The Conservative Dilemma

One of Einstein’s most famous quotes is, “God does not play dice with the universe,” believing until his dying day that the universe is predictable if we can just look deeply enough.

British Physicists George Thompson and his father, J.J. Thompson; both Nobel Prize winners for light theory.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - “It is the theory that decides what we can observe,” said Albert Einstein.

By this he meant that if physicists used one tool to measure light, they would see light as a wave; and, using another tool, they would see light as a particle. To show how seriously physicists take this duality, in 1906 British physicist J. J. Thomson was awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that light and electrons are particles. In 1937 his son, George, received the Nobel Prize for proving that light and electrons are waves.

Such a contrast in ways of seeing the world is easily understood in every day life in the difference between radio and TV receivers. Each is constructed using a slightly different theory to capture and translate different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. A radio receiver will never detect TV waves and vice versa. Each receiver “sees” a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Two of the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century were Albert Einstein, (no introduction required), and Niels Bohr, (the chief architect of quantum physics—Niels rhymes with “mills”). These were two men who, despite their scientific standing, could not see eye to eye on the fundamental working of the universe.

The foundational concept of quantum physics is that there is no foundation—the universe at the subatomic level is completely random. This is most easily understood through the concept of radioactivity. Every radioactive substance has what is called a half-life. This is a length of time during which half of the elements will decay. Randomness enters in that we can never know which atoms will decay and which will not. Further, of those that do decay, we can never know when the decay will occur. Complete unpredictability.

One of Einstein’s most famous quotes is, “God does not play dice with the universe,” believing until his dying day that the universe is predictable if we can just look deeply enough.

Einstein and Bohr liked and respected each other highly, but sparred for decades about the reality of the two worldviews. Einstein would think up experiments to support his worldview but Bohr would always come back to point out a flaw in Einstein’s reasoning. One day in 1948 Abraham Pais, a friend of both men, walked into Bohr’s office to find him sitting with his face in his hands. Looking up at Pais, he moaned, “I don’t understand why I can’t convince him.”

This same psychological impasse occurs in interactions between liberals and conservatives. They live in different psychological worlds and never the twain shall meet. Liberals see one social reality, conservatives see another. This may seem to be one of those things that are so obvious that they hardly rate mentioning. But, if we dig just a little deeper…

Conservatism, writes historian Peter Viereck in Encyclopaedia Britannica, is a “political philosophy that emphasizes conserving as much as possible of the present economic, social, and political order.” This is a responsible definition, emphasizing that stability is necessary for any society to survive. At bottom, in this sense, we are all conservatives.

Now, my bringing Einstein into the picture makes sense in a cultural context. Conservatism is a theory that decides what the world looks like to those who call themselves conservatives. In everyday language we have many sayings to demonstrate this psychological aspect of perception: seeing the world through rose coloured glasses; a glass is half-full or half-empty; beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

But conservative philosophy as it is now practised in America has become corrupted and toxic, presenting the dark and evil side of man’s nature. I believe that this corruption, toxicity and extremism of the political right is a reaction to the expansion of the political left that began in the 1960s. There had been McCarthy and Goldwater, but Republican toxicity didn’t really start to grow until Nixon.

One of the best known conservatives is Ann Coulter, who is hated and vilified by all on the political left. But Conrad Black, the founder of Canada’s National Post newspaper (now serving a six year sentence in a Florida prison) describes her as “a delightful and memorable personality”, “a rational conservative, slightly to the right of Ronald Reagan, and a practicing, middle-of-the-road Christian”, who “believes in due process and is not a creationist” and “has endured all manner of boorish outrages from people too obtuse and impenetrably earnest to realize what a grand and successful send-up and put-on much of her career has been.” Coulter an entertainer? If so, then her form of entertaining is about as socially useful as dog-fighting and bear-baiting.

Are we talking about the same person? I’m reminded of the writer Gerald Kersh who once said: “There are men whom one hates until a certain moment when one sees, through a chink in their armour, the writhing of something nailed down and in torment.” Some of the most publicly loathsome conservatives—Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, et al, fit that sentiment. Their hatred of the human race can only be understood as a reflection of their own self-hatred.

All theories, scientific or social, are built up from one or more assumptions (Einstein/Bohr—is the world random or not? For those of you wondering what the resolution is, Portland-born mathematician John L. Casti says: “Until there’s an experimental breakthrough of some kind, the position you hold on the quantum reality issue is more like a religious conviction than a matter of science. All positions are defensible, and your choice becomes as much a matter of aesthetics and a gut feeling for ‘how could it be that way’ as a logical consequence of hard facts.”)

Conservatism has its own basic assumptions and few of them defensible. In the mid-eighteenth century, the science of Sociology was founded by Herbert Spencer who argued for what came to be called Social Darwinism, i.e., society is based on animal, not social instincts—the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest. Spencer opposed government support of the poor: “If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die.”

Social Darwinism is rearing its ugly head again. Northwestern University Law professor John O. McGinnis wrote in The National Review

the depiction of our species that is emerging from Darwinism—as composed of individuals who are basically self-interested yet capable of altruism toward family and friends; who are unequal in their abilities yet remarkably similar in their aspirations—comports with fundamental premises of conservative thought.

Biologist Richard Dawkins seconds this notion, saying that “much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.” In the conservative view we live in an animal, not a social world—survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog.

Former G. W. Bush speechwriter David Frum said recently that “economic conservatives like me may not like it much, but for many millions of senior citizens, George Bush's most important legacy is a national prescription-drug program that relieves those over 65 of the fear that they cannot afford the medications they need.” A common epithet against those on the left is to call them bleeding heart liberals which suggests that there is something wrong with caring for and showing concern for others.

The conclusion I draw from these statements is that conservatives are: hostis humani generis—enemies of the human race. Conservatism is a divide and conquer philosophy on behalf of those who have economic power, who are the only winners in a dog-eat-dog society. Conservatism is based on animal fear.

In future instalments of my thesis, I will show in depressing detail how conservatism works to harm and undermine the commonweal—private good, public bad. How what you don’t know hurts you and your society.

===========================================

Daniel Johnson was born near the midpoint of the twentieth century in Calgary, Alberta. In his teens he knew he was going to be a writer, which is why he was one of only a handful of boys in his high school typing class—a skill he knew was going to be necessary. He defines himself as a social reformer, not a left winger, the latter being an ideological label which, he says, is why he is not an ideologue. From 1975 to 1981 he was reporter, photographer, then editor of the weekly Airdrie Echo. For more than ten years after that he worked with Peter C. Newman, Canada’s top business writer (notably a series of books, The Canadian Establishment). Through this period Daniel also did some national radio and TV broadcasting. He gave up journalism in the early 1980s because he had no interest in being a hack writer for the mainstream media and became a software developer and programmer. He retired from computers last year and is now back to doing what he loves—writing and trying to make the world a better place