Fusionism Revisited
Daniel Larison has a thoughtful, and skeptical, reply to my earlier post on New Fusionism. The comments to the post are also quite interesting.
It makes me realize that I don’t think I spelled out one of the predicates of my argument sufficiently. I think that the prevalence of the social conservative worldview, broadly defined, is on a long-term downward trajectory in the United States. I make this as an attempt at a descriptive, not normative, statement.
This obviously might change. To some extent, this trend is a product of increasing material abundance, and a truly catastrophic reduction in living standards would likely reverse it, as an example. But the environment in which we live increasingly is one in which it grows ever-more-difficult to maintain a national legal regime that permits any implicit or explicit preferences for a traditional way of life.
What this means for traditionalists is that the best they can hope for is a national government with minimum scope of authority, because it will tend to use whatever authority it has for ends that they don’t like.
As I’ve argued previously, I think that a proper understanding of libertarian thought should call for restraint in imposing uniform national rules, even some rules designed to prevent localities from restricting some individual autonomy.
This is not an alliance of soul mates, but one of shared interests. This also implies a view of politics that is more about building sewers than cathedrals. It’s necessary work, and in a certain frame of mind can be inspiring in its effects; but it’s low to the ground and full of muck.
Jim, I think this is exactly right. I would add that one reason to be hopeful about such coalitions is that people who want to restrict the power and scope of government don’t, in general, need to have the same reasons for seeking such restrictions. On the other hand, those who want to expand the power and scope of government will need to have similar goals in mind. The Great Society advocate and the theocrat won’t be able to find a common cause.
— Alan Jacobs · Mar 10, 03:35 PM · #
Yes, but it’s very difficult to take any politician seriously when they promise to limit government anymore. Shared interests or no.
— E.D. Kain · Mar 10, 04:37 PM · #
If libertarians were merely social moderates, there would be no problem with an alliance on the terms that you suggest.
The problem is that they are extremists on social issues, and hence always obstruct whatever pragmatic compromises there may be between the conservative position and the median voter (think of crime-related issues, and related concerns which parents often have, especially). Since these are the classical suburban swing voters, this is of no negligible consequence.
The main effect of the libertarian presence in the conservative coalition is to give free-reign to the cultural laissez-faire of liberals, which is ultimately responsible for a social devastation which makes an expanded state necessary.
The solution to a dogmatic and unpopular social conservatism is a pragmatic social conservatism, not the similarly dogmatic social liberalism of the libertarians.
— Chris · Mar 10, 04:59 PM · #
I feel like I have too much appreciation of the pro-social aspects of collectivism to have an easy time calling myself a libertarian – but at a certain point, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….
With that in mind, what assurances are conservatives going to give me that they won’t allow me to be extradited from New York to Utah (or any other of a number of idiosyncratic local communities) because a citizen in one of those jurisdictions wanted to purchase a copy of DAMON AND HUNTER (or any other or my films) for the purpose of watching it in the privacy of her own home, and I had the temerity to send it to her?
That the annoyance engendered an agnostic jew high school athlete pre-game prayers caused him to quit participating varsity sports (an activity he rather loved at his previous, more secularly minded public high school in a more secular minded community) might seem a trivial price to pay to leave local communities to enjoy their idiosyncratic values. Perhaps my concerns seem trivial too. I guess it all depends on where your bread gets buttered.
Conservatives (social and otherwise) have a long way to go to convince me that they’re not from the government and they’re here to help.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 10, 08:49 PM · #
I dunno, Alan. I seem to remember some Christian Right-type folks and out-there feminists getting together over the question of pornography a few years back. People can join political coalitions with the expectation that they’ll always be in the driver’s seat.
The more difficult part of the idea (and I’m sympathetic to Jim’s arguments) is that we just don’t live in homogeneous communities – moral and religious pluralism is pretty much everywhere – and I just don’t know how leaving things be will be enough. Social conservatives probably won’t care much what Tony’s watching in his house, but what if he decides to open a porno shop across from the junior high? Whose views will public schools reflect? Live and let live requires a modicum of agreement about what’s reasonable public behavior, where the public/private lines ought to be drawn, etc. And it seems to me that it’s precisely along those lines that what’s called the “culture wars” gets fought out.
Finally, there’s what we might call the “status quo” problem. People tend to give a kind of presumptive legitimacy to social, political, and economic institutions as they exist. They may change their minds, of course, but they will recognize it as a change. So some of our cultural conflicts could be avoided or mitigated if it were the case that our political authorities weren’t so intimately involved. But they are – and unless I’m greatly mistaken, that’s not the change headed our way. Quite the opposite.
— Bryan · Mar 10, 10:36 PM · #
“ Social conservatives probably won’t care much what Tony’s watching in his house, but what if he decides to open a porno shop across from the junior high?”
No need to resort to anything as inflammatory as a hypothetical porn shop across from a hypothetical junior high school.
I’ve spoken personally with retailers in Utah, Oklahoma and Alabama who dedided that they could not offer our films to their customer because they feared that carrying our films would invite prosecution from local authorities.
I remember talking to one woman at a trade show last year who said the local DA leaves his business in her mailbox at least once a month. She doesn’t run a porn shop. She sells lingerie ranging from maternity bras, to foundation garments, to something sheer to help a woman set the mood for an evening at home with husband. And just to make sure she knows she’s being watched, the DA leaves his business card in her mailbox; and because of that, she won’t carry our films, even though she thinks the women who shop in her store would like to buy them.
And of course there are the zip-code black lists that DVD mail-order/internet catalogs maintain for fear of just the sort of prosecution I’ve outlined in my previous post. I didn’t name Utah as a matter of shorthand for Social Conservative; I chose it because the entire state of Utah is almost universally blacklisted.
I am not utterly dismissive about local laws observing local customs or the local reality. I hold a fairly dogmatic view of the Second Ammendment, but I also recognize that what works in rural Oregon may not work in New York City.
I am also trying to be open-minded when I hear Christians whom I respect talk about their experience of feeling marginalized because of their faith. I have some experience with feeling I have to be cautious about what I say to whom; with being shut out of conversations or markets because my beliefs are considered gauche, or inappropriate, or illegal.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 10, 11:40 PM · #
Since there seem to be an above average number of academics contributing to TAS, I probably should relate another experience:
I am not an academic or clinician, but my films are well-regarded in academic/medical circles and as a result I was at a conference where every other person was Dr. So-And-So, or So-And-So, Ph.D. While I was there I met a fellow who was both an MD and a PhD who taught at either UOkla or OklaState. (I can’t remember which.) He was familiar with our films by reputation only and wanted to know more about them because he thought they might be useful both in his practice and his teaching.
The first question this sort of person is inclined to ask is “Are they educational?” “Educational” is code for two things. 1) Are there people with letters like Ph.D or M.D associated with this production? and 2) Is the sexuality in these films presented in a way that would not generally be considered pornography?
The first question is easy to answer. Tony Comstock doesn’t even have a birth certificate, let alone an advanced degree.
The second question is more difficult. Unlike obscenity or indecency, which have vague, but legally binding meanings, pornography is a “pejorative without portfolio;” and means whatever the person wielding it wants it to mean. So my answer to this question (it comes up enough that I have a stock answer) is simply to say that the films are well-liked by educators, therapists and clinicians; and then to describe the narrative content, the tone and the visual depictions in the films using (such as I am able) value neutral language.
“Oh,” came his response, “I won’t be able to use these. Penetration is illegal in Oklahoma.”
Of course that’s nonsense. Penetration is not illegal in Oklahoma, nor are depictions of (sexual) penetration. What the good doctor was expressing was a layman’s understanding of how obscenity laws are interpreted and enforced in Oklahoma, under the second prong of the Miller Test; “Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,”
My point is this; we don’t have conjure an imaginary fusion of conservatism and libertarianism to begin to guess at how idiosyncratic communities might restrict “some individual autonomy.” There are example we can look at right now, often revolving around issues of sexuality and freedom of speech.
I suppose one might argue that the good doctor not being able to use my films in his classes; or the lingerie merchant not being able to carry and sell my films to her customers hasn’t actually infringed my First Amendment Rights (although I do not believe legal president would support such a narrow reading.)
Or perhaps one might make my Second Amendment argument; that what’s appropriate merchandise for a lingerie store in New York is not appropriate for a lingerie store in Utah; or what’s appropriate teaching materials for a university in Indiana is not appropriate teaching materials for a university in Oklahoma; and the closer to the community the decision happens, the better the decision is going to be for the local community and for the body politic as a whole.
Or maybe on would simply say that what has happened in the case of my films is an idiosyncratic side-effect of a fundamentally beneficial stance; an unfortunate, but ultimately trivial outcome in the world of unintended consequences. I guess it all depends on where your bread is buttered.
But as Bryan pointed out, often times what people think is reasonable, right, and natural comes from the perspective of being in the driver’s seat, and the presumption that one’s place in the driver’s seat is manifestly reasonable, right, and natural.
“Uptopian” a barb the right’s enjoyed throwing at the left for some time now, but I think it’s a vastly more versatile insult.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 11, 06:36 PM · #