30.4.05

Conservative Risk-Aversion

Henry Farrell argues that conservatism is basically about the virtues of risk-taking -- conservatives "tend to fetishize risk as being a good thing in itself." I agree that the right is more likely to offer pro-risk rhetoric, and that the image of the brave risk-taking cowboy draws some people to conservatism. But I think that conservative policy is by and large risk-averse.

On the level of general philosophy, Burkean conservatism is little more than a statement of the precautionary principle. "Don't change anything, because you never know what kind of chaos it could unleash." That's profoundly risk-averse.

Economics are where we most often hear pro-risk rhetoric from conservatives, as they praise the virtues of the market and the entrepreneur. But I could count the GOP's real libertarians on one hand. Modern conservative economic policy is aimed at reducing risks to corporations, through a combination of deregulation and corporate welfare. (Note, for example, that Bush's one genuine environmental accomplishment, the regulations on off-road diesel emissions, was implemented because the affected corporations wanted to get a uniform law on the books already to reduce their uncertainty.) The fact that these policies shift risk onto consumers and workers is a side effect, not a goal.

In foreign policy, conservatism frames itself as protection from risk. The risk of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction is a motivating principle for conservative policy. (There's a nice synergy here, as the defense spending needed to protect us from the risk of terrorism and WMDs goes to keep various corporations afloat.)

In social policy conservatism is at its most risk-averse. Conservative social policy aims at having a place for everyone and everyone in their place. Much of it is motivated by the desire to have clearly prescribed roles for everyone (particularly with respect to gender), to reduce the uncertainties of social interaction. Practices that violate this order, such as homosexuality, are feared as bringers of disruption and chaos. Conservative religion places supreme value on the certainty of divine revelation, and evangelism aims to spread that committment to all of society. Media censorship reduces the risk that children may be exposed to material that their parents don't approve of.

Even Social Security reform can be understood as risk-aversion. The justification for private accounts is not the bracing effects of exposing your retirement to the risks of the stock market. Rather, it's the percieved riskiness of the status quo. Pro-privatization arguments emphasize the government's untrustworthiness. Keeping your retirement money in your own hands, then, sounds like a recipe for safety.

All this is not to say that liberals are basically risk-seeking. Both philosophies are basically risk-averse, but in different ways. They just emphasize different risks.
Stentor Danielson, 09:01, ,

29.4.05

In Defense Of CNN

Ordinarily I'd be the last person to defend TV news, but I think some people are getting a little too worked up over the CNN segment ridiculed on the Daily Show (click on "Gaywatch") the other night. The topic was Texas' deeply immoral and anti-child law barring homosexuals from being foster parents. The anti-child guest cited a study that found that children raised by same-sex couples were more likely to be abused. Jon Stewart interjected with a rebuttal, pointing out that the study in question is scientifically worthless. Then he lambasted the CNN anchors for not making a similar rebuttal.

I wonder, though -- did Stewart know that information about the study off the top of his head? I'm pretty confident that he (or the show's writers) saw the CNN clip, thought "that study doesn't sound right," and went and looked it up before their show aired. CNN didn't have time for that, as the segment was being broadcast live. The best they can do is let the pro-child expert provide a rebuttal. Note that the pro-child speaker -- who we presume has dedicated more time to research on this issue -- also does not point out the specific problems with the anti-child speaker's study. He just offers some generalities about unspecified research and experts he's seen that have not supported the anti-child claim.

The he said-she said style is not simply a matter of the personal failings of TV reporters (though they've certainly embraced it). It's a structural effect of doing live TV news. What this really points out is the need for programs like the Daily Show that can take some time to double-check and review the first-cut news.
Stentor Danielson, 13:44, ,

28.4.05

If I ever get to be a reporter who asks politicians questions, my question will be literally "blah blah terrorism blah blah?" I want to see if it even fazes them, or if they just launch right into their terrorism spiel.
Stentor Danielson, 20:58, ,

Slipping Toward Polygamy

Matt Yglesias argues that conservative slippery-slope predictions actually do tend to come true, but by the time they do the slippage, once thought to be self-evidently bad, is considered a good thing. So racial equality did lead to interracial marriage, but most people now approve of interracial marriage. Based on this track record, Yglesias predicts that same-sex marriage will indeed pave the way for polygamy.

Some of his commenters don't buy it, arguing (correctly) that there's no reason that accepting same-sex marriage necessarily entails accepting polygamy. But slippery slopes aren't about logical relationships, they're about causal relationships. Social and cultural change are not processes characterized by a great deal of logic.

In this case, I think that the conservative slippery slope is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By making the slippery slope argument, conservatives have planted the idea in people's heads that gay marriage leads to polygamy. If conservatives fail to stop same-sex marriage, then, people will start to ask themselves "why not polygamy too?" Enough people will accept this connection and decide to give it a try without the support of legal recognition. This will swell the ranks, and increase the visibility, of the polyamorous community. This, in turn, will begin to alter our assumptions about what polyamory is like -- the first images to come to mind will be loving and egalitarian relationships, rather than the Mormon patriarch with his underage harem (a process not unlike the image-altering effects of the San Fransisco marriages last year). Eventually, attempts to get polyamory legally recognized will arise (assuming that the other conservative prediction, that same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, has not come true yet).

(As it happens, I'm way ahead of Yglesias' historical curve on this one, as I already think that polygamy is an acceptable choice.)
Stentor Danielson, 09:38, ,