Conservative Realism

Last semester I TA'd for a radical quasi-Marxist professor who taught political science 100 from a Marxian political-economic perspective. And I didn't agree with it one bit. My vision of civics, which is what I think POSC 100 should be,  is that it's ultimately up to the individual to be a responsible educated citizen, controlling the things that are in their power. And if we all do this, then the nation will be okay.

Which is why the college kids were puzzled that I'm fascinated by politics yet I'm not into activism or Bernie Sanders type railing against the system. It's cause I still believe in small-r republican virtue, I suppose.

I much agree with statements made by Adam Corolla in an interview that no matter who is president, the federal government is not gonna clean up the sh*t in your backyard or take your kids to school.

"It’s like, what do you mean you can’t? Just go do — go clean the shit out of your back yard. What does that have to do with the federal government? I didn’t even know what she’s talking about.

“The government’s leaving your family behind? You’re supposed to take care of your family. The thing is get the taxes under control and let the people take care of their kids."
“There’s no such thing as a level playing field. It’s, I would say, mathematically impossible to create a level playing field and I’ll tell you why,"

“I went to the same school and had the same opportunity and education as the kids who didn’t. I had friends who went to Stanford, but they had parents and their parents cared and they forced them to do homework and we ran like wild homeless chickens with their heads cut off. And that’s what the difference was,”

“The problem with the government is they can create North Hollywood High and they can staff North Hollywood High, but they can’t follow me home and force my parents to get their shit together so I can do homework."

He was talking specifically about politicians like Elizabeth Warren who's solution is to give sh*t away for free and blame others for their situation in life. As Barack Obama said in a revealing moment "you didn't build that." Such reasoning assumes that people don't deserve the success they've got or the circumstances they find themselves in. In the age of genetics with the human genome sequenced this is becoming increasingly naive, and the value of social capital demonstrates that civil society outside of government is a major determinant of success, which government can't just legislate into existence without taking away liberty. Which might be the point unfortunately.

It's quite sad, but some people actually like this self-defeating attitude. Probably because they're predisposed to it, influenced by genes and social capital I guess. I saw a poll in the news that said 60% of college students supported Sanders, which isn't surprising given college is for many a deferment from actually doing something in life, on grants and subsidized loans of course. They're hearing from college courses what they're probably disposed to hear.

The teacher was a nice guy and luckily comes from an economic or more objective point of view than the social constructivists/postmodernists, the lowest one can sink intellectually. But the class was almost a prime example of college indoctrination. He said that that he's critical of democrats and republicans, but that's not being truly critical I think, only on a superficial level. Right wing ideas aren't given much of a fair shake, a defining trait of those committed to fairness ironically. For example, blaming the Flint situation on corporate greed/power whereas it seems to be a failure of state government.

Repeatedly he told the class that he is angry at the political system, something likely shared by much of the student body. I'm inclined towards pessimism but there is an essential difference between that and the anger that motivates those inclined towards the soft socialism of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. They really think if you get rid of the bad people then everything will be alright. They aren't self-critical whatsoever. They have a ridiculous optimism in government despite their professed negativity towards how its being run. Why they want to give it even more power, under the right people of course.

For example, Robert Reich's defense of the 15 trillion price tag for Medicare-for-all is it will bring down healthcare costs like in Europe. Which is absurdly optimistic. Single payer did poorly in Sanders' own Vermont and a lot of European countries don't exactly have a single payer system but some mix of public and private. Its Britain and Canada which have single payer. But these Sanderistas should learn about path dependency, how hard it is to change an incentive structure which survives just because it has been in use for so long.

I see another reason however to worry about the willingness to grant more state power over our lives: lack of trust. Successful individualism is not based on avarice. An individualistic society involves trusting others to be competent to run their own lives. Individualism is important for democracy because that trust can then be extended to government, where we trust others to be competent to make decisions over us just as they can for themselves. Pericles originally made this argument in his funeral oration. “The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty.” 

The same trust extends to the granting of individual rights: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" - Thomas Jefferson. This holds so long as my neighbor trusts I will tolerate his/her beliefs, no picking pockets or breaking legs.

Society has an ongoing tension between individualist and collective moral values, but government isn't so good a moral leader. A society without this mutual trust and values is one where we turn to the coercive judgement of the state to resolve our conflicts. Instead of working things out privately, we sue each other in court. Thus the "road to serfdom" is paved by distrust and disagreement. We find ourselves increasingly bound to the dictates of unelected bureaucrats because we don't trust each other to do what we think they should. 

As for myself a sense of pessimism, or philosophical realism,  informs a sort of self improvement rather than upheaval. One ought not to fixate on conditions which are out of one's control but struggle for one's own salvation. A healthy society should involve the humility and benevolence of accepting that I don't always know what is good for others and trust them to do it themselves. We shouldn't have to pass legislation to inculcate virtue, we should practice it as individual citizens and towards one another.