Some errors from OCR conversion may remain -- you can correct as needed.
From: Writing the World
Editor and author of this information: Charles R. Cooper and Susan Peck MacDonald
Publisher: Bedford/St. Martin's
City: New York
Year: 2000
General introduction to all stances
Evaluating Civic Stances
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, 1788
The statements on the preceding page are two of the most famous statements in U.S. history. Memorable, moving, and eloquent though they are, these statements are open to multiple interpretations when applied to specific issues. Note, for instance, the various ways the Declaration or the Preamble might be interpreted in the following cases:
You have probably heard or argued about some of the issues on this list. Each issue reveals some tension between all owing the individual absolute freedom of choice and allowing government to act on behalf of its members. Whether the government involved is at the town, county, state, or federal level, there will be differences of opinion about the decisions that are made. These differences result in different general beliefs about government-or different civic stances. In this chapter, the term civic stance refers to the most frequently adopted beliefs about government size, individual rights or liberties, and economic policies. The term stances implies that people's beliefs about government tend to follow particular patterns, and the term civic implies the relationship between citizens and their government.
Writing Assignment These readings lead to an essay in which you evaluate a civic stance. In this context, evaluating means judging one of the three stances to be preferable, on the whole, to the other two and giving reasons why you prefer it. To make such an evaluation, you will need to understand the possible arguments for the stance you prefer and be able to use them to support your own argument. You will also, however, need to understand the other two stances well enough to explain them to a reader and to argue against them. As you read, concentrate on two things: understanding what a conservative, a liberal, and a libertarian are likely to advocate, and evaluating each of the positions. Ask yourself, What is this writer's argument? What belief is central to this stance? What do I find convincing or unconvincing? Developing your essay will involve constant comparison and contrast as you weigh these competing stances and evaluate their benefits for society. |
The readings in this chapter are organized according to three prominent and commonly held civic stances: conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. You may at first be tempted to say, "I am an individual, and my civic choices don't follow any pattern at all." Frequently, however, peoples underlying beliefs do follow consistent patterns, and the civic choices available to them come in packages anyway, not as separate issues. When you vote for a senator or a mayor, for example, you vote for someone you hope will represent your wishes on a broad array of issues, not just on one issue. The three civic stances you will read about-and choose among-in this chapter are sets of beliefs on a broad array of issues. They are stances you will often encounter in political discussions.
The conservative stance, in general, may be summed up in the words of late Republican U.S. senator Barry Goldwater, an outspoken conservative who ran for president in 1964. In 1960, Goldwater wrote: ''The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order." In other words, the conservative expects government to carry out tasks that individuals cannot do, such as building highways and maintaining police forces and armies. Beyond such tasks, however, the conservative would guarantee a maximum of freedom for individuals.
The liberal, on the other hand, is likely to assign a more active role to government, as revealed in this statement by liberal philosopher Ronald Dworkin:
Liberals believe, first, that government must be neutral in matters of personal morality, that it must leave people free to live as they think best so long as they do not harm others. [ ... ] The second side of liberalism is economic. Liberals insist that government has a responsibility to reduce economic inequality, both through its management of the economy and through welfare programs that redistribute wealth to soften the impact of poverty
Both the neutrality toward moral issues, which Dworkin values, and the desire to redistribute wealth would be likely to displease conservatives, who see government as a necessary evil. Liberals, however, generally believe that government regulations are good if they can have good results. Liberals are less likely than conservatives to think that the economy will produce equality all by itself if it is allowed to work freely.
Libertarians are likely to agree with liberals about neutrality toward personal morality but to agree with conservatives-and even more vehemently-that government should not manage the economy. Influential libertarian economist Milton Friedman encapsulates the libertarian argument when he writes:
The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather, "What can 1 and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?
The libertarian is more likely than the conservative to view government as a necessary evil to be kept under control-or a misshapen Frankenstein monster likely to haunt those who allow it too much power. Some extreme libertarians have even argued that roads could be built and owned privately or that income taxes should be abolished.
You are probably aware that these three civic stances have some strong connections to current political parties. The Democratic Party is frequently associated with liberalism, and the Republican Party with conservatism. Such associations, however, can be misleading. Some Democrats are relatively conservative, and some Republicans are relatively liberal. Some Republicans have been deeply influenced by libertarianism, whereas others have not. Moreover, political candidates often move in more conservative or more liberal directions during elections, depending on how they think they will best gain votes. And there are always periodic redefinitions within parties of what it means to be conservative, liberal, or libertarian in relation to specific current issues. For all of these reasons, then, it is best to focus on the three civic stances without trying to line them up with particular parties or candidates.
