George Will has a column today about Larry Summers and The Women Math Professors Massacre. Of course, the chick's ridiculous display makes easy humor fodder of just the right type for Will's dry, conservative wit.
More interesting, however, in getting to the root of the problem, he makes a particularly good statement of what might reasonably be seen as the most essential bottom-line philosophical divide between liberal and conservative thought:
The philosophy of natural right — the Founders' philosophy — rests on a single proposition: There is a universal human nature.
From that fact come, through philosophic reasoning, some normative judgments: Certain social arrangements — particularly government by consent attained by persuasion in a society accepting pluralism — are right for creatures of this nature. Hence the doctrine of "natural right," and the idea of a nation "dedicated," as Lincoln said, to the "proposition" that all men are created equal.
The vehemence of the political left's recoil from this idea is explained by the investment political radicalism has had for several centuries in the notion that human beings are essentially blank slates. What predominates in determining individuals' trajectories — nature or nurture? The left says nature is negligible, nurturing is sovereign. So a properly governed society can write what it wishes on the blank slate of humanity. This maximizes the stakes of politics and the grandeur of government's role. And the importance of governing elites, who are the "progressive" vanguards of a perfected humanity.
This does seem to summarize many political differences. The best end of conservative thought largely stems from deep skepticism about the ability of any government to make humans not act like mammals just by passing laws.
One counterexample of this nature vs nurture breakdown leaps to mind, though. Modern liberals are typically very adamant that homosexuality is absolutely genetic, that it's purely nature and not nurture. To me, this seems like an awfully convenient exception that happens to serve their political ends. The argument there seems to come down to saying that homosexuals can't help who they are (nature), so you can't judge anyone for homosexuality anymore than you can judge someone for being black or Jewish.
Conversely, though, I suppose you could argue that this might be a convenient exception for conservatives who would look on homosexual proclivities as a matter of choice, rather than nature. However, that would seem likely to represent the thinking mostly of the Christian side of conservatives. I'm not sure how they'd fall on this whole nature vs nurture thing to start with.
That choice idea seems to throw a monkey wrench into the whole nature vs nurture thing, doesn't it?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
i dunno man. i'm gonna have to get my head around the idea that homosexuality is somehow a matter for any political group of whatever persuasion to be bothering with in the first place, before i can assess the nitty-gritty of said inherently, shockingly pointless debate.
2 - Steve S
Falling in love is not a choice. Anybody, straight or gay, who has ever been in love knows that.
3 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
al, you've inspired me to write a post all about the duke's thoughts on the political side of things, with regards the homosexuality. this strikes me as very, very bizarre.
4 - Al Barger
It might seem bizarre to you, Duke, but it doesn't seem so to me. Questions about the nature of human sexual and romantic programming are inherently interesting in their own right.
Plus, they are inevitably and not entirely unreasonably relevant in some political matters, even. If you think that homosexuality is a "choice" subject to persuasion and people are "choosing" to be gay, that might very understandably make differences in how you view gay rights, gay marriage and so forth.
5 - Al Barger
Actually Mr S, falling in love does involve some choice. You might stumble upon a natural attraction, but you have significant choice in whether to let your mind and affections focus on a particular person, kindling that spark into a flame.
6 - SFC SKI
Al and Steve S. have some good points here. I doubt this argument will be resolved within my lifetime.
7 - bhw
And I doubt that the meaning of this typically pretentious Willian sentence will be determined in my lifetime:
The vehemence of the political left's recoil from this idea is explained by the investment political radicalism has had for several centuries in the notion that human beings are essentially blank slates.
Lots of important sounding words, Georgie, but what the fuck does it mean?
8 - Al Barger
BHW, Will is making a clear point common among conservative critics. The charge is that liberals take an unrealistic view of human nature as being nearly infinitely malleable, subject to control and manipulation.
For example, socialist and communist types seem to think that somehow an appeal to supposed morality will make people do their best work, even if they don't get much reward for it.
"From each according to ability, to each according to need" goes against our natural mammalian level programming. A conservative or a person more favoring the "nature" explanation will likely say that you're unrealistic in your expectations of human motivation.
Trying to fuel human motivation with altruism is equivalent to trying to run your car on soda pop. It won't work, and will only destroy your whole machine.
9 - bhw
My point was simply that Will is a terrible writer. His style is atrocious, mostly because he's tries really, really hard to sound "smart." Instead, he sounds vague.
10 - RJ
I believe nature AND nurture both play roles in the development of individuals.
I think most people would agree that. The question is, which plays a greater role?
Free will vs. destiny. Nature vs. nurture. Deep, philosophical stuff...
11 - RJ
"My point was simply that Will is a terrible writer."
