I have studied American national, State, and local politics for almost forty years now, and I have come to some conclusions I would like to share — beyond the usual. I will assume, therefore, that you know the Nordic mixed economy is the right way to go, that the Democrats are the party of good overall and the Republicans are the party of evil overall. Now that we have got those things out of the way . . .
Because no one ever explained it to me, I used to think that being a political conservative meant conserving resources. I thought that sounded good, being a conservationist. Eventually I learned that what was meant was taking a conservative approach to governing: gradual change, no sudden moves, erring on the side of freedom. Even that I could respect, though I saw all too clearly how such an approach, sincerely applied, would delay if not stymie progress.
The problem, of course, is that most so-called “conservatives” are not sincere. They hide behind the label to cover what they actually are: anarchists and hedonists. Their motto, regardless of the circumstances, is “If it feels good, do it.” And what feels good to them is hoarding resources and killing anyone who doesn’t like it.
As I have argued elsewhere, on a world of finite resources, wealth that is not shared is violence. Anyone who does not commit such violence is their enemy. That includes many large groups of human beings. Sexism, racism, nationalism all serve their goal of dominating. People dying of COVID? Too bad. People dying coming across the border? Too bad. People dying at all anywhere ever? Too bad. I’ve got mine and fuck you.
They confuse liberty with license. They think because they can do something they have the right to do it. They think having the right to do something makes it the right thing to do. You might be dying of the Red Death, but it is my moral duty to hold a masque to celebrate my survival. I can and will do whatever I please whether you like it or not. You have no right to say otherwise, you have no power over me. If I wallow in riches and pleasures while you starve, this is virtuous, as I owe no one anything! My moral duty is to myself only!
Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “But Robert, this is the group that talks about personal responsibility.” And you’re right. But what they mean by that is not what you and I might mean by that. To me, personal responsibility means taking care of myself, self-sufficiency, but it also means owning up to my mistakes and meeting my obligations. If I do not meet my obligations, I am irresponsible. To them, personal responsibility means only the first half of all that. To them it means “I am responsible for myself. No one else is responsible for me, and I am not responsible for anyone else.”
This is the attitude of anarchists and hedonists, and they are not even sincere in that position, as their words and deeds make clear they do expect the World to support their lifestyle choices. They expect the poor to fund their riches and the Earth to supply infinite resources for their endless consumption. Unchecked gluttony of all resources is their policy and practice. And what do such irresponsible, voracious leeches require above all? Regulation.