I had a conversation recently with a conservative who claimed that social conservatives were better at protecting individual liberties than their progressive counterparts. Some good points were made, and I thought I’d examine this by going through the bill of rights in a semi-methodical way. It looks like this may be a series, as I only made it part way into the first amendment today.
Amendment I: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Press. I’m rolling these into one because I think in modern times this has pretty much been considered one right. Rather than two separate rights, one to speak in the public square, the other to print things on paper products, we now see a “freedom of expression” that covers television, the internet, displays of sculpture, etc. I would say that interpretation has been a boon to freedom, and that it’s a primarily liberal achievement, one of interpreting the “spirit of a living document” as opposed to strict constructionism. This isn’t really about the past, however, it’s about the present.
Progressive are far more in favor of hate crime legislation, and bans on hate speech. There’s some reasons for this that are to progressives credit, but the net effect is chilling to speech, and has government deciding what sorts of expressions are acceptable. Score one for conservatives.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are far more likely to decide it’s important to regulate erotic speech. There’s a portion of the liberal movement (Cynthia MacKinnon) et al, that sees pornography as an attempt by men to subjugate women, and uses that as a way to push for speech limits, but I think they’ve lost traction, on the whole. Conservatives are more likely to try to punish “indecency” ala Janet Jackson, and so forth, by levying fines, I think, which has the intent of chilling speech. Liberals are more comfortable with George Carlin’s 7 words. I think, though, as a governing matter, progressives tend to let conservatives get their way here, because they perceive that it gives the least offence, so the actual value to liberty of having progressives in charge is fairly small, except at the judicial level.
Social conservatives are for filtering in libraries, and in general are in favor of library censorship to a far greater degree than are progressives. They go for the listener, essentially, instead of after the speaker.
On the whole, I’m absolutely convinced that progressives believe in these freedoms more than conservatives do, but sadly, I think as a matter of government it’s about a wash.
Amendment I: Freedom of religion, and freedom from government establishment thereof.
By and large, we are indeed free to choose the religion of our choice in this country, and neither social conservatives nor liberals are inclined to change that much. The notable exception is the military, which chooses to recognize or not recognize certain religions as being legitimate, and decides which religious symbols are acceptable to display on the gravestones of veterans. Here, at least, progressives are clearly on the greater freedom side of the issue. We’ll find this a repeating theme, actually; progressives almost always favor greater freedom for people in the military.
Social conservatives are far more likely to advocate that time be set aside in public events for prayer; they are far more likely to assert that Christian and/or Jewish displays are normative and that Buddhist/Wiccan/etc. displays are not, on public property. Progressives are far more likely to think that the solution to discriminatory religious display policies is to allow no religious displays at all, and it’s hard to see how that makes people more free.
Social Conservatives are responsible for the state establishment of religion in the “Under God” clause of the pledge of allegiance.
Social Conservatives are more likely to think it’s appropriate to “profile” Muslims as potential terrorists, and to do so in a way that inhibits their freedoms and essentially punishes them for their religion.
On to the right to assemble and petition next time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Greta Christina had a good piece (that I can't find now) about how conservatives tend to revere freedom as an abstract principle, but be against it in practice. For instance, the guy who owns Liberty Auto and reads Liberty News Forum is likely to want to forbid some guy in San Francisco from being allowed to stick his willie in the orifice of his choice.
Progressives are far more likely to think that the solution to discriminatory religious display policies is to allow no religious displays at all, and it’s hard to see how that makes people more free.
Do you mean things like prayers at school graduations?
When it comes to things like crèches on courthouse lawns, progressives tend to adopt the position that if the local Baptist church can put up a crèche, then the local synagogue must also be allowed to put up a menorah, and the Muslims can put up a "Happy Ramadan" sign, and so forth. That if you want to forbid the Muslim display, you have to forbid the Christian one as well; it comes as a package. Or maybe I'm projecting my views onto other progressives.
For things like the congressional morning prayer/invocation, I think this has been more or less adequately solved by having a new person say the preayer each morning, presumably determined by giving each congressperson a turn at choosing someone.
So the only example of "no religious displays" that leaps to mind is prayer at school graduations. This seems to me to be different from the congressional prayer case in that, while for the faculty and administration, the fall 2008 graduation is but one of many, for the students, this is their one and only High School graduation, and it would suck to have it marred by a distasteful prayer.
So I guess it's a matter of freedom from religion, not freedom of religion, and how much weight to assign to each.
On to the right to assemble and petition next time.
I sense trial lawyers. :-)
Turns out I forgot where I was, and didn't do assembly and petition, skipping right on forward... I'll have to backtrack and do those. That will teach me to let these things sit too long.
I think it's not really a case that conservatives view freedom as an abstraction; I think they view it as something to be preserved, but not extended. I have no doubt that in 1860 folks thought their "right" to own slaves was being abridged, and the "rights" of the states to decide such issues for themselves was being abridged, while having no interest in the rights of the slaves themselves. By 1870, the same people perceived themselves as less free, and saw the KKK as a way to defend their "rights."
Post a Comment