Liberty vs. justice

[tagryn]

I don't recall where I read this, but someone once said that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives (and especially libertarians) hold liberty to be the primary virtue, while liberals hold that justice is the primary virtue. To be sure, that's not to say that liberals don't value liberty, or that conservatives don't value justice, just that went you look at what causes really energize each side, this tends to hold. I've found it a useful meme when the two "sides" are trying to discourse: in some cases it goes nowhere, because the underlying fundamentals about what's really important are different.

Anyway, Michelle Obama's speech about what an Obama administration will be like has been getting discussed over at Winds of Change. Specifically:

Because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.... Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

My gut reaction to that is: excuse me, citizen, but who are you to dictate to me how I will or won't think, feel, believe? Who are you to presume to weigh in on the state of my soul?

But I also have to wonder, would someone on the flipside of my perspective see it the same way? Or is it seen as just a necessary sacrifice of liberty in order to achieve a rectification of some of the injustices in this nation?

Comments

[mdlbear]

Religious conservatives appear to have yet a different primary value -- morality, perhaps? -- that has nothing to do with either liberty or justice.

It's a problem.

[tagryn]

The "will of God" or "word of God" would probably be first for religious fundamentalists (otherwise they wouldn't be fundamentalists, would they? :) ). Which, interestingly, you'd think would come into sharp conflict with liberty in a lot of areas...

This also makes me wonder: wherefore the religious liberals? I think liberation theology is certainly one manifestation of that, although it is much more influential and prevalent in other areas of the Americas than here (Rev. Wright notwithstanding). There may be some correlation between religiosity and political perspective which tends to associate lower religiosity with more liberal viewpoints, but I haven't studied the literature to know what studies actually show on that. I've sometimes seen this uncharitably expressed as an representation of IQ, as well - simply, dumber people are religious (and conservative), while more intelligent people are smart enough to see through the charade of religion and hence are more "reality-based"/liberal.

It may be as simple as the cultural mores in the USA of seeing religion as a private matter - "don't discuss religion or politics in polite company," etc. - and the evangelicals contemporary venture into the political process is more of a recent aberration than the norm, while religious liberals still abide by the norm and don't let religion come into play in their political decision-making.

Complex issue, to be sure.

[mdlbear]

It does come into conflict with liberty -- these people are not only telling me how to behave in the privacy of my own bedroom, they are telling me what to think.

At this point there are damned few libertarians left; whoever is running the Republican party has somehow managed to tie together fiscal conservatism with religious conservatism in order to put together enough votes to keep a small, extremely greedy, extremely cynical elite in power.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

"My gut reaction to that is: excuse me, citizen, but who are you to dictate to me how I will or won't think, feel, believe? Who are you to presume to weigh in on the state of my soul?"

That's definitely not an unreasonable gut reaction. Hopefully, though, your magnificent brain would then parse this as the language of inspiration, not as a blueprint for "re-education camps."

After all, you, tagryn, are not uninvolved or uninformed; surely the country would be better off if more people shared a lack of these qualities?

[tagryn]

Not if they choose not to. While ignorance is to be avoided, the right to not give a damn is highly underrated in my opinion. If someone wants no part of politicians, I don't see how dragging them screaming (or worse) back into the process is going to help anything.

Participatory democracy, not obligatory democracy, please...

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Again, the language of inspiration, not a blueprint for re-education camps. Obama would exhort the masses to get informed and involved. If they choose not to do so, then at least he'll have tried.

If you want to read obligatory democracy into that, feel free, but I don't see it. Also, looks like I'm going to be in DC in August, somewhere near Bolling AFB; can I buy you and Donna dinner?

[tagryn]

"Also, looks like I'm going to be in DC in August, somewhere near Bolling AFB; can I buy you and Donna dinner?"

Sounds good! Let us know when you have more info on your trip & we'll make plans.