August 09, 2005

Is This What Conservatism Is Really All About?

So, I'm reading some SciFi mindcandy Singularity Sky by Charles Stross, 2003 - it's OK. Interesting premise, not played out very well), and I stumble across this exchange at the end of the book that may, I guess, help me to understand the whole "social conservative" thing, the intelligent design debate, the push for the Patriot Act, and other red/blue debates that seems to have taken over the country. This is an exchange between Martin (a spy sent from the higher-technology, more open, democratic system; read "blue stater") and Vassily (a public security official in the heirarchical, closed, state-centric government; read "red stater"). The actual plot of the book is mostly irrelevant (Vassily starts the exchange; I've emphasized a few passages in bold):

"But information isn't free. It can't be. I mean, some things - if anyone could read anything they wanted, they might read things that would tend to deprave and corrupt them, wouldn't they? People might give exactly the same consideration to blasphemous pornography that they pay to the Bible! They could plot against the state, or each other, without the police being able to listen in and stop them!"
Martin sighed. "You're still hooked on the state thing, aren't you?" he said. "Can you just take it from me, there are other ways of organizing your civilization?"
"Well-" Vassily blinked at him in mild confusion. "Are you telling me you let information circulate freely where you come from?"
"It's not a matter of permitting it", Martin pointed out. "We had to admit that we couldn't prevent it. Trying to prevent it was worse than the disease itself."
"But, but lunatics could brew up biological weapons in their kitchens, destroy cities! Anarchists would acquire the power to overthrow the state, and nobody would be able to tell who they were or where they belonged anymore. The more foul nonsense would be spread, and nobody would stop it-" Vassily paused. "You don't believe me," he said plaintively.
"Oh, we believe you alright," Martin said grimly. "It's just - look, change isn't always bad. Sometimes freedom of speech provides a release valve for social tensions that would lead to revolution. And at other times, well - what you're protesting about boils down to a dislike for anything that disturbs the status quo. You see your government as a security blanket, a warm fluffy cover that'll protect everybody from anything bad all the time. There's a lot of that kind of thinking in your system; the idea that people who aren't kept firmly in their place will automatically behave badly. But where I come from, most people have enough common sense to avoid things that'd harm them; and those that don't, need to be taught. Censorship just drives problems underground."
"But, terrorists!"
"Yes," Martin interrupted, "terrorists. There are always people who think they're doing the right thing by inflicting misery on their enemies, kid. And you're perfectly right about brewing up biological weapons and spreading rumors. But-" He shrugged. "We can live with a low background rate of that sort of thing more easily than we can live with total surveillance and total censorship of everyone, all the time."

So, does this whole political left/right thing (at least today) really come down to safety/security versus rights/freedoms? I look at people who believe in intelligent design/creationism as truly nuts: there's mountains of science to refute their position. But that doesn't seem to matter to them. Are they resisting the facts because it challenges their beliefs (and hence, makes them feel less secure and safe)? Bill O'Reilly declared the ACLU is Bin Laden's best ally. I look at that and just shake my head. The ACLU protests (among other things, both good and bad) the government's gathering of information about everyone, and the reduction of civil liberties post-9/11. It's worrying for those of us who feel our civil liberties are a hard-won victory over hundreds of years of monarchy, totalitarianism, and slavery. How can anyone oppose civil liberties? On the other hand, we would certainly be safer (from terrorists) if no one had any.

So, does some significant part of the right-wing political power come from people who just want to feel safer? Physically safer. Mentally, emotionally safer (Don't challenge my beliefs, no matter what they are; don't make me think - I might find I don't believe something, and I'd be insecure). The future is scary and insecure, so let's resist any change. It's the government's job to take care of us (terrorism, criminals, moral decay, jobs, etc.), so let them do what they need to, and don't criticize them. Is that the mindset?

I can respect that, to some degree. Who wouldn't want to feel secure in house, job, life, friends, afterlife, and beliefs? I'm not arguing that what they want is wrong, if that's really how they think.

I'm just worried to all hell about what they'll tear down to get that security. I mean, what?, the Constitution is only 200-odd years old. It was only about 200-odd years ago that regular every-day people finally got to have freedoms and rights (the American and French Revolutions). For most of human history (some 4000 to 5000 years), the everyday person had no real rights or freedoms. No court, no laws to protect them, no government that really gave a rat's ass about them, except to beat them when they didn't produce enough rice/corn/barley/potatoes. From my historical perspective, the 200-odd years where we (the masses) do have rights is balanced precariously on thousands and thousands of years of the ugly side of humanity.

