7. Why We Need a New Understanding of American Politics The Failure of Liberals to Comprehend Conservatism

We are a few steps away from our denouement, from showing in detail how such an analysis of family-based moral systems contributes to an answer of the puzzles we started with and sheds light on why conservatives and liberals have the political policies they have. But first, it would be useful to show why such an account is needed. Existing attempts by liberals to understand conservative politics have failed. We will begin with three analytic failures by liberals:

1. Conservatism is "the ethos of selfishness."

2. Conservatives just believe in less government.

3. Conservatism is no more than a conspiracy of the ultrarich to protect their money and power and to make themselves even richer and more powerful.

The selfishness hypothesis

Let us begin with the mistake of Michael Lerner of Tikkun magazine, whose "politics of meaning" has been endorsed by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Lerner (Tikkun, November/ December 1994, pp. 12, 18) gets some things right: he correctly perceives progressive-liberal politics as being centered on nurturance and community, what he calls "the ethos of caring." But he is quite mistaken when he dismisses conservative politics as being no more than "the ethos of selfishness." He has missed the conservative moral vision and missed the fact that American voters appear to be responding to that moral vision.

If Lerner were right, simple pragmatic appeals to self-interest should work on conservatives. They don't. If he were right, conservatives in California would have endorsed the Single Payer Initiative, since it would have saved them money. If he were right, conservatives would not be endorsing the replacement of AFDC welfare payments with orphanages, since orphanages cost more than AFDC does. If he were right, conservatives would not be endorsing the Three Strikes legislation and all the money to be spent on prisons that it entails. Simply pointing out to conservatives that these policies do not serve their selfish interests should end the matter right there. It has been pointed out, to no effect.

Lerner's "ethos of selfishness" hypothesis does not explain the moral fervor of the conservative majority as it took over Congress at the beginning of 1995. It does not explain the focus on family values. It doesn't even explain why the conservatives advocate the death penalty, or why they want to abolish the NEA, or why they oppose abortion. The selfishness hypothesis simply does not explain conservative policies.

The less-government hypothesis

Why does conservative politics take the shape it does? Why should conservatives be proposing orphanages? Abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency? Abolishing the arts and humanities endowments? Is it merely, as is repeated over and over, that conservatives want less government and liberals want more?

That cannot be true. Conservatives don't merely want less government. They want to raise spending for the military – even bring back Star Wars – not reduce it. They want to build more prisons. There is no move to eliminate the drug enforcement agency. Or the FBI, or the intelligence agencies. There is no outcry to stop bailouts of large corporations, like Lockheed. Or eliminate nuclear power development. Or to stop funding computer research. There is no attempt to charge airlines for the training of pilots by the Air Force. Or to charge automobile companies for the building of highways. If conservatives simply wanted less government spending or wanted government to pay for itself, there are a myriad of other cuts and reforms they could be proposing. The Less-Government Hypothesis is simply false. It does not explain what conservatives do and don't want to spend money on. Conservatives want to spend on some things and not others. What determines which ones?