It may be clear to you by now that three basic areas of disagreement among conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are about size of government, individual rights or liberties, and governments role in the economy These topics are discussed within each group of readings. First, writers for each of the stances have an opinion about the appropriate size of government. From the time of the framing of the Constitution, Americans have disagreed about whether government should be larger or smaller and whether the most important governmental bodies should be the local ones (towns, cities, counties, states) or the federal government. This question has generated controversy throughout U.S. history-from the time of the framing of the Constitution, through the time of the Civil War, and continuing to the present day For example, citizens often question whether national or local educational policies will foster better schools or whether state welfare programs will be superior to those run by the federal government.
Second, conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are likely to disagree about whether the government may regulate individual behavior. One view is that the right to "the pursuit of happiness" can be interpreted to justify government regulation. For instance, some people who assume that heroin addiction causes unhappiness for the individual might also believe that government is justified in preventing heroin use. At the same time, some who champion the individual's right to liberty (or freedom, a word used interchangeably with liberty) might deny government the right to regulate heroin use. The Preamble to the Constitution contains similar potential conflicts-the problems of using government regulation to "insure domestic tranquility" or "promote the general welfare" while also guaranteeing "the blessings of liberty." Many arguments have been waged-and continue to be waged-concerning this tension between individual liberty and the government's right to regulate individual behavior. When can one person's free speech be abridged for the good of another? Is cigarette smoking an individual right or should cigarette smoking be prohibited in public places to safeguard the health of nonsmokers and of smokers themselves? If the government acts to limit access to pornography over the Internet, is it promoting the general welfare or curtailing individual liberty?
A third issue that conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are likely to disagree about is whether the government should intervene in economic affairs. The government already intervenes by taxing Americans to finance Social Security benefits, health care for the poor and the elderly, and public schools and highways. Taxes also support government regulations about workplace safety, environmental protection, fair hiring, and the safety of foods and medicine. Not all of these government interventions are popular, of course, yet many Americans want the benefits they might be entitled to individually, such as unemployment compensation, Social Security, or federal disaster relief.
As you read the various arguments on these issues, you may find it difficult initially to choose one of the three civic stances as preferable to the other two and then to defend your choice. You may even be tempted to choose part of one stance and part of another. This difficult choice is a reflection of the difficult choices individuals are often required to make in their civic lives. When you see the taxes taken out of your paycheck, for instance, you may be tempted to adopt a libertarian stance and say, "No more taxes!" At the same time, you may want the improved roads, college loans, federal disaster relief, or farm subsidies that your taxes support. One thing you will learn in this chapter, then, is that any civic stance involves trade-offs.
You may be aware that conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism are only a few of the civic stances possible. Anarchism, communism, communitarianism, and democratic socialism are other possible stances that have gained popularity at times in U.S. history: Closely related versions of a civic stance often go under different names. For instance, there are people with roots in liberalism who might nevertheless refer to themselves as "progressives" or "Leftists" or "populists," depending on what kind of policies they prefer and how they see themselves in relation to liberals. There are also conservatives who would disagree with current conservative programs and would distinguish between neoconservatives and paleo-, or traditional, conservatives.
For your essay in this chapter, however, you need not be concerned with any of these other views. Just choose among the three alternatives of conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. You should find it challenging and interesting to defend one of these three civic stances.Specific Tenets of Each Stance
CONSERVATISM
Conservatism today may be seen as a response to social and economic programs initiated by liberals in the thirty or more years stretching from the New Deal of the 1930s through the 1960s. Contemporary conservatives tend to argue that the liberal social programs instituted in those years to "promote the general welfare" have, instead, discouraged individual responsibility and overregulated the economy.
When asked to what extent the government can or should intervene in individual behavior, a conservative is likely to promote individual freedom as an ideal but to think that Americans have gone too far in the direction of individual freedom and have abandoned many traditional moral principles. When asked what to do about a rise in teenage pregnancies, for instance, a conservative might answer: "Reemphasize personal morality Stop teaching birth control in the schools and stop constantly exposing young people to sex in movies and other entertainment." In the realm of individual behavior, then, today's conservatives tend to accept some types of regulation.
