party, even as children struggled to realize their parents’ dreams and move from blue-collar to white-collar jobs. The Middle Class changed its loyalties and the Democrats missed it altogether.

2. In the 70s in particular, the American Middle Class went through a real crisis, where it’s economic opportunities suddenly seemed to be drying up. There was stagflation and the first signs of significant global competition and the loss of a manufacturing jobs. Through all this, the Democrats seemed to be focused only on expanding programs for the poor. The Middle Class in America doesn’t think of itself as poor and doesn’t like to be called poor (it’s a sign of personal failure in the land of opportunity), so the Democratic message was missing the Middle Class completely (to accept the Democratic message meant accepting the notion that you were poor and unempowered and hence a failure–the psychology of this was impossible for the proud sons and daughters of the immigrants that made up so much of the working Middle Class). It wasn’t hard for Middle Class people to begin to believe that the Democrats were no longer their friends, but were instead taking their hard-earned economic success away from them and giving away their money (through tax transfer programs) to the poor.

3. The race issue was big and not just in the South. Democrats seemed to be a party that put minorities first . . . and a lot of the white Northerners losing factory jobs resented this.

4. For generations, the military has been highly revered by Americans. FDR won world war II and increased our military might. He was revered for this. With Vietnam, though, Democrats were on the wrong side of the ever-popular military. Lots of the Middle Class people were turned off to the party by this.

5. As the Middle Class began to see the Democrats as more and more the party of the lower class, Reagan came with a simple four-part message;

A. You are rich and can be a success in business (not just a manager, even an entreprenuer!) if only the government gets out of your way (ah, no more need to be a weakling and failure, like the Democrats say I am)

B. You are right, your taxes are too high and all your money is going to welfare cheats. You work hard, you deserve to keep your money. (Finally, someone who understands!)

C. The military is good and we’re gonna make it even better so we can punch a few commies if we need to. (I feel so much more empowered already!)

D. America is still the great land of opportunity, the shining city on a hill your grandparents thought it was when they came here from Italy and Poland and Germany and Ireland to create a better life for themselves. You will be a success here, if only you follow my lead! (I’m voting for this guy!)

Suddenly, Reaganism was the new dominant political ideology and the Democrats became the “me-too-but-a-little-less-of-it party”–essentially accepting Reaganism (as Clinton did) but trying to soften the edges a bit.

Now, however, the Republicans are starting to show some signs of losing touch with the vast Middle Class themselves. The economy is in real trouble and it’s gonna get worse if we don’t get the deficits (both trade and budget) under control. The Middle Class (which did quite well in the 1990s) is starting to feel an income pinch–and health care and retirement security are declining fast . . . not to mention the vast cloud of personal debt that hangs over the Middle Class thanks to their ever-larger mortgages and credit card balances (and the new bankruptcy bill on top of it!). While all this is happening, the Republicans are caught up trying to please their “moral values” crowd–their own version of the Democrat’s antiwar crowd. There’s lots of danger here for the Republicans and an opportunity for the Democrats. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Liberals and Conservatives both have fear issues. With liberal ideology it tends to be health, environment and job security. With conservative ideology it tends to be national security, personal safety, and job opportunity. At this moment in US politics national security and personal safety issues trump the rest. Eventually it will move to health and job security.

All political ideologies in the US attempt to enforce their moral position on social issues. It is ironic that neither position recognizes this trait in themselves.

rsl, it seems to me the religious far-right(or the ‘moral values’ crowd) is already chomping at the bit, having been totally shot down by the courts during the schiavo debacle and not getting anything from el presidente on the gay marriage ban. however, methinks it would be better to let that particular beast starve to its death than be fed by the democrats to further an opportunistic goal.

the problem with coming up with a catchy slogan for the democratic party is because they have all these things to defend(social security, environmental protection et al) that are already under severe attack. before they can move on to attacking the republicans for their policy failures or whatever.

A recent letter to an American magazine whose name escapes me proposed the three slogans of American conservatism:
1)The United States is the greatest country on Earth.
2)If you work hard, you can get rich.
3)Faith and family are the basis of society.
All of the slogans have obvious weaknessess, but the point is they’re popular, even with people who aren’t conservatives. Heck, Noam Chomsky has said something close to 1) in an interview. Find three liberal slogans that would be just as popular with Americans, and half the battle’s won.

May Day a.k.a. International Workers Day is coming. If the “liberals” have any brains, they’ll be doing something on that day. And they shouldn’t be worrying to no end about people labelling them as “communists”. because the history of the United States is on their side.

