Brian has commented on a left/right difference in art punditry. I differ with what he said only because I’m uncertain it matches what he does and why he does it. His High Arts (and low!) commentary has been been a breath of fresh air.
Artists, artist wannabees and art students like to write about art because that is what they do. It’s their passion. What they think about when life isn’t messily intruding on those More Important Things.
A few years ago a large part of my writing would have been in the music biz vein. I was playing as near to professionally as I could afford to. At the moment I’m spending all my time with technology and still trying – badly I might add – to make a living. At times I wonder if tech should be the hobby… but then I talk to a friend whose record label is failing and whose tour gigs are falling off and I realize it doesn’t work well either way.
Although I write a lot on technology and policy, catch me at the bar while a Rock gig is on (well, during the break when you can talk anyway – I always stand near the speakers) and I’ll talk your ear off about “the biz”. I drive my business partner up the pub wall at times. I point out the features of the electronic kit the lead guitarist is using, what keyboards they have, the qualities of various amps and speakers and of course the pros and cons of why CF Martin makes the best acoustic guitar, whether a Strat or an SG is a better electric and for what, direct feed versus amp miking etc. etc…
I would posit libertarians are more like the Left when it comes to the arts. It’s the socially liberal side of the equation which we don’t share with the Right. Some who once thought they were Conservative may disagree. I ask them: “Why do you think you were politically homeless before you found us?” It’s because you weren’t Left and you didn’t fit on the Right. The vice-versa thing heppened to me on the Left.
Libertarians are neither Right nor Left: go find a Nolan chart. We’re, well… sort of, you know… UP1. We’re the new kid on the ideological block and most of the writers in our corner have been philosophers, policy wonks and political pundits.
Samizdata is out to change all that. Libertarians have a life style as open as the philosophy itself. We’re here to show that.
1 = Extra credit for those who recognize my literary misreference.
HURRAY!
I couldn’t agree more.
(Also: whew!)
Alice
I don’t think that Brian is necessarily saying that art isn’t important. Art is very important personally, much too important to mess with something as unimportant as politics. At the same time, it’s far too important to other people to force your views on them.
I know plenty of self-described Conservatives whose feelings on art are the same as yours. There’s this stereotype out there, but I don’t find libertarians to be more like the Left when it comes to the arts at all. I know plenty of uptight people in both camps with little respect for others’ opinions or likes. (Liberals who support shoving uniform government-supported arts down everyone’s throats, for example. Objectivists can be pretty bad. Of course, Communists take a strong lead in the official bad art category.)
Of course, there are plenty of people who make their political affiliation based on who they feel comfortable with, rather than anything having to do with reason. I understand it, but I really don’t think that politics has to have anything to do with lifestyle. I certainly don’t think that it should, in any case. In fact, I find the comment “[l]ibertarians have a life style as open as the philosophy itself” to be a little distasteful.
The world is not driven by reason. It’s driven by gut emotion. Fashion, style, celebrity. Very few people on this planet give a toss about what the best thinkers are thinking or why. They do care what Ulrika was wearing; they wish to associate them selves with the image of those who are stylish and cool. That’s the reality of the world out there. The thinkers matter, but in a different way, at a different level.
You cannot stop the march towards slavery so long as all of culture is supporting that march. Reasoned argument will not counteract the impact of a blockbuster movie or a pop music single, or the inane statements of a 19 year old teen idol.
Either we get in the game or we can spend our old age discussing reasonable arguments – in a re-education camp.
Literary reference: either “Arms And The Man” by George Bernard Shaw, or “Arms And The Boy” by Wilfred Owen?
On the subject of that chart, I think it has at least as many problems as the left-right axis. Apart from taking no account of foreign policy, constitutional issues, or of exact levels of public spending (it is possible to be a free marketer who wants 50% of national income spent by the government), it makes the facile suggestion that somehow the right is about restricting personal and enhancing economic freedom, while the left is about the reverse. First of all, personal freedom and economic freedom are tired together, and you cannot have the former without the latter. Second, it suggests, falsely in most cases, that the left is any more willing to support repeal of drugs laws etc.
The Nolan Chart is as bad as any I have seen. To take one example, the idea that the Thatcherite Right is somehow authoritarian as Nazism and Stalinism was is absurd, being as it was much more individualist than One Nation Conservatism. I would suggest one that went left-to-right on economics and taxation and north-to-south on individualism versus collectivism, which would make room for the distinction between collectivist One Nation Conservatism and Individualist Thatcherism and leave room for competing ideas, making a meaningful distinction between the north and south of the chart.
If Maggie was such a staunch civil libertarian, then why did she make such a fuss over Spy Catcher?
She was an economic godsend, but no defender of individualist liberty.
You can have various freedoms without having others. For example, someone working for a corporation which makes a defective or dangerous product might not have freedom of speech (because the company would issue reprisals of various kinds if he talks about the product), but they still have the economic freedom to be safe in their possessions. In the U.S., we have so-so economic freedom (it could be a lot worse, but it could be a lot better), but really tremendous political freedom. The governnment is allowed practically no interference in what we say and where. Political and economic freedoms aren’t really related except that they are both needed to truly be free.
As for the scale, I agree that it’s not perfect. However, conservatives like Ronald Reagan (I don’t know that much about Thatcher, but I’ve heard she was Reagan’s kindred spirit) were/are authoritarian in a lot of ways. Reagan was still a tax-and-spend politician: he just cut back on social programs & taxes, and massively increased defense spending. This isn’t fiscal conservatism by any stretch of the imagination. In many ways, borrowing to fuel government programs is even worse than taxes because it creates inflation, and needs to be paid off by taxes later, with interest. He also massively expanded the war on drugs (hurting civil liberties). So in many ways, he was an enemy of liberty, but he did create some much needed reforms in governmental regulation. He was something of a mixed bag, as are most politicians.