When asked about government social programs or economic regulations, however, a modem conservative might say: "Government has grown too large and bureaucratic, too removed from local control; its intrusion into our lives is creating resentment, trampling on our rights, reducing personal responsibility, and stifling the economic growth that will do more for the good of our citizens than any government programs can do." In short, conservatives tend to think that smaller and more local government is preferable to the national government. Conservatives also tend to argue that a free-market economy will do more for the general welfare of society than will government regulation of the economy
Many conservatives focus on issues of personal morality or behavior, such as family breakdown or crime. As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead writes: "The principal source of family decline over the past three decades has been cultural. It has to do with the ascendancy of a set of values that have been destructive of commitment, obligation, responsibility, and sacrifice-and particularly destructive of the claims of children on adult attention and ~commitment."~ William Bennett, author of the 1993 best-seller The Book of Virtues, offers the following ways in which public policies have contributed to what he calls "cultural decline":
Not all conservatives have the same focus. On the whole, however, when they discuss personal behavior, today's conservatives are likely to emphasize morality and personal responsibility rather than individual liberties; conservatives may even support limits on private behavior. On the other hand, when conservatives discuss the economic realm, they tend to emphasize liberty or freedom- to want smaller government and fewer social programs supported by tax dollars. Although there are some important differences among conservatives, the patterns of concern for personal responsibility and small government nevertheless stand out. The following set of readings provides further insights into the conservative stance.
LIBERALISM
Contemporary liberalism is rooted not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the social and economic programs that began in the 1930s and extended through the 1960s, from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal to President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society Liberals today continue to believe that the federal government should protect individual liberties and promote the general welfare by providing a safety net for the least fortunate. Some conservatives argue that solving the problems of today's families requires changes in behavior, such as a renewed commitment to traditional moral standards.
To such an argument, a liberal might reply: "The old morality was based partly on the inequality of women, and a return to the family or the moral values of the 1950s would trample on the newly achieved rights of women. Changes in the contemporary American family are the result of women's liberation, economic change, and the need for two-income families." This hypothetical liberal argues, then, that the rights of one p u p (women, in this example) cannot be subordinated for the sake of a vague general good. Today's liberal tends to value individual rights and to be wary of restrictions on personal behavior.
But this same liberal might answer a conservative very differently when government regulation of the economy is at issue. For example, a liberal might say: "Look at the problems society already has and look at the role of large corporations. Government regulations are there to keep powerful individuals or groups from trampling on the rights of the less powerful but also to help build roads and schools and provide for other benefits that individuals could not achieve on their own." In this liberal argument, government plays a crucial role in promoting the general welfare, refereeing the economy, and reducing inequality
Barbara Presley Noble, for example, argued in 1994 against critics of big government by citing this list of important safeguards that the federal government has enacted since the 1930s:
Liberals today are also likely to differ with conservatives about moral values. This difference may occur because liberals distrust what conservatives say about morality or because they think economic policies and conditions-not moral breakdown-are the most important cause of social problems. For instance, Arlene Skolnick makes this liberal contribution to the debate about family values:
Instead of debating the merits of Murphy Brown or the Waltons vs. the Simpsons, we should be discussing how to help families cope with the real problems of family life [. . .] the need to have two or more incomes to make ends meet, the unaffordability of housing and health care, the inadequacy of child care, the spread of Depression-era conditions, the disgraceful number of children living in poverty.
Skolnick's point is that family problems derive from economic pressures and that it is somewhat hypocritical to try to solve such problems simply by calling for a return to morality Ronald Dworkin emphasizes this point as well when he explains the social and economic sides of liberalism:
Liberalism has two aspects, and they are both under powerful attack. Liberals believe, first, that government must be neutral in matters of personal morality, that it must leave people free to live as they think best so long as they do not harm others. But the Reverend Jerry Falwell, and other politicians who claim to speak for some "moral majority," want to enforce their own morality with the steel of the criminal law. They know what kind of sex is bad, which books are fit for public libraries, what place religion should have in education and family life, when human life begins, that contraception is sin, and that abortion is capital sin. They think the rest of us should be forced to practice what they preach. The old issue of political theory-whether the law should enforce a state morality is once again an important issue of practical politics.
The second side of liberalism is economic. Liberals insist that government has a responsibility to reduce economic inequality, both through its management of the economy and through welfare programs that redistribute wealth to soften the impact of poverty.
As you read the essays by liberals, keep Dworkin's distinctions in mind: that liberals distrust government interference in personal morality but aim to use government to reduce economic inequality
Today's liberal, then, is more likely than today's conservative to endorse government programs, arguing that the changes in the nature and the size of the economy over the last two centuries require more government intervention and regulation than were required when America was smaller. Liberals sometimes argue that, in the Founders' time, people needed protection from tyrannical governments but that now people need government intervention to limit the excesses of modem capitalism and to extend freedom to all citizens.
LIBERTARIANISM
Like liberals and conservatives, libertarians can trace their ideas back to the Declaration of Independence, but libertarianism as a modern political movement has gained most of its strength in the last few decades.