He won a Pulizter, didn't he?
12 - HW Saxton
R.J., In 1977,George Will won a Pulitzer
prize for Commentary stemming from his
work for The Washington Post.
13 - bhw
He's very popular and has won lots of awards, but his writing style is horrible.
He turns verbs into nouns ["recoil," "investment"], strings together prepositional phrases [five of them in the sentence I quoted] to make long sentences, and uses weak verbs [ "is," "has had," "are" ]. That's just bad writing.
It's hard to figure out exactly what he's trying to say, and people think that's because he's so smart. It's not.
14 - Dave Nalle
Personally I don't care if someone has sex with a cat, so long as it's a consenting cat and they do it in their own home, and I don't care whether it's nature or nurture or a choice or genetics. It's none of my business and none of anyone else's including God and the Republican Party and PETA.
Dave
15 - RJ
Cat rape is a brutal crime. It deserves to be punished... :-/
16 - Dave Nalle
Now now, I did say a CONSENTING cat. I leave it to you to interview the cat.
Dave
17 - RJ
It's hard to prove that a pussy was damaged by a singular incident...
18 - Steve S
Actually Mr S, falling in love does involve some choice. You might stumble upon a natural attraction, but you have significant choice in whether to let your mind and affections focus on a particular person, kindling that spark into a flame.
It is an unreasonable expectation to be expected to refrain from acting on love because of societal pressure, when that love involves two consenting adults.
Al, if you want to say that focusing a blossoming love between two adults is a choice, what are the realistic expectations of choosing to deny it? Changing jobs or packing up and moving away or having to change your circle of friends? Or staying there and refraining from expressing growing feelings when it might be perfectly okay that the feelings could be returned? A lifetime of this self-denial?
And why should a person be expected to go through all this emotional turmoil to refrain from falling in love? Why should a person be expected to have to even consider the alternative of unrequited love? Because of third party disapproval? And it's two consenting adults?
What a horrible world you want to debate for.
When it's two consenting adults, saying that a person has a choice between falling in love OR societal acceptance, is not really giving that person much of a choice, Al.
There is a choice between a society that works for all, and a society that is hell for some. Lovely choice to present, Al. At least it's staying true to form for all of the ideologies you've put forth so far.
19 - Steve S
Should a single gay man be expected to 'choose' to avoid an attraction to a coworker and have to change jobs, and then months later finds he's attracted to his new neighbor and has to either avoid making friends with him, pull his shades shut in seclusion or just flat out move so the attraction won't grow, then months later might find out he's attracted to another man, and he's got to choose to refrain from that....
A lifetime of this is not a choice, Al. For a single incident, it might be a choice. For a lifetime, it is not a choice society should expect of anybody.
20 - HW Saxton
That does not sound like falling in love
Steve, rather it sounds like someone w/
a compulsive/obsessive disorder to me.
A lot of people have likened falling in
love with insanity though...
21 - RJ
Sounds like Mr. S. has the libido of a jackrabbit! :-P
22 - Steve S
Mr S has been in a monogamous relationship for 19 years, RJ, but you already knew that.
HW, I did not say 'falling in love', I said a potential attraction worth exploring. And if you look, they are several months apart, as I clearly said.
I assume you are straight, and so I will say I think it is unlikely that you do not experience attraction to women, and have an interest in seeing if there could be a relationship as frequent as 'several months apart'. And if you are single, like I said.
Some people go years between relationships, yes, I'm just talking about the initial attraction. So how often do you and RJ see a woman that you find attractive? Only once a year?
23 - JR
Al Barger: "From each according to ability, to each according to need" goes against our natural mammalian level programming.
Is that supposed to be a serious statement? Do you really believe that our behavior is determined by "mammalian level programming"? Since this programming, which I guess would apply to all mammals, prevents "socialistic" behavior, would it then stand to reason that there are no herd-like mammals?
24 - Eric Olsen
I think anyone who has been alive more than about 20 minutes realizes intuitively that nature and nurture are a sliding scale that varies by person and by characteristic being measured. I have no doub tthere is some element of choice in sexuality but it seems to be largely determined by nature, which would lead to the societal position, I think, of not encouraging homosexuality but not descriminating against it either.
25 - Al Barger
Steve S, you got me all wrong here. I said that "falling in love" involves an element of choice. I did not at all mean anything like that homosexuals should never allow themselves to fall in love, and remain celibate for life.
What I meant was that you have to use some judgement. I was thinking more of my own experience. I know I've had at least several times in life where I've had to rope in feelings over married women. Hey, that one's married with children- no place for Al there.
I suspect that if some young punk decided he was "in love" with your spouse of 19 years, you'd be expecting him to fall the hell out of love and look somewhere else.