A brief comment on Henry’s original point about the distinction between conservatives and liberals having to do with differing attitudes (or comfort with) risk. There’s something here, but I think the more fundamental difference may really be in their attitudes toward individual and collective action. Conservatives tend to glorify individual action (and hence things like competition, risk-taking, etc.), while liberals are more likely to appreciate collective solutions (emphasizing cooperation, compassion, etc.). One reason I so dislike the division of the world into liberal and conservative camps is that I feel there are merits to both views, and effective (i.e., pragmatic rather than ideological) government policy requires an ability to balance individual and collective approaches. In fact, every successful society in human history has succeeded by achieving such a balance–and swinging too far toward one pole is certain to send a society into decline.

This may seem like a plea for moderation . . . and maybe it is . . . but I prefer to stand at both poles at once, rather than sit in the middle. I like the two extremes coexisting in tension more than I like a placid middle.

Like many other commenters here, I take issue with the notion that right-wingers like “risk”. George W. never risked a thing in his life. How does eliminating the estate tax count as character-building or thrill-seeking?

What they want is for *everyone else* to take risks.

abb1: on an earlier comment of yours, Barbara Ehrenreich had a column in Time for quite awhile in the recent past (don’t know whether she still does) and is a bona fide Marxist.

The Republican fetishinzing of risk leads to (a) military incompetence (Iraq). Advertised as averting the risk of WMDs for the American public, it actually represents a gamble for Empire, what the British used to call “the great game.” They gambled with our soldiers’ lives.

(b) Corporate crime. In a word: Enron. What is more risky than breaking the law, or at least bending it into a tangled mass, and assuming you are smart enough to get away with it?

(c) Political corruption. In a name: Tom DeLay.

(d) The sabotaging of the social safety net, as discussed above, but the Democrats should take back moral discourse from the Republicans and emphasize that this machismo of risk is criminally irresponsible.

“The ownership society” means the rich own the society.

King George III would be proud. No concept could possibly be more anti-democratic and anti-American than that.

Mitigating risk takes money. If you already have more money than you need, your risk is already mitigated: bad economic stuff can happen without actually harming you. Therefore you will be disinclined to spend anything on mitigating other people’s risk. It’s a benefit you don’t really need. So, you vote Republican.

Simple as that, really. It’s not that conservatives have a different attitude toward risk. It’s that rich people are in a better position to face risks.

Hi Steve. You’ve shown us another way of characterising conservatives- by a tendency to conflate economic and moral failure. By these standards- Ken Lay good, Jesus bad.

Steve Burton: well, your distinction between moral and economic failure is just empty talk. When it comes to the effects of both kinds of failure, you want to handle them the exact same way.

You talk about bearing the costs of risk-taking. Ken Lay took a risk. The investor who was fooled into throwing his money into the drain called Enron also took a risk. One person committed a moral wrong, the other did not. Yet you’d treat both the same way. What’s the use of distinguishing moral and economic failure if it doesn’t translate to a difference in policy?

bi: Ken Lay committed fraud and is legally subject to punishment. The investor was defrauded and is entitled to compensation. What’s this “handle them the exact same way” stuff?

Quite apart from state action, Ken Lay and the defrauded investor should also be treated differently by the community – the former with censure, the latter with sympathy and, if necessary, support. The same goes for other cases where economic failure results from irresponsibility or malfeasance, on the one hand, or from bad luck or victimization, on the other.

But Steve, isn’t it pretty much what I said? Growth of prudent individuals, prosperity to the fittest, most developed, – and well-deserved demise to the weak, corrupt and defected, the whole Nation becomes stronger, healthier, more excellent, more superior. This seems to be the concept behind it, even if you don’t like the phrase ‘race of supermen’.

This is basically a dystopia the opposite of the communist utopia where…

…nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus [enables] me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I [wish], without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

Why do I get the feeling that people here have forgotten Schumpeter?

The ability to politicize and externalize risk means that every interest group has a vested interest in making sure they don’t have to take it; corporations want to know that tariffs, subsidies, or regulation will protect them and encumber their opponents. Labor wants to know that workers will be protected, etc.

And presto – “interest group liberalism” which remains the best description of what we’ve got that I’ve seen. Of course it cuts both right and left…

A.L.

armed liberal cuts to the heart of the matter. Henry Farrell writes that “the left’s motive is to mitigate risk,” but it would be closer to the truth to say that the motive of left and right alike nowadays is to “politicize and externalize risk,” shifting it from one’s own client interest groups to the other side’s clients. (If by “left and right” we mean “Democrats and Republicans.” Real conservatives, on the other hand – well, that’s another matter entirely.)