Liberals and conservatives

Steve Gimbel's excellent speech at yesterday's convocation reminded me of an insight I had awhile ago about the difference between the liberal and conservative mindsets. The liberal, it seems to me, believes that to understand any situation requires him to view the matter from a number of different perspectives: from his own point of view, from the perspective of other participants in the situation, from the perspective of social theory and moral principle, and so on. He turns it over and over in his mind and ends up with a nuanced (critics would say mushy) final analysis. The conservative, on the other hand, believes that there is one universal moral perspective from which one must analyze any situation. Her analytical task is therefore much easier and her conclusions have "moral clarity" (critics would say they are simplistic). The liberal mindset, of course, is consistent with what we mean (and what Steve was talking about) when we refer to a "liberal arts education". This is why, I believe, you are more likely to find liberals in academia.

Some examples:

1. Iran. To the conservative, it's simple. Iran is a bad country, focused on acquiring nuclear weapons and supportive of terrorism. It is hostile to the U.S. and Israel. Consequently, it must be stopped. There can be no dialogue with this country, for it is part of the "axis of evil". The liberal accepts the conservatives' points above. At the same time, the liberal will look at the situation from the perspective of the history of Islam and the Middle East, recognizing that Iran's expansionist agenda arises from the historic Shiite-Sunni rivalry. The liberal also recognizes that much of the hostility that Iran displays arises from its recent history as a pawn in the struggle between the great imperial powers. Likewise, hostility towards Israel is seen as troublesome, yet arising not only from crude antisemitism but also from Israel's occupation of the West Bank. In other words, the situation is complex. We can talk about this.

2. Crime. To the conservative, it's simple. There are laws. Some people break the laws. These people need to be punished. The liberal accepts this analysis. But we ask, why did the person commit the crime? What were his motivations, what social conditions trained his mind in such a way that committing a criminal act was, from his perspective, a reasonable course to take? Perhaps there was a brief period of time at the end of the 1960s when the liberal would use this analysis to excuse criminal behavior, but this is no longer generally true; we seek to punish, but also to address the underlying causes of criminal activity so that it occurs with less frequency. A curious special case: immigration. How many times have we heard conservative commentators put it this simply: "immigrants who are here illegally must be sent back to where they came from or punished. They broke the law!" The liberal has some sympathy with the immigrant, who was not necessarily bound by the social compact that produced the immigration law before arriving here (I need a political theorist to talk me through this one).

Conservativism will always have public appeal because humans strive for clarity. Liberals will always face an uphill climb because we revel in complexity. Liberals will always be overrepresented in academia. And education ought to produce more liberals.