I am a liberal. I believe in the power of government helping folks over the power of corporations helping folks. That's not quite true - really I believe corporations only help anyone when it benefits them. Corporate altruism is either bad business or an oxymoron. Still, aside from the vitriolic rancor of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter et al, the serious theory behind conservatism is of interest to me, if only because it is instructive to me to understand the flip side of my own beliefs. So, when a real live conservative wants to talk about the theory behind their belief, I am, I think, a receptive audience.
To my mind, conservatism is characterized by the desire for a strong defense, the belief that market forces are the most effective methods not only of economic performance but of social change and social justice and the belief that smaller, less intrusive, more localized government is preferable to a large centralized government. There is also the idea of "strict constructionism" which could be put as "constitutional fundamentalism". That is to say that the Constitution should get as literal and narrow a definition as can reasonably be made. I'm not sure of the basis for this, but I presume it has something to do with the fact that when we try to divine intent, we stray into a VERY unclear area where just about anything can be justified. Now, I don't really believe market forces work for social good, but I'm open to hearing arguments about it and I certainly do not disregard the other central tenets.
In addition to this, though, the Republican party has a second sort of conservatism, social conservatism. This is characterized, in my mind, by uncompromising positions on gay rights, the right to choose and the open declaration of America as a Christian nation. And here is where conservatives lose me. First of all, there's the move to make anything associated with homosexuality illegal. That is, make it a government function to police sexual practices. This seems counter to the idea of a smaller and less intrusive government. Then there is the drive to declare America a Christian nation. Now, as I read the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .", seems to be pretty clear on this point, certainly if one takes it very literally as a strict constructionist might.
And this takes me to my title. I've always enjoyed the various rants of Dennis Miller. His politics seemed somewhere between libertarian and liberal, at least liberal in terms of the above social issues. One thing that has always seemed to be true, though of Dennis Miller is that he has a rather low tolerance for bull. Which is why I am utterly mystified by his sudden conversion to the side of George W. Bush. Actually, a bit more than mystified, I'm a little hurt. If Miller had chosen to be a sort of Rockefeller Republican, I can certainly understand and respect that. But to align himself with the Fundamentalist Christian president, the ultra-intrusive Justice Department and the rest of the current administration - well, it seems like he's pretty much going counter to all the things he's been saying for the last 15 or so years. Maybe it was all schtick and his true beliefs were different than what he presented to us. Still and all, I feel like the man who made himself out as the comic "crap detector" was feeding us a heaping plate of it all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment