The Economist has an interesting story about a rising star on the Spanish political scene, Madrid mayor Isabel Diaz Ayuso:
Ms Ayuso’s victory came with a slogan simple to the point of crudity: “Liberty or communism”. But freedom is a note she sounds again and again. “Madrid is liberty, or else it isn’t Madrid,” she tells The Economist, returning to the theme no matter what she is asked about. Madrid prospers when people are left alone to run businesses, do with their property as they will and live as they choose. Asked what government can do besides get out of the way, her answer is to give people more freedom of choice, for example in work schedules. . . Asked whether she supported Mr Sánchez’s proposal to ban prostitution, her criticism of the government included the line “They only want to destroy jobs.”
Although she is in Spain’s conservative party, she is actually a liberal:
Just 43, childless, churchless, single (so “you can tell the market is bare,” she has joked) and even bearing a tattoo on her forearm, she is hardly an obvious leader of Spain’s traditional conservative party. But she proudly declares herself a liberal, not a conservative, saying the PP has room for both.
This got me thinking about the relationship between conservatism and freedom. What do conservatives actually believe about freedom?
Let’s start with a simple comparison, vaccine mandates and pot prohibition. At a superficial level there are some similarities. Both regulations are partly justified in terms of paternalism, protecting people from hurting themselves. If someone claims that it’s their own body and they should be able to do what they wish, the argument often switches over to externalities. Drug addiction can also hurt your family members. Being unvaccinated makes it more likely you transmit the virus to others.
While at a superficial level these two issues have some similarities, the politics are radically different. Conservative politicians are far more likely to oppose vaccine mandates than pot prohibition. How can we understand this difference?
Here’s the wrong way; ask people to justify their beliefs. I often see conservative people citing this or that piece of empirical evidence on vaccines, or masks, or pot, of LSD, always in support of their political view. But if liberals and conservatives are looking at the same empirical evidence, why should they reach different conclusions?
Proust said, “It is desire that engenders belief”. Don’t focus on what people believe; focus on what they desire. Their empirical beliefs will conform.
Conservatives often speak of faith, family, country. (Today I’d add “natural born gender identity”.) Conservatives put a lot of weight on tradition. They seem less likely to choose a religion in the way that one orders food off a menu than is the case with liberals. They are less likely than liberal Americans to say, “I’ve looked around and it seems that Canada, not America, is actually the best country in the world. Proust (actually the character in his novel) said his friends were his family, presumably referring to the fact that his friends were chosen, but no one gets to choose their family. In contrast, family ties are extremely important to a conservative, despite this lack of choice. Ditto for one’s natural born gender identity.
When I examine political discourse, I see conservatives being far more likely than liberals to use the term “freedom” or “liberty” as justification for a particular political position. But I don’t see that rhetorical difference being reflected in actual policy views; at least it’s not obvious to me. How can we explain this paradox?
Let’s assume that American “liberals” (who I’ll call progressives, as they aren’t actually liberals) are utilitarians that don’t place any special weight on freedom. On some issues, such as pot legalization, progressives will take a pro-freedom stance, while on others they do not.
Conservatives need to respond to progressives. But what is their most effective rebuttal? It’s obviously not sensible to be blindly anti-utility. Even non-utilitarians acknowledge that utility is often a good thing. So they need to be for something.
In my view, the thing they are for is tradition. But it doesn’t sound cool to be for tradition, and indeed certain conservative views that were once motivated by tradition (say a ban on interracial marriages) have now been discredited. Instead, when conservatives defend tradition they often do so using the language of freedom. Even better for American conservatives, the term “freedom” comes out of classical liberalism, which is one of America’s traditions.
So let’s say that conservatives don’t actually favor freedom, but use the term as justification for defending tradition. In that case, you’d expect conservatives to favor pro-freedom public policies that preserve traditions, but not pro-freedom public policies that allow for unconventional lifestyles.
Conservatives would favor freedom to drink alcohol (a tradition), but not to smoke pot, which is not an American tradition. Guns are a tradition, as is freedom from mask mandates. Driving big cars with gasoline engines is a tradition. Stand-up comics making fun of minorities, gays and women is a tradition, while kneeling during the national anthem at a football game is not. It took conservatives longer to embrace gay marriage, and when many of them did, it was due more to their belief in the value of marriage as an institution than from sympathy for the gay lifestyle.
Conservatives have long favored restricting freedom when it comes to social issues such as drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, etc. In recent years, conservative American politicians have also grown increasingly supportive of zoning restrictions, trade restrictions and immigration restrictions. In each case, their “anti-freedom” views are motivated by a belief that change is threatening American traditions. They fear the traditional suburban lifestyle becoming more “urban” (sometimes a code word for racial change as well.) They also fear traditional American culture being affected by immigration. And just to be clear, traditional American culture does not mean (Hispanic) El Paso, or (Asian) Irvine, or (black) Detroit, or (Native American) northeast Arizona. They fear that globalization and trade will destroy tightly knit communities with factory jobs and create huge anonymous cities full of information workers linked to the global economy.
Of course there is a third group that really does believe in freedom, the libertarians. Because we have a two party system, this group may ally itself with Republicans on some issues and with the Democrats on others. This is the only group that truly believes in freedom for its own sake, freedom for others, not just freedom as a rhetorical tool to preserve one’s own lifestyle. And it’s a rather small minority of voters.
PS. There’s an even smaller group—utilitarians who happen to have mostly libertarian policy views because they believe that a minimal government maximizes aggregate utility. That tiny group includes me and a handful of other people.
READER COMMENTS
zeke5123
Nov 12 2021 at 2:40pm
This seems somewhat like Hayek’s “why I am not a conservative.”
Conservatives are less about a direction (i.e., more government or less government), but speed of getting there (i.e., try to keep basically the same amount of government but fine tune around the edges). Libertarians and progressives are about direction (i.e., less government and more government, respectfully). It seems likely you could combine the two (e.g., a conservative libertarian may in principle favor drugs being legal, but would start with just cannabis and see how that goes).
nobody.really
Nov 12 2021 at 5:22pm
Please see The Righteous Mind, wherein Jonathan Haidt set out his Moral Foundations Theory. This theory identifies five (now six) dimensions of morality, as follows:
[Emphasis added.] This is a SERIOUSLY fun book. The author poses moral hypotheticals to people from different classes around the world. American liberals squirm at the idea of eating a chicken after you’ve had sex with it, but can’t find any way to express this concern through their narrow morality of care/harm. In contrast, most people throughout the world, including conservatives in the US, are dumbfounded that the author feels it necessary to ask for an explanation why this practice would be immoral. “Seriously, I have to explain this to you…?”
As I understand it, post-WWI conservatives emphasized group-maintaining norms, while liberals emphasized the norms of individualism. Hippies rebelled against draft notices—social duties be damned. Gradually liberalism came to dominate culture. So today, MAGA-style conservatives are the ones who demand the discretion to do as they please, social duties be damned, while progressives seek conformity to the prevailing cultural norms.
(See also The Upswing, Robert Putnam’s analysis of how the US arguably had minimum regulation and cohesion in the Gilded Age, increasing regulation and cohesion—and equality, and productivity growth—though around 1965, and declining regulation and cohesion after 1980. See also Thomas Piketty’s Capitalism and Ideology, Ch. 15, “The Brahmin Left,” addressing how, throughout the West, the traditional labor parties have become the parties of the educated elite, triggering the disaffection of the working class.)
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Nov 13 2021 at 5:35pm
This has a lot to do with framing. Liberals were pretty ticked off at Trump’s disdain for traditions on Jan 6, inter allia, and for showing so little regard for sacred values like rule of law and even personal virtue.
Ryan M
Nov 12 2021 at 5:45pm
I apologize for including a link, here, but Mr. Sumner does not have a published email address (at least not that I saw on this article) for me to respond privately. Your comparison between drug legalization and mask/vaccine mandates is an interesting one – I recently wrote about that exact same thing, an essay that stemmed in part from conversations I’ve had on this website. You may enjoy reading it, even if you disagree with me. The essay is here.
With respect to opposition to gay marriage – I opposed “gay marriage” (in quotes because I’m referring to a legal status), and I still do. But I am both a conservative and a lover of freedom (in many ways a libertarian). I do not believe government has any business regulating people’s private relationships, but the gay marriage debate gave me a strong reason to believe that it was less about freedom (which I support) and more about swinging the pendulum the other way, and would soon result in religious discrimination. I believe I have been proven correct on that front.
Scott Sumner
Nov 13 2021 at 1:02pm
Do you also oppose civil rights for African Americans because it eventually led to affirmative action programs?
Mactoul
Nov 13 2021 at 8:19pm
Marriage isn’t any old private relationship but a public reality.
Nobody was stopping anybody from having whatever private relationships they wanted but they wanted public affirmation of their relationship.
Scott Sumner
Nov 14 2021 at 3:00pm
So it’s OK for heterosexuals to want “public affirmation” of their relationship, but not for gays? I’ve really confused by some of the comments I’m seeing here.
Jose Pablo
Nov 14 2021 at 10:43pm
Why confused?. Those comments, basically, prove your post right: conservatives favor traditions over individual freedom.
robc
Nov 15 2021 at 9:41am
I favored getting rid of state marriage altogether, so no one would get the public affirmation.
I favor civil rights, including the right of association, which would mean no public accommodation laws, which would lead to some people being horribly racist, but so what?
