Cafeteria Ideology

I don't think I've met a single person who is a strict adherent to a single political ideology in the way that some folks, such as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, are strict adherents to a religious dogma. This is especially true for the people I know via the Lefto-sphere.

Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum are all-too-often, in my view, keen to compromise on civil (i.e. abortion) and Libertarianesque rights. Oliver Willis is infamous for his qualified support of torture. Amanda Marcotte and Norbizness have committed the crime of fighting the smoking-ban in Austin.

While I consider myself a progressive, others do not because of my qualified support of NAFTA and other programs that could, if implemented by a certain kind of sort, "lift up" folks in the economically-developing world. I'm also not a big fan of modern American trade unions.

What accounts for these deviations from the party line? I'm assuming that in most of the examples cited above, none are core stakeholders in the divergent views they take. So, it's not necessarily self-interest as the driver.

Comments

[Amanda Marcotte]

In my case, it's that my liberal values of freedom and support of community businesses overrule my concern about public health, at least in the case where I don't think the public health is at a huge risk. I think it's the same for Matt and Kevin--the liberal inclination to think well of diverse viewpoints and seek compromise is creating the tension there. I don't think that very many people who diverge have "conservative" reasons for it really.

[Boelf]

I see no reason that everyone on the left has to adhere to a strict set of talking points. In fact I would say that requirement is a contradiction to what most of us on the left stand for.

However what I often see is progressives trying to establish their intelectual independence by taking cheap shots at the left in general. For instance Amanda (who I am an avid fan of) attacked the lefts position on baning guns as not helpful in red states. No sources or examples of such demands was given. I am certainly not aware of any off hand.

I don't expect authors on the left to agree with each other but in attacking the left they should pay as much attention to fact and detail that they employ when attacking the right.

[Amanda Marcotte]

Gun control makes a lot of people in Texas pissy, even big liberals. It's not just about the guns. It's a cultural issue--guns are everywhere here and we don't see that as a problem, and having that dismissed out of hand is insulting. There are a lot of gun nuts, the guys who pack everywhere they go and just hope that someone starts shit so they can open fire and I think they're big assholes myself. But there's a lot more people who just enjoy gun sports or have legitimate uses for a gun who don't like being told they don't know what they're doing.

[anik]

As far as liberal principles are concerned, I'm reluctant to blame predmominantly muslim countries for not liberalizing culturally, but economic liberalization is a pretty good idea.

[Scott Lemieux]

I think half your case is easy; tarrifs are, of course, inherently conservative; basically rent-seeking by corporations. Even to the extent that they protect the immediate interests of labor, they are bad in the long-term because they lock labor into non-competetive industries. (There are some elements of trade agreements, of course, that are clearly reactionary, but it's not clear that they're bad on balance.) I can't support your queasiness about trade unions, though. ;)

Siimilarly, I think reasonable liberals can come out either way on smoking ban; both anti-nanny state politics and proecting the health of employees and consumers are valid liberal goals. The tradeoffs partly come down on empirical questions. The evidence about the effects of second-hand smoke are disuputable, but with all due respect I don't think Amanda can credibly support her claims that these bans hurt local businesses either. Overall, though, I don't think there's any obvious lefty position on this issue.

Oh, and in fairness I think Yglesias is pretty good on abortion, and at least his willingess to compromise on church/state issues as it the margins. Drum isn't very good on abortion, of course.

[John Deeth]

My free speech absolutism places me off the liberal ranch on a number of "PC" issues. Hate speech, tobacco advertising, corporate news bias and the exploitation of women and sexuality in the media are all bad things. But having someone else tell you what you can and can't say is worse.

It drives me crazy when people are so sensitive about speech that they can't even use the words to discuss it. It's not "the N word," it's nigger and it's in five of the top ten singles.

People whose contempt for anyone who wants to smoke or drink drive me crazy. I'm a non-smoker and a recovering alcoholic (20 years sober this August) and as I learned the hard way you have to make your own mistakkes. (like that typo)

The space program is the next great human adventure and I think people who say "spend the money on earth" are small-minded and short sighted.

I also really think there are a lot more important voting rights issues than whether or not your vote is recorded on a piece of dead fucking tree. Paper is the medium of the old millenium. Get rid of it.

And I think Dennis Miller, while he's slipped, is still pretty funny. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Ethical Werewolf]

Yeah, I'm curious what the trouble with Matt Yglesias on abortion is, especially after his parental notification post.

[adam j. sontag]

The question is perception. Professor Lemieux (and I say that because, after following some links, it turns out I was briefly enrolled a class of his at Hunter College..it's a small blogosphere after all) says "Siimilarly, I think reasonable liberals can come out either way on smoking ban; both anti-nanny state politics and proecting the health of employees and consumers are valid liberal goals." While I fall in the "anti-nanny state" camp, the widespread perception in society is that the pro-smoking ban/protecting health position IS the liberal position. Both positions may be liberal, but if we're assuming there's some kind of big L Liberal set of talking points, then the pro-ban people are towing the party line.

--adam

[upyernoz]

i actually think that both sides of the political fence engage in a bit of cafeteria ideology--it's just that from where we sit it's easy to perceive the other side as a monolith (just as they see the great liberal conspiracy in us).

fundamentalists also cafeteria a bit. they just pretend they don't, and then are willing to fall into line when party leaders insist on it. many members of the religious right are not excited about the bankruptcy bill, but they think it's worth it to stop all that baby killing

[Oliver]

FYI, I'm also pro-death penalty, in a much less qualified way than my torture position.

[aldahlia]

I'm another of those liberals that's anti-gun control. It's not a ideological thing, so much as a common sense thing. If you can build a bomb our of commone household items, what's the point of limiting guns to those who are willing to obtain them illegally?