May 26, 2009
13-1
I have an ongoing (~9 years now) argument with blog brother and token ThreeSources Democrat "Silence Dogood." He concedes that the left has socialists who threaten our economic freedom, but is surprised that I can sit still while some on the right are so deleterious to personal liberties. He is a bright guy and the arguments reach much higher subtlety, but he laughs that "he can handle the commies in his party better than the religious wackos in mine."
I try to be fair and have ceded a certain amount of relativism to Silence and other friends on the left who make the same argument. I don't see an equivalence, but I shrug my shoulders and stress my little-l beliefs.
Shannon Love, on da Chicago Boyz blog, offers this chart, and the suggestion that they are using sex to sell the loss of freedom. Here is Love's scorecard:
| Freedom | Left | Right |
|---|---|---|
| Speech | ||
| Work | ||
| Business | ||
| Food | ||
| Housing | ||
| Consumer Goods | ||
| Transportation | ||
| Medical Care | ||
| Education | ||
| Free Trade | ||
| Self-Defense | ||
| Property Rights | ||
| Parental Rights | ||
| National Security | ||
| Police Powers | ||
| Recreational Drugs | ||
| Sexuality |
Being Mister Fair, I'd add a line for "Privacy" and give it to the left as well. But I find the other llines difficult to argue with, and that still gives the right wing wingnut wacko nutjobs a 13-2 freedom advantage over the left wing moonbats.
Yay team! Hat-tip: Instapundit
Politics Posted by John Kranz at May 26, 2009 12:08 PM
Thanks for sharing that link, it goes with something I've been thinking about for a while.
In meatspace, i've argued that the Democrat pro-abortion position is "insincere," as they claim they are for choice on the matter, yet against choice/freedom with regards to most other items in the political arena.
Though I am pro-life/anti-abortion I concede that the libertarian position on abortion is "honest". Libertarians want you do as you please, no matter the issue.
Democrats & liberals can't honestly argue that position.
Posted by: AlexC at May 26, 2009 2:34 PMA fair point,though I would give speech a wash.
Also, she neglected to include Privacy Rights. The rights is squarely on the wrong side of the PATRIOT Act on that one.
Posted by: T. Greer at May 26, 2009 3:49 PMYou missed my magnanimity at the end, tg! I added privacy and gave it to the left, but that still leaves the score at 13-2.
The implication from my lefty friends is that it is 50-50 but lefties choose privacy and righties choose filthy lucre. This table effectively contradicts that "liberaltarian" claim.
UPDATE: I think you're being too generous giving a tie for speech, but even if I join you we are still 12-2.
Posted by: jk at May 26, 2009 4:21 PMjk: oh, looky! Political alignment being measured on multiple axes of freedom! (Dare I bring this up again?)
I thought this was a great article, but I did object, albeit mildly, to one statement in the article: "For these purposes, libertarians are grouped with the Right. Although, there are so few libertarians it doesn't alter the balance much." While grouping libertarians with the right opens the writer up to allegations of skewing the results, I think he underestimates the growing number of people growing disenchanted with the lassitude of the Republican leadership and realizing that one of their key issues is individual liberty - especially in light of the current administration.
And by the way, if it's not verboten to mention: Happy Birthday, jk!
Posted by: Keith at May 26, 2009 6:47 PMThanks, Keith, 'ppreciate it!
I thought that that was odd as well. I would hope that libertarians would be assumed to be "blue" on all (and I would've used checkmarks instead of blue and red).
But while we've all had our nits to pick, I don't think anybody can say that the Democratic Party or the broad left of today has a superior position on freedom on many categories of contested liberties.
That may be a little "duh-worthy" around here, but I don't think it is accepted by many on the left. I would like to have a copy of this at the bar during an argument and ask a reasonable interlocutor to dispute the scoring.
Posted by: jk at May 26, 2009 7:16 PMUPDATE II: Overnight, Mister Magnanimity (is that a .44 Magnuminity?) has come to agree with tg: remembering the Bush FCC and the Wardrobe malfunction contretemps, my homies cannot claim a clear win on speech. 12-2.
Posted by: jk at May 27, 2009 11:14 AM12-3 if we include privacy rights.
However I am not sure if I am prepared to cede that to the left. I left a comment similar to the one here over at Chicago Boyz, and this was the response Shannon Love (creator of the graph) left me:
"Not really. As a practical matter, the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders have signed off and continued almost all the Bush era invasions of privacy. The Clinton administration created the NSA’s Echelon system which is the heart of our modern communications surveillance. It was Democrats who inserted many of the banking provisions into the PATIOT act so they could track down tax evaders. The Department of Homeland Security was envisioned by Gary Hart. Clearly when they fear being blamed for a terrorist attack, the real-world leftist politicians suddenly discover the virtues of a strong intelligence system.
More importantly, leftist only show concern for privacy in matters of national security. For example, they favor a hyper detailed tax code which requires that people report their economic affairs in minute detail. For people who itemize, you can reconstruct their movements and activities in detail from their tax records. Leftist also support the state having full access to people’s medical records, work records etc all in the interest of managing social welfare programs. I could go on.
I think it safe to say that leftist think of privacy for most people only in terms of sexuality. They also value the economic privacy of articulate intellectuals such as lawyers, journalist and academics. Anything else is fair game. They don’t believe you have right to economic privacy or privacy relating to any assistance the government might force you take.
As by others above, leftists tend support freedoms until such freedoms become inconvenient for them. I think the Democrats apparent sea change on anti-terrorist methods is part of this pattern."
So privacy can be filed under "wash" as well, methinks.
Posted by: T. Greer at May 27, 2009 12:03 PMTo paraphrase Senator Moynahan, you can have your own opinions but not your own score. I get to 12-2 by calling speech a wash and giving them privacy. Love's arguments are compelling but I consider the leftified ACLU's defense of privacy of communication and library records, &c. as a win in their column. President Obama's performance does not nullify their work in this area any more than President Bush's steel and soft wood tariffs nullify the Right's edge on free trade.
Posted by: jk at May 27, 2009 12:27 PMIf the ACLU applied their privacy ideal equally to all defendants you'd have a better argument, but they don't. Further, the privacy invasion by congressional Democrats in general and the Obama administration in particular reveal a clear pattern of infringement on individual privacy (gun registration? serial numbered bullets?) except in cases of sexual behavior, which was your own original point.
Posted by: johngalt at May 27, 2009 12:45 PMPrivacy? When the Prezznit appoints his "Internet Czar" later this week, we can revisit this issue of which camp wins on privacy.
Assuming our overlords allow this blog to continue its existence, I mean.
Posted by: Keith at May 27, 2009 2:10 PM | What do you think? [10]