And what's propping up the last 200-odd years? Nothing, really, except the widespread (I would have said universal, but that's clearly wrong now) belief that these rights/freedoms are "inalienable" - that we are given these rights because we are human, that all humans have these rights, and that that they cannot be taken away. If most people stop believing in these "inalienable" rights, they will disappear, and we'll sink back into the normal course of history - where we don't have them. If people, today, really believe that "freedom of speech" doesn't include times of (undeclared) war, when some public criticisms of our policies, personnal and actions could be legitimately seen as aiding and abetting an unseen and unknown enemy (scarry! not secure!), then that freedom begins to be eroded (the courts can only put fingers in the dike for so long, before they bend to public passions). And we slip, ever so slightly, back into the darkness of the normal course of 4000+ years of human history. Each little battle fought, and lost, is a slip in the wrong direction. Intelligent Design in schools. Co-equal branches of government (Congress is supposed to check the executive). Objective and independent press (Fox News). Random searches in the New York subway. Total Information Awareness. Library records. "Enemy Combatants." Rendition. Each slip adds up; soon we're sliding.

I don't want to be insecure. I'm not looking forward to having someone blow me up. I'd like to live a full, healthy, happy and enjoyable life. But neither am I willing to sacrifice these hard won freedoms and rights to make my life more secure.

But that's my take on the security/freedom trade-off. And I'm beginning to think that most of the rest of this place is deciding in the other direction. Each little nibble (slip) doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice (I didn't check out any objectionable books, so why should I worry about them looking through my records?) for what is arguably a gain in security. I suppose I understand that, though I don't agree with it.

We owe it to those who sacrificed themselves hundreds of years ago, working for liberties, rights and freedoms they didn't have. We owe it to those future generations, who deserve the freedom and liberties that we so enjoy. I'm not interested in security, if it leaves me less free. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but neither is it a blank check.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and others were able to commit the horrors they did because the people were deprived of those "inalienable" rights. In most of those cases, the dictators came to power by replacing corrupt, insecure and weak governments and promising the people greater security, prosperity. They often convinced the populations (once they were in power) to give up freedoms in the name of protecting the state, and being more secure personally (Hitler: it's the Jews, let me take them; Stalin: it's the counter-revolutionaries, let the state collectivize; Pol Pot: it's cities making you weak, everyone leave now). In all of these cases, widespread death, disaster and tragedy followed.

Bin Laden may be a threat, but he's no Stalin, Mao or Hitler. Given a choice, I'll rather worry about being blown up by Bin Laden any day of the week.

Posted by baltar at August 9, 2005 11:10 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Culture


Comments

I have similar fears - and it's a key reason why I'm now making an effort to support the ACLU.

Posted by: Armand at August 9, 2005 01:49 PM | PERMALINK

There are a couple of things about this excerpt that strike me.

First, the "fearful" state representative is a stand in (in your analysis) for the PATRIOT state. I was thinking "Russia" not least because his name is Vassily. Gives new meaning to "red state" I suppose.

Second, and more generally for sci fi, this interaction set up the pro vs. anti knowledge confrontation. This has a nice parallel with what you are talking about with fear as the basis for the state. I agree with you, and strongly believe that there are many people who would consign a great deal of good things about democracy to the refuse heap willingly because there are so-called "positive" aspects to authoritarianism.

Two anecdotes (and no, that is not plural enough to be data) that illustrate. Both in post-authoritarian Latin America.

1) "it was better under the dictatorship because there were much fewer things available at the newstands, and no pornography. all the things they sell now, it's indecent."
2) "it's too bad the soldiers with rifles are gone from the crosswalks now, i hadn't seen any homeless for weeks."

Also recall that after the fall of the soviet union, there were those in Russia who wanted the awful security back rather than deal with the frightening uncertainty of a free system (that sadly, it seems they are moving closer to authoritarian certainty is very depressing).

So what does this mean? Yes, people are willing to trade freedom for prosperity, security, whatever, and at very high costs. That is why there are so few of you libertarians out there (and a smattering of real anarchists - not just "burn the fucker down" poseurs - too). Liberty is fucking scary. It requires people to decide things for themselves, and you have to live with other people who decide things differently and thus challenge your worldview. Not challenge you as in "Rush Limbaugh is a fat drug addict, not the second coming" versus "Well yeah? Hilary Clinton is a bitch, so there!" Real challenges that make you think, damn, am I making the right choices? Could I be wrong? That scares the living daylights out of people. And to top it off, they're too damn scared to admit it.

Posted by: binky at August 9, 2005 05:13 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?