Liberalism, Conservatism, and the Second Amendment

[Bud Helms]

Wow. There is some "coming out of the closet" in this thread.

One of the things that stands out, as I read through this discussion is the stereotyping, the "Judge me on my stand on the Second Amendment," while painting your ideological opponents with that "broad brush".

Coming here at this point in the discussion is a real education about the "hardened" attitudes we bring with us.

And poor analogies.

Try this- If you've grown up around horses all your life, why is it so hard for you to realize that someone who hasn't might be afraid of horses?

I am puzzled by this for the simple reason that it isn't difficult at all to realize that someone that hasn't grown up around horses might be afraid of them.

Thinking one level deep ... to the next conclusion, without some logic processing to the end of your argument may do your argument little good.

Here's another befuddlement:

Liberalism and Conservatism have to be reconcilable if this nation's manner of governance is to succeed. It's the compromise between differing ideologies that results in policy, that's the way it's supposed to work- the policies are the end-product of our political process, not the beginning of the definition of right or wrong.

One thing this does show is how difficult it is to allow discussions of the Second without an occasional suare` into general politics, of which I am guilty here too. But my befuddlement with this assertion is that I believe that Liberalism and Conservatism do not have to be reconciled. I take that to mean some interbreeding of philosophy to reach a common political point of view. Partisanship is okay. Really. That's why we have elections. Life is a struggle. And we see policy made day-to-day, right now, with little, if any, reconciliation and compromise. Maybe that's isn't how it is supposed to be, but take a look at how it's working.

The "Yeah, I agree with you on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but your kind is just wrong on everything else," is simply not helping any reconciliation on any level. It elicits an antagonistic response and off we go ... start all over: reluctant compromise with some anticipation of getting even next time. It is right here in this thread. In general terms (not political jargon), reconciliation is an attitude change that might also result in some behavior change, compromise is a practical agreement on outcome (Yes, these are my definitions but I looked up both words in Merriam-Webster Online).

"I'm too right to be wrong" is not a philosophy. It is a style. In any endeavor of political alliance, including serving the preservation of the Second, if one side has to stand for a stereotyping rant from the other side that wanders outside the subject of the Second, then there may be no alliance at all. On the other hand, I have no motive to change the way you think, if we support each other in action.

Some things can't be taught, they have to be learned. Think about it. Finger-pointing and sloganology is habitual. And if you can't join in this fight without bringing your political baggage with you, then you are baggage for the rest of us.

One last thing: If a discussion of the Second is merely an opportunity for a political food fight, then it will serve no purpose, so we need to choose our statements and positions carefully from here on. Me included.

[Edit: I see Glenn is pondering the value of this discussion. I think maybe he has a point.]

 

[Phoebe]

Social and economic ideology is often split. One's authoritarian/libertarian stance is very important. "Gun control" is rather inherently authoritarian. It basically says, "the government doesn't trust you with this power, so you must give it up." I think we need to examine WHY we desire to give the government certain authorities to limit our rights, and where we draw the line.

The only way I seem to be able to understand a "liberal" (meaning libertarian on social policy here) supporting gun control would be to invert the perspective. If one views gun control as affecting the other party, it becomes more attractive. If person A doesn't own a gun, keeping BG Y from having one would increase person A's ability to make free decisions. Sadly, this leads people to support restrictive policies inconsistent with their stated philosophy.
...unless one assumes "liberals" are authoritarian in nature. Given current economic policy, this may be true, but it does not match with "classic liberalism" nor the DNC's social goals...
It's an odd paradox to me.

In the first paragraph, I totally agree.

You're losing me in the 2nd paragraph.

As you yourself point out, there is an authoritarian/libertarian access for both the right and the left. Those on the authoritarian left, will almost certainly be anti-gun. They are, in general, looking to the state to make good choices for people rather than permitting individual autonomy. Its the so called "nanny state" liberalism.

On the other side, authoritarian conservatives want to legislate morality, generally in accordance with god. In the US, there is also a tendency for conservatives to believe that people need to stand on their own two feet...and that notion would go along with being in favor of 2A.

I can actually build anti and pro gun arguments for both liberals and conservatives.

The DNC and GOP present a more polarized picture. Most of us folks are more nuanced.

 

[Uncle Billy]

Phoebe: +1

I am puzzled by this for the simple reason that it isn't difficult at all to realize that someone that hasn't grown up around horses might be afraid of them.

Thinking one level deep ... to the next conclusion, without some logic processing to the end of your argument may do your argument little good.

I didn't think it necessary to complete the analogy by explaining it: People who are afraid of horses because they have no first-hand experience with them, and people who are afraid of guns because they have no first-hand experience with them, seem to me to similar enough situations to enable the comparison. I thought that would have been clear from the context in which I wrote the analogy.

..Liberalism and Conservatism do not have to be reconciled. I take that to mean some interbreeding of philosophy to reach a common political point of view. Partisanship is okay. Really. That's why we have elections. Life is a struggle. And we see policy made day-to-day, right now, with little, if any, reconciliation and compromise. Maybe that's isn't how it is supposed to be, but take a look at how it's working.

I meant "reconciled" in the sense that they must find a common ground, a position both can live with on an issue before them so that legislation can be passed. That's how it works under normal circumstances- that is, when one side or the other doesn't have enough votes to pass legislation without some from the other side voting with them, thereby demanding that a compromise be found that enough from both sides will vote for to get it passed. This is the situation the Founders had in mind when they established the rules under which legislation gets enacted. That's not exactly the situation now- the Dems have a majority in both houses of Congress and hold the White House, but that's not permanent by any means, and recent history shows that there isn't consensus among all the Dems in the Senate anyway.

"Interbreeding", to me, infers the creation of a new perspective that's an offspring of the 2 originals, and that's NOT required by our system of government, only that they must agree on a compromise before anything gets passed, under normal circumstances, but they don't have to change their fundamental tenets.

 

[raimius]

Phoebe,

I think too often politics is separated into "right v. left." This is a terrible way to label, given the authoritarian/libertarian split amongst conservatives and liberals.

I can easily understand an authoritarian liberal instituting more gun control. It would fit with their general view of the state's role.

I cannot easily understand a libertarian liberal supporting the same policy...unless one frames the debate in a very strange way.

I think the gun control question is more authoritarian/libertarian than liberal/conservative in nature. Oddly, the DNC took the authoritarian side, and the GOP took the libertarian side. I think this is odd, given the stances on other civil/human rights discussions.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, we have a nice set of reasonable and nuanced discussions to conclude. We are tending to go over the same ground and I think we have answered the OP, who came and went.

Thus, I'll shut us down to end on the high note. Thanks all for the contributions.

Glenn