Thoughts on Political Philosophies

It occurs to me that, when considering the allocation of resources, we can view political philosophies on a continuum. On the ‘right’ end of the continuum, believers fancy their beliefs to be guided by personal responsibility. Those on the ‘left’ end of the continuum would, I imagine (I can only imagine!), consider their guiding principle to be compassion for their fellow humans.

Since I ‘live’ on the right end, I can observe that most people on the right believe that people need to be responsible for their actions. A market based economy is not always ‘fair’ in that some people end up with vastly larger sums than others, but on the other hand virtually everyone has an opportunity to create the life he or she wants and is willing to work to achieve. While some have inherent advantage, and some work or abuse the system, when viewed as a whole the system allocates the resources in accordance with the efforts of its participants, and more people do well than do not. Those on the right will likely argue that if someone chooses to engage in behavior that does not tend to lead to success, then that same someone will have a less successful life and it is really no one’s fault but their own.

I don’t believe that the right is driven in this direction because they hate people, or have no compassion. I would like to think that those of us on the right support limited government primarily because the opposite does not work. In other words, when we as a society direct significant portions of our income toward insulating people from the consequences of their bad decisions, we should not be surprised when this conduct leads to more bad decisions, not fewer bad decisions. We might argue, for example, that a significant reduction in the numbers of people eligible for welfare benefits, while painful for those individuals who would otherwise receive benefits, might, on the whole, result in a more productive population as a whole.

On the other hand, the left seems to generally want to dismiss the reasons why people find misfortune as irrelevant. If the decision-maker is dictated by compassion, anyone is entitled to compassion, regardless of how their misfortune arose. It matters not that a person is in dire straits due to his or her own choice; we still must offer all the assistance we can. (From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.)

And the left will tell you that their way works. They will point to successes where a particular individual was given health care, or job training, or saved from starvation. They will tell you that this number of people or that percentage of workers obtained benefits. They will argue that the right’s reliance on personal choice will not work because some people, due to their backgrounds or otherwise, simply lack the capacity to succeed in our complex, modern world and it is our responsibility as a society to ensure that their needs are met. They will argue that the only reason their programs are not more effective is that the stingy, greedy folks on the right refuse to adequately fund them, and if only there was more money we’d all have health care, no one would be hungry, and on and on.

As a lawyer I work in an adversary system. Our belief in the judicial realm is that by strongly advocating two competing viewpoints to a neutral observer, we most often achieve what is “right” and “true.” In my experience, I have learned that usually, almost always, in fact, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think the same holds true in this political discussion.

In other words, the “truth” or the “answer” or the “right path” probably lies in between the two competing viewpoints. We need a strong reliance on personal responsibility, and people who simply cannot perform must be protected from starvation. What political philosophy can bridge this gap? The political philosophy best able to help society as a whole is the conservative philosophy, because only this point of view recognizes some validity in the opposing philosophy.

For example, I do not know any ‘pure’ believers on the right. In other words, I’ve not encountered anyone other than the occasional bar stool crank who will argue that there should be absolutely no assistance for those less fortunate. Instead, a far-right individual will typically argue that the government should offer no more than a fragile safety net, will argue that people should be primarily responsible for their own decisions, and will argue that the government programs we have in place go way overboard in indulging our society in a sort of cradle to grave mentality.

Those on the right, though, will recognize that there is a need to help people, and will accept some systems to do it. Their resistance, however, is one of degree. In other words, how far left will we travel on the continuum?

In my opinion, though, the left will brook no compromise. If a woman has 4 kids with 3 different men by the time she is 20, that fact is irrelevant to the typical liberal. She needs the aid. A drug addict is not responsible for his decision to take drugs because he has an ‘illness.’ A 23 year old high school dropout deserves a ‘living wage’ and ‘universal health care’ despite the fact that he has, apparently, made no effort to comport himself with the requirements of our economy. It’s not the individual’s fault that he declared bankruptcy, it’s the bank’s fault for extending him credit; we just need to offer him relief. Even cold blooded murders deserve our compassion, and a lifetime of support, without regard to the crimes they committed (especially if they write children's books). Have you ever heard someone on the left argue that a particular individual was not worthy of our money because he or she made a bad decision to end up right smack where we find them?

So there you have it. If we operate from the assumption that ‘moderation’ rather than the extremes will lead us to the correct result, it is clear that the only ‘moderate’ thinkers can be found on the right.