{"id":8989,"date":"2013-02-12T15:12:24","date_gmt":"2013-02-12T15:12:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/12\/nick-gillespie-on-why-youth-favor-obama\/"},"modified":"2013-02-12T15:12:24","modified_gmt":"2013-02-12T15:12:24","slug":"nick-gillespie-on-why-youth-favor-obama","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/12\/nick-gillespie-on-why-youth-favor-obama\/","title":{"rendered":"Nick Gillespie on Why Youth Favor Obama and Conservatism’s Contradictions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Support for Obama among 18-29 year olds exceeds that of any other age cohort.  Reason Magazine<\/em>'s Nick Gillespie argues<\/a> that Obama is in the process of "screwing them big time."  Gillespie is right.   What caught my eye, however, was Gillespie's  explanation of why conservatives fail to get the youth vote:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I'd argue that what makes "the conservative message"  resonate less among younger people is its, well, conservatism on things such as war, alternative lifestlyes, [sic] drug legalization, and immigration. Younger people are less hung up on the sorts of things that really twist conservatives' knickers. And young people then assume that many of the other things that conservatives espouse – such as generally free markets and open trade – are similarly warped. That conservatives are so inconsistent with their basic message – We want smaller government…except when we're talking about immigrants, the gays, and the ability to kill people overseas!<\/em> – doesn't help matters, either. Most people surely don't prize consistency as much as libertarians do, but the obvious contradictions at the heart of conservative philosophy are off-putting to anyone with the smallest taste for consistency.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As a philosopher, logical consistency looms large for me.  And so you will get my attention 'big time' if you can lay out for me "the obvious contradictions at the heart of conservative philosophy."  But if they are obvious, then presumably all you need to do is draw my attention to them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, public intellectuals, not being logically trained as most philosophers are, have an egregiously spongy notion of what a contradiction is.  This is true of even very good public intellectuals such as Nat Hentoff and Nick Gillespie.  (Hentoff, for whom I have a very high degree of respect, thinks one is being inconsistent if one is pro-life and yet supports capital punishment.  He is demonstrably wrong<\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Ignoring Gillespie's invective and hyperbole, his point seems to be that the following propositions are logically inconsistent:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1. The legitimate functions of government are limited.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Among the the legitimate functions of government are national defense, securing of the borders, and preservation of traditional marriage's privileged position.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Now it should be obvious<\/em> that these propositions are logically consistent<\/em>: they can both be true.  They are not logical contradictories of each other.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is therefore foolish for Gillespie to accuse conservatives of inconsistency.  And to speak of obvious<\/em> inconsistency is doubly foolish.  What he needs to do is argue that the governmental functions that conservatives deem necessary and legitimate are neither.  This will require a good deal of substantive argumentation and not a cheap accusation of  'inconsistency.' For example, he can mount an economic argument for open borders.  I wish him the best of luck with that. He will need it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Curiously, Gillespie's own reasoning can be used against him.  Suppose an anarchist comes along.  Using Gillespie's own form of reasoning, he could argue that Gillespie the libertarian is being inconsistent.  For he wants smaller government . . . except when it comes to the protection of life, liberty, and property (the Lockean triad, I call it).    Then he wants coercive government to do its thing and come down hard on the malefactors.  He's inconsistent!  If he were consistent<\/em> in his desire for limited government, he would favor no government.  His libertarianism would then collapse into anarchism.<\/span><\/p>\n

So by his own understanding of consistency, Gillespie is not being consistent.  The same reasoning that he uses against conservatives can be used against him.  The reasoning is of course invalid in both applications.  It is invalid against the libertarian and equally so against the conservative.<\/span><\/p>\n

But I like his black leather jacket schtick.    It is always a pleasure to see him on the O'Reilly Factor.<\/span> <\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>'The Wrong Side of History'<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>A Prime Instance of Political Correctness: The Blackballing of Nat Hentoff<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Nick Gillespie: Will Obama Tell Young People How Much He's Screwing Them?<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Support for Obama among 18-29 year olds exceeds that of any other age cohort.  Reason Magazine's Nick Gillespie argues that Obama is in the process of "screwing them big time."  Gillespie is right.   What caught my eye, however, was Gillespie's  explanation of why conservatives fail to get the youth vote: I'd argue that what makes "the conservative message"  resonate less … Continue reading “Nick Gillespie on Why Youth Favor Obama and Conservatism’s Contradictions”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[64,533,276,113,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8989","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservatism","category-consistency","category-libertarianism","category-logica-utens","category-social-and-political-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8989","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8989"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8989\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8989"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8989"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8989"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}