The libertarian is likely to side with the liberal on some issues and with the conservative on others, in each case choosing whichever position advocates the greatest liberty On issues involving individual behavior and civil rights, for instance, the libertarian might side with the liberal, arguing for civil liberties like freedom of expression. The libertarian, however, is likely to go farther than the liberal, advocating freedom from regulations on illegal drugs, cigarette smoking, youth curfews, pornography, prostitution, gun use, electronic mail, and so on, whereas the liberal would probably accept regulations on some of those behaviors.
On economic issues, the libertarian is likely to side with the conservative or take a more extreme position. When asked about national economic wellbeing or programs to create jobs, the libertarian might argue: "The government has no role in creating jobs and will only make a mess of things. Cut or abolish income taxes. Reduce government to a minimum. If we can keep the government out of our lives, we'll all be more prosperous."
Though there is an official Libertarian Party, libertarians have probably had more influence on people's ideas than on their votes or their political party affiliations. There is some evidence, for instance, that libertarian views are becoming more popular with some college students, particularly those in the computer sciences, and among employees in computer companies who chafe at government regulations. There is a strong connection between libertarian and conservative ideas for some people, and there are many Republicans who hold both libertarian and conservative sympathies. Many current Republican politicians, for instance, hold some libertarian ideas on issues like free trade, though other conservative Republicans disagree with them. At the same time, however, libertarians are likely to disagree with some conservative beliefs about social behavior. For the essay you will write in this chapter, it will be easier, as suggested before, to avoid equating any one of these civic stances with any particular political party
The following statement by Harry Browne points up some libertarian beliefs. Browne, who ran for president in 1996 on the Libertarian Party ticket, argues not only that government wastes money but that it encourages behavior most Americans disapprove of:
By the 1990s the welfare system was a shambles. In 1991 the federal government spent $676 billion on social welfare of one kind or another-20 times the 1962 level-and state and local governments spent $489 billion, largely to qualify for federal welfare programs.
Social welfare spending by all levels of government had increased to $1,165 billion ($1.1 trillion) in 199 1, from $63 billion in 1962.
The money spent for public assistance (what we think of as pure welfare) by all levels of government increased to $180 billion in 1991 from $5 billion in 1962 -the year President Kennedy promised to reform the system. . . .
Welfare costs us plenty But it also destroys lives. It perverts the natural . . incentives of everyone who is touched by it. Here are some examples:
- AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) pays money to Mom only if there's no Dad at home, so-surprise! -Dad goes away.
- A teenage girl can become independent of her parents by getting pregnant; otherwise, she must live off her parents and obey their rules. Which life is more attractive to most teenagers?
- Federal job-training for welfare recipients circumvents the need for a teenager to stay in school and learn how to make a living.
- The income test for welfare makes a low-paying job seem pointless. This eliminates the incentive for a young person to get the all-important first job, and so he never gains the experience needed to get a job that would pay more than welfare.
- Medicaid reduces the incentive, especially among the young, to avoid injury and disease.
- The availability of welfare reduces the incentive to save for emergencies. And once people don't have savings, what else can they do but go on welfare when trouble strikes?
The people who have been seduced by welfare have become wards of the state, unable to fend for themselves, with no self-respect and no self-confidence.
Browne seems concerned here primarily with the economic aspects of welfare. Some libertarians, though, focus less on economics and more on behavior and the social realm, believing that individuals should be able to engage in any kind of behavior that does not harm others. These libertarians advocate legalizing drugs, for instance, on the grounds that the state has no business trying to regulate drug use for the well-being of the individual-that individuals should be free to make decisions about their own lives, even to harm themselves if they so wish.
An example of this social and moral libertarianism can be seen in the remarks of writer and college professor Camille Paglia, who makes the following distinctions in an interview with the editor of Reason, a libertarian magazine:
I feel that government has no right to intrude into the private realm of consensual behavior. Therefore, I say that I'm for the abolition of all sodomy laws. I'm for abortion rights. I'm for the legalization of drugs-consistent with alcohol regulations. I'm for not just the decriminalization but the legalization of prostitution. Again, prostitutes must not intrude into the public realm. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that civil authorities have the right to say that prostitutes should not be loitering near schools, or on the steps of churches, or blocking entrances to buildings and so on. Prostitution should be perfectly legal, but it cannot interfere with other people's access to the public realm.
This sort of distinction-between private behavior and behavior that harms others-is often important to libertarian arguments. Libertarians may disagree with each other about the degree to which there should be liberty from controls and regulations, but they consistently argue for freedom in both the social and the economic realms. Because they advocate liberty so consistently, libertarians may sharply disagree at times with liberals and conservatives. As you read the following arguments, note what sorts of good libertarians think will come from greater liberty and why Also remember to keep track of key terms and concepts and to look for newspaper columns and interviews on the three civic stances.