Some say you can’t make the world better than it is. They say you ought to be sceptical about human nature, yet they urge you not to question potentially abusive conduct of the powerful. They say you hate America if you want to give extra opportunities to the less fortunate. Conservativism is bigotry of low expectations.
But what drives us, liberals, to care not only about own well being, but about quality of life of others as well? Are we personally hurt by seeing injustice by abuse of political or economic power? Is it very satisfying to seek optimal social gains by collaboration? Are we concerned that uncurbed greed will have catastrophic consequences to everyone?
Do we think that America is the foremost developer of achievements of the Western Enlightenment? Are we certain that America’s success had been assured by an effective balance of civil powers?
I try to understand deep differences between liberals and conservatives. What conservatives like to say is that they are content (or even happy) with the things as they are, whereas liberals always have to protest. Well, can you genuinely always be happy with the things in this world?
Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were not happy with certain things. The founding fathers of the US were not happy with the British authority. Jesus Christ was not exactly content with the Roman things. Were they wrong?
Rebellion is a subtle thing. In the essay “The Rebel”, Camus explains that a rebel is a man who says no, and this no means “there is a limit beyond which you [master] shall not go”. This means that a rebel can accept some level of mistreatment, but intrusion of the authority can possibly go beyond toleration. A rebel also feels right to oppose the oppression, to set the limit. He also implies some values that are so dear to him that he revolts no matter risks. As a last resort, he is willing to accept the final defeat, which is death, rather than be deprived of the personal sacrament which he would call, for example, freedom. Rebellion is not egoistic, contrarily to what is seems. The rebel prefers the risk of death because some values or rights are more important to him than own life. Rebellion may also arise not from own suffering but from observing oppression where someone else is a victim. The rebel defends what he is; he does not envy something he does not have.
He does not merely claim some good that he does not possess or of which he was deprived. His aim is to claim recognition for something which he has and which has already been recognized by him, in almost every case, as more important than anything of which he could be envious.
The rebel undoubtedly demands a certain degree of freedom for himself; but in no case, if he is consistent, does he demand the right to destroy the existence and the freedom of others. He humiliates no one. The freedom he claims, he claims for all; the freedom he refuses, he forbids everyone to enjoy. He is not only the slave against the master, but also man against the world of master and slave. Therefore, thanks to rebellion, there is something more in history than the relation between mastery and servitude. Unlimited power is not the only law.
Liberals are often associated with rebellion, and we can be proud of that. Rebellion itself has practical problems of limits. But denial of rebellion can be more pathological. No one has to be happy with whatever happens.
Conservatives have several “eternal” assumptions; one of them is that the world or human nature can never change. But did we have Islam 2000 years ago, for example? Things happen in the world, and those things have consequences, and everything evolves together: greed gradually increases until a crisis or revolts, new social systems develop or fail, people adopt. There might be things that hardly change, but we rather know better which things change or do not change before discussing what a man can or cannot do.
In particular, democracy as we know it is a very recent thing, just a couple of centuries old. Democracy developed because of rebellious people; conservative forces would have never come up with it. And some conservative forces can still curb democracy back. Are we crazy to think that there is no danger for democracy in the US today? Is it not time to be unhappy about the things? If we do not care, who does?
[Crossposted at European Tribune.]