PressEthic

As we discuss media bias I think it's useful to lay out exactly what we mean by the terms "liberal" and "conservative."

My sense is that our class has very different ideas about these terms. My hope is to lay out how I think about them -- and to welcome critiques and alternative definitions -- so that when we discuss ideological media bias we at least understand the assertions being made with more precision than Bernie Goldberg or Eric Alterman.

I'll keep this post to defining American conservatism.

In my mind, William F. Buckley's famous description of The National Review is a useful place to begin understanding conservatism: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

Why yell stop? That's a bit complicated, but here's a quick summary: as conservatives look at history, they see that humankind has tragic, recurring flaws. They view civilization as a complex and fragile set of institutions and norms that, through trial and error, have minimized these flaws, allowing us all to live together in relative peace and prosperity.

Let's use journalism as an analogy. The excesses of the partisan press gave way to the idea of journalistic objectivity, with all its attendant quirks: separating news and editorial content, eschewing first person, keeping the reporter's opinion out of the article, etc.

Some of these conventions are flawed, and today's press is by no means perfect. As journalism students, perhaps some of us see these flaws and think that we should so away with objectivity (or at least some of its conventions).

But a "journalistic conservative" would argue that the conventions of objectivity developed over many years through complex circumstances we can't begin to understand, that overall they've helped improve the press since the days of Wiliam Randolph Hearst, that we should be wary of the wholesale destruction of conventions that have served us well and that we don't entirely understand, and that if we insist on changing them we should proceed slowly and cautiously.

Conservatives appreciate all that civilization has achieved -- even despite its flaws -- and they fear those who advocate rapid changes to institutions and social norms because they view tinkering too much or too quickly as akin to overzealous chemotherapy: the cancer is killed, and so is the patient.

This sensibility explains a whole lot of conservative positions.

Many principled conservatives opposed the War in Iraq because they viewed nation building as a complicated endeavor that requires time and unknown ingredients, and doubted President Bush's impulse that it could be easily achieved.

Many principled conservatives are wary of gay marriage because it is a rather significant change to a very old, very important institution whose effects we can't entirely predict.

We all have conservative impulses within us.

Consider the debate over whether we should take an originalist approach to the constitution or consider it "a living, breathing document," as many on the American left assert. Historically, living constitution theorists have been on the left, arguing that today's constitution guarantees a right to abortion, a general right to privacy, Miranda rights, etc.

The Founders created a flexible document that would bend to fit the needs of those living under it, many liberals have argued.

But one can imagine the tables being turned.

Torture may have been considered unconstitutional during the Cold War, a Bush Administration official could argue, but the constitution is a living, breathing document whose meaning changes over time to fit the needs of those living under it. Today we need more than anything to protect ourselves from the threat of terrorism.

That arguement would elicit a conservative streak from today's left, who would argue that the Founder's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment must be conserved, and perhaps understand anew why straying from originalism has its dangers along with its benefits.

Finally, principled conservatives tend to view a large federal government with mistrust, not because they themselves want to pay lower taxes -- who doesn't? -- but because America's founders established a limited federal government as a primary safeguard against tyranny.

Now let's segway to Eric Alterman, who asserts that the whole landscape of American public discourse has shifted so far right that legitimately liberal positions are considered beyond the pale, while far-right conservative positions once beyond the pale are given undue legitimacy. In Alterman's view, the New Republic is quasi-conservative, that Slate's Mickey Kaus is perhaps playing for the conservative team, and that Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds is "definitely in the conservative camp."

I'm puzzled by those assertions.

Whether the United States is more liberal or conservative today than 10 years ago I don't know -- it's rather difficult to measure something like that and too soon to judge with any precision.

But I find it obvious that America has generally moved to the left over time, and that the trend is likely to continue.

Let's use 1970 as a random point of comparison.

In that year Roe versus Wade hadn't yet been decided, gay marriage wasn't even on the cultural radar, and far fewer women had the opportunity to work outside the home than do today. Young men drafted into Vietnam -- there were no women in combat -- were still dying. Network televison censored material that challenged traditional morality or family structures far more rigorously than today.

Now Fortune 500 companies pratice affirmative action and start diversity initiatives, gay couples in some states benefit from at least civil unions, and George W. Bush -- a Republican president -- has expanded non-defense spending, the size of the federal government and the size and power of the Department of Education (Ronald Reagan advocated abolishing it!). States have passed laws approving medical marijuana, assisted suicide and gay marriage.

And 15 years from now, does anyone doubt that there will be some kind of government health care, that gay marriage will be legal in more states, and that the federal government will be even bigger?

If today's more socially liberal society (with a bigger, more powerful federal government and fewer social norms reconciling traditional morality and mass media) is a more conservative society by Alterman's lights, I'm puzzled as to his definition of conservatism.

I'm also puzzled by his characterization of someone like Glenn Reynolds -- who favors gay marriage, legal abortion and gun rights -- as "definitely in the conservative camp," as libertarians are not definitely in either camp. Mickey Kaus bashes Democrats all the time, but he also wrote a book about the need for social equality rather than unfettered meritocratic liberty, favors universal health care, endorsed John Kerry and Al Gore, voted twice for Bill Clinton, doesn't think federalism is at all important... Ideologically he is a Clintonite Neo-liberal, and many of his views are anathema to the principled conservative, yet Alterman suggests he may be a conservative.

Does everyone else have a radically different definition of conservatism than mine?