As someone on another site said, the worst thing about being a libertarian is that you end of having to defend some of the worst people.
nobody.really
Nov 15 2021 at 2:59pm
The proposed Market Power Affirmative Defense offers a half-way position: Discriminators may decline to do business with someone and still evade liability if they offer referrals where comparable goods/services/employment/housing/public accommodations are available nearby at comparable terms. A lengthy discussion exchange on the topic begins here.
robc
Nov 18 2021 at 9:13am
Why should civil rights need to take a half way position?
Lizard Man
Nov 12 2021 at 10:51pm
I think that smoking weed is pretty close to an American tradition now. The boomers did it en masse, and some of those boomers are now great grandparents whose kids and grandkids smoke weed everyday.
Scott Sumner
Nov 13 2021 at 12:11pm
This is consistent with my argument, as the polls show that old people are now the only group opposed to pot legalization. They had no tradition of smoking pot when young.
mark
Nov 12 2021 at 10:59pm
Like the text and I agree, mostly. Just this utilitarian thing seems fishy: “We are all utilitarians now.” (Nixon? Scott A.? Tyl.Cow.?) Most conservatives will claim to be conservative because that is ultimately utilitarian “it is the best for humans to live – mostly- in harmony with traditons/family-values/patriotism … .” And social-democrats are adamant: “It is utilitarian to tax the rich and give the poorer – as the marginal use of 10k is much lower for a rich man than for several poor. And sure, let us regulate all those evil externalities out of existence.” – Probably even Mao was all for “maximizing aggregate utility”. Libertarianism does not follow necessarily from that. Bryan Caplan’s more radical stance has it easier: Libertarian cuz freedom is the superior good – even if were to hurt GNP or “happiness-values”. Hopefully it does not.
AJ
Nov 13 2021 at 5:37am
I don’t think conservatives would consider doing whatever you want unimpeded by others as freedom, like gambling or using pornography, because those things are vices which restrict one’s freedom and makes that person less human and more animal like. You are probably using the word freedom differently than them.
rsm
Nov 14 2021 at 1:48am
Drugs would restrict my freedom, therefore don’t they restrict yours, because you’re me, no?
nobody.really
Nov 16 2021 at 5:18pm
“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.” Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), 1st sentence.
In short, yes: I am he as you are he as you are me, and we are all together. My utility function incorporates my perception of other people’s welfare, and their utility function incorporates their perception of my welfare. When I see you get a shot, I flinch.
That doesn’t mean that we can’t strive to design public policy around the idea of autonomous individuals. But there’s nothing natural about doing so; doing so requires a conscious effort to transcend and suppress a desire to exercise a modicum of control over others for their own benefit–and, ergo, for our benefit.
Mactoul
Nov 13 2021 at 7:08am
Conservatives believe in ordered freedom. And the order is particular and history-dependent.
In, other word, they hew to the classical political nature of man whereby mankind is organized into particular,self-ruling morally authoritative units variously called tribes or nations.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Nov 13 2021 at 9:42am
I pretty much hew to that, too. But I think my particular nation would be better with lots of new immigrants, fewer people concerned about which kid uses which bathroom, lots of new urban residential and commercial development, fewer restrictions on international trade and investment, a tax on net CO2 emissions (because my nation shares a planetary climate system with other nations).
Mactoul
Nov 14 2021 at 8:04am
It is odd to believe that one’s nation would be better with a lots of immigrants. Large scale immigration reduces particularity by itself. Especially when you don’t care too much about the source of immigrants.
Scott Sumner
Nov 14 2021 at 3:02pm
Given that the US has had far more immigration than any other country, can I assume that you have a rather low opinion of the US?
Jose Pablo
Nov 14 2021 at 10:56pm
“Large scale immigration reduces particularity by itself.”
How so? are you implying that immigrants reduces diversity? (Not clear to me what “particularity” means here)
“Especially when you don’t care too much about the source of immigrants.”
Great nations have been formed with the worst possible source of immigrants: for instance, the people Europe sent away to their overseas colonies. Although you are, very likely, right: the Native Americans should have cared more about the source of immigrants they were receiving.
nobody.really
Nov 16 2021 at 5:27pm
Bill Murray would be proud.
robc
Nov 15 2021 at 9:44am
I would be fine with that if we limit the size of government to Dunbar’s number — about 150 people.
MarkW
Nov 13 2021 at 7:42am
There’s an even smaller group—utilitarians who happen to have mostly libertarian policy views because they believe that a minimal government maximizes aggregate utility. That tiny group includes me and a handful of other people.
I have to say that I’m glad it’s a tiny group. Utilitarianism creeps me out. Put me down for unalienable (rather than merely empirically contingent) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Nov 13 2021 at 9:33am
Come on! The externality of drug addiction to the immediate family is nothing like the externality of non-vaccination. Vaccinations like other measures like masking and social distancing, are to prevent spread or they are nothing but “eat your vegetables” advice. If there were no externality there would be no mandates.
“Tradition” is pretty much a matter of framing. When I grew up it was not “tradition” to demand freedom to open carry, or to be anti-immigration, and high marginal tax rates seemed OK.
Like Scott, I see utilitarianism (including externalities (whose importance has increased since the time of JS Mill) and public goods in my utility function) as doing the work of “freedom,”
Monte
Nov 13 2021 at 10:43am
I wonder how many of us, who claim to hold sacred our unalienable rights, were willing to sacrifice those rights in deference to all the mandates, both public and private, through the worst of the pandemic? How many of us will continue on that course in order to remain compliant, regardless of motive?
Dale Doback
Nov 13 2021 at 11:10am
Conservatives do seem to favor tradition more often than not, but then why don’t Conservative politicians more clearly signal this intention to their voters? (Why is it not “cool”?) And why don’t the same hypocritical appeals to freedom work for liberals/progressives?
rsm
Nov 14 2021 at 1:57am
《Why is it not “cool”?》
Is the blatant fickle arbitrariness of tradition uncool?
Are tribes arbitrary too because excluded tribal members have more in common with excluded individuals from other tribes than with their own nominal tribe?
Ted Durant
Nov 13 2021 at 10:56pm
Both the Republican and Democrat parties prefer the “tradition” of a two party system with themselves as the two parties.
Nevertheless, I do like the reframing of “conservative” and “liberal” tribes in America as “traditional (as they define it)” and “progressive (as they define it)”. Bearing in mind that, in the 1770’s, liberalism was pretty-far-out-there progressivism.
A high level candidate like Isabel Diaz Ayuso in the USA would be refreshing.
Guillermo
Nov 14 2021 at 8:54am
Hi Scott,
Just a small clarification. Ayuso is not Madrid’s mayor. She is the president of the Community of Madrid. An analagous role to that of a governor in the US.
Scott Sumner
Nov 14 2021 at 3:03pm
Thanks for that correction.
Michael Sandifer
Nov 14 2021 at 9:48am
This is the best framework I’ve seen for understanding modern conservatism versus progressivism. It’s so simple, yet resolves so many seeming paradoxes, as all good frameworks do. I’ve been trying to get my head around the paradoxes of American conservatism for many years, and failed.
Well done.
David S
Nov 14 2021 at 12:01pm
I’m amazed that this comments thread has gone nearly 2 days without the names of certain American politicians being invoked. On one hand it’s refreshing, but when we think about how traditions persist with age cohorts I can’t help but worry about the potentially long shelf life of some recent conservative ideas.
I agree with Michael that this is a good and simple framework for understanding conservatives, as long as we acknowledge some of the dynamic elements–and unique personalities.
It’s a lot harder to come up with a framework for understanding modern Leftists. We’re like a house full of 3 dozen cross-bred alley cats where no one is cleaning the litter box.
Mark Z
Nov 14 2021 at 9:43pm
“Let’s assume that American “liberals” (who I’ll call progressives, as they aren’t actually liberals) are utilitarians that don’t place any special weight on freedom.”
I’m not really sure why one would make this assumption. Most progressives seem to value equality as an end in and of itself more than utility.
“There’s an even smaller group—utilitarians who happen to have mostly libertarian policy views because they believe that a minimal government maximizes aggregate utility.”
I haven’t seen any evidence for this claim either. Has it been shown that self-identified utilitarians more libertarian?
AMT
Nov 15 2021 at 2:23pm
Great post. The contradiction of being “for freedom,” but against freedom of expression that they don’t agree with, such as kneeling during the national anthem, is very salient. Another tradition you don’t spend much time on but I’d say is quite important is religion. Just imagine the right wing reaction to a proposal to change “In God we trust” to “In Allah we trust.”
Scott Sumner
Nov 15 2021 at 3:26pm
Or when conservatives complain about the government being biased against religion, and then turn around and support a Muslim travel ban.
Floccina
Nov 15 2021 at 3:15pm
I think conservatives mostly want to conserve what is. For example for a long time conservatives were against Social Security and Medicare but they have lasted long enough now that conservatives are their defenders.
Guillermo
Nov 15 2021 at 3:59pm
Following this framework, is it consistent that convervatives support free markets if their ultimate objective is to preserve traditions? Free markets and the technological innovations that come with them are arguably the biggest source of social change (social media, TV, radio, contraception, industrialization and migration to the cities…) Many times, those changes affect the institutions that conservatives value the most, like countraception affected the family. Shouldn´t then conservativism be skeptical of free markets?
Comments are closed.