Distributed Mind

I was thinking a moment ago, somewhat mistakenly, that an important feature of liberalism - classic or modern - was that all humans were equal and deserved equal treatment. After all, classic liberalism gave us such statements as "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Thus, things like the golden rule or the categorical imperative would be crucial guiding principles. Hence, in so far as modern conservatism claims itself to be derived from classic liberalism, it would be quite mistaken. For clearly modern conservativism - in its most common manifestaton, anyway - believes that this equality is narrowly contained within certain national boundaries, and it seems arguable that limitations on this equality may extend to socio-economic boundaries and ethnic and religious ones (I mean specifically to refer to Islam - not any other religion; I for one do not believe most conservatives want to quash all things that do not fall under traditional Christianity or Judaism, though they sometimes do go too far in such things). It would seem modern liberalism fails to take equality entirely seriously as well (the tendency to simply subsidize everything by taxing the rich is a possible example, though some might take difference with that suggestion, and I am not 100% certain I buy it), but at least it is willing to stand up for those of other nationalities and economic status (we will ignore its failings to erase racial boundaries in the first half of the last century, for the moment).

This is important in that, if one were to give equality its full due, one would have to consider the plight of the innocent person who might be tortured by mistake or the resident of the south side of Chicago who by mere virtue of their place of birth and their ancestry is demonstrably less likely to graduate high school, go to college, is more likely to end up in jail, and who can expect a much lower salary. Or, possibly even the resident of some foreign country that lacked democracy in that to point out their plight under a dictator is not the same as to really consider whether they want violent overthrow of that same dictator, let alone to decide for them. In so far as modern conservativism fails, apparently, to seriously consider any of these, it has merely co-opted some ideas and language of classic liberalism while putting it all at the service of a classist, xenophobic, elitist, small-minded traditionalism.

Of course, then I remembered, as one is so often wont to do in this case, that a significant portion of the people who lived in this prenatal country when the words "all men are created equal" were written did not believe them. In so far as it extended to women, almost none of them believed it, at least in the sense we would today (it is the case that they extended almost all rights to women - voting be a very significant omission, of course). Shoot, the author of that document did not believe this. The only people who came close to believing this for the most part were a bunch of strange religious types (as usual, I revel in the irony of that, as well as the irony that it is considered ironic). Is it any wonder that from such hypocritical origins we today suffer from such a failure to really believe and practice the equality we hold to be so foundational to our society? Thank you very much, Mr. Jefferson. (This is not to say that the United States was not an improvement in most ways over what else existed at the time, but we should also not look to the morality of 1776 or 1787 to be the epitome of human ethical development.)

Regardless of our moral origins, though, I think the only way forward is to take up the idea equality - even if it has never truly been in the past. That we are all equal in the eyes of our creator was a foundational idea of Christianity and Enlightenment morality. As a follower of both ideals (the former without reservation, and the second as a useful practical adjunct), I do not find radical egalitarianism to be such a shocking idea. That it is in our world shows how far we have strayed from the best of our intellectual and moral origins (which were so often limited to begin with).

[I note that in listing things conservativism would have to consider I may have overstated to a degree the case - I certainly have not held back the rhetoric - but I think the idea here is mostly sound, though I suspect it will sound offensive to many conservative readers. I understand that there are complex arguments on all three examples that I mentioned, but I think a careful investigation of at least the second will suggest that it is the case that conservativism is wrong in claiming that equality exists for such people. The first case can merit no serious argument, and I am adamant on that point. The third is my weakest example, but points to a principle I think is both important and deep - namely that violence is of very limited value. I would not automatically disregard any argument on that case, but I am not particularly interested in having such an argument either.]

[Oh, and the religious persons I am of course referring to are our good friends the Quakers. There may be some others that could qualify (the Mennonites and some Baptists among others came close in many ways, for example), but I am mostly thinking of them.]