Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Coming out of the right-wing Buddhist closet

Are you someone who has politically conservative leanings on economics, domestic or foreign policy, ethical or spiritual issues, or in some other area? Are you often wary of engaging in political discussions with your fellow practitioners because you feel you will either have to hide your views or receive a disapproving response or a even a lecture on the fact that you are being inconsistent, or worse, hypocritical about your professed Buddhist values and your confessed political positions? Or are you someone who feels, like blogger DJ Buddha, that "If you’re a Buddhist, you need to vote for progressive candidates."

In the interest of fairness I should disclose at least my own general tendencies regarding the political spectrum and confess that...

I am neither of these types of people. As far as politics in the United States goes, I generally come out left of center. I don't mind at all, nor do I think that I need to claim to be "in the middle" or a "moderate" in order to be reasonable or fair-minded. I can defend and promote my values without having to be derisive or disrespectful towards others, although despite this I don't always choose such a preferable path. That being said, stereotyping the political perspective of any large, socio-economically and ethnically heterogeneous group is always a mistake, as Jeff Wilson astutely points out in a recent commentary published at the Tricycle Editors Blog. In "Voting Buddhist?" Jeff reminds us of the historically conservative nature of Buddhism when it comes to Asian politics, the complex motives of immigrant Buddhists which leads many of them to vote for conservative candidates, and the results of a recent Pew Forum survey in which a large minority (44%) of convert Buddhists did not identify themselves as being liberal, feeling that their political perspective was more accurately reflected either as moderate or conservative.

I can see some objections being raised to Wilson's analysis. For one thing, Buddhism has been used to promote change, both at the personal and societal level, and in some sense this can be touted as being progressive. But does conservative automatically mean anti-equality or for the wealthy and against the poor? In the polemic tone of modern politics in the U.S., this may seem to be so. Of course, while some Buddhist reformers, such as Honen and Nichiren in Japanese history, were known for trying to stand up for the commoner and liberate practice from the nearly exclusive purview of the elites, the system they were working to reform was maintained and justified by other Buddhists! I tend to agree that in as much as Joshua bin Joseph, Siddhartha Gautama and others were somewhat radical and left-wing in terms of their spiritual revolutions, this does not always mean that such shifts are accompanied immediately by full-scale political revolutions. I am not suggesting one cannot be used to inspire the other, but even after such a change, what was new and edgy is now the status quo. Maintaining that new status quo becomes a conservative effort. Again, this is distinct from the kind of elites versus the commoner parsing of conservative and progressive, in which the face of the revolution is co-opted by the elites to maintain their power.

That suggests that there it is not, in fact, illogical or inconceivable to have someone find inspiration and liberation in the teachings of the Buddha without being a card-carrying member of the Socialist party. People on the left, we love to talk about inclusion, but often this is thought of strictly in terms of the disenfranchised and powerless. When it comes to those with differing political views, it can mean We will work and wait patiently until you come around to our way of seeing things. As Wilson suggests, "The lack of a reasonable argument for Republican Buddhism, therefore, may not be because there is no such argument, but because liberal Buddhists create an environment wherein such sentiments are difficult to express."

So, if you are a non-liberal, particularly a conservative and/or Republican, you are cordially invited to share your experiences in this regard if you will and, if you wish, feel welcome to explain why you believe your position is NOT incompatible with your Buddhist values and practice, as some have argued.

7 comments:

  1. Hi there, i have just discovered your blog from a link from Bodhipaksa and am very happy to have done so. I don;t class myself as a Buddhist, partly because some of my beleifs, particularly around pacifism i find hard to reconcile with Buddhism. Anyway, i just posted this on Bodhipaksa's site, and rather than type again i shall paste my broad perspective! warm regards
    Stephen

    Hi Bodhipaksa

    Thanks for this series of articles, i’m finding them really interesting. I’m particularly looking forward to your thoughts on Buddhism and Liberalism. I agree with you that there is a need for a new paradigm as I am someone who straddles perspectives. The majority of my thinking comes from a fairly classic liberal perspective but there are many asects of modern liberalism i struggle with. In the UK for example i am appalled at the way such a huge sway of the left has segued from simple opposition to Bush to actively supporting the murderous quasi fascistic elements of fundamentalism in the name of them being “anti imperialist”. I also find myself deeply torn on the issues of Iraq, and especially Afghanistan. While i obviously fully accept that there are multitudes of appaling motives and horrendous incompetence in recent years, i also feel that there is a strong argument to be made for the use of force (especially in the face of an ideology like the Taleban’s) for the greater good. These are complex issues, but again i do find much of the left’s rethoric often simplistic. It is one of the reason’s I have always struggled with greater engagement with Buddhism. While i obviously agree that peaceful means are the best way in an ideal world, I do believe there are times (eg WW2, Afghanistan now) where the threat of extreme evil can only be countered by military force, even if the motives of some of those involved may be mixed at best (as indeed they were during WW2). Likewise i think that much of the left are naive in their view of welfare. While the hardline of conservatism is often rightly seen as simply lacking in any compassion or caring for the poor, equally i think much of the left is naive and doctrinaire about the way welfare systems can very directly increase and institutionalise poverty if not structured with great care. It was interesting that one of the people you quoted was querying how much people in traditional Buddhist societies would have in common with much liberal thinking, and i suspect on some of the welfare issues there would often be a sense of shock, that’s certainly the impression i get from some of the workers we have from overseas who are amazed that people are “allowed” to not work.

    It is interesting you mention a different type of conservatism. Being a fellow Scot, my grandfather was a lifelong Conservative , but conservatism in Scotland in the pre and post war years was I think a very different beastie to todays. Interestingly, my grandad was both a Conservative and someone who in practice was thoroughly anti materialistic and believed people in modern society had far too much; “greed is good” he wasn’t! While Scottish conservatism had it’s deep flaws, not least in a highly paternalistic view and classic conservative views on things like homosexuality, i think there is little doubt that it had also had a much more compassionate view of conservative values helping to make a better society for all. Much of that was wrong, but much, particularly in the concepts of hard work and thrift as vital not only for wider society but as essential individual skills, was again something that i suspect many in traditional Buddhist societies would have much sympathy for.

    As i say,i am really looking forward to your thoughts on buddhism and Liberalism (no pressure, i know it sounds like you’re busy!). Personally i alwasy find it much more interesting to have your own perspective throughly critiqued than simply that of those you disagree with!

    warm regards

    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the impressive thoughts and comments Stephen. I am certain I won't be able to do them justice, so I wanted to pick out something you said that is really crucial to this kind of dialogue - the confusion over what the terms conservative and liberal mean. Along similar lines, I read an article in Tikkun last year in which someone pointing out something similar. One example used was that Bush and Cheney are, in a historical/technical sense, liberals on certain policies in terms of their lauding of the free market.

    Of course, this term has become associated with "American conservatism", but at its essence liberal refers to being open to change and not being bound by prior or existing conventions. Conservative refers to preserving or restoring things in opposition to change. Hence "American liberalism" is wedded to the idea of environmental conservation. Since this has been associated with support from "American liberalism" and hostility from "American conservatism", it is simply though of as being a liberal position.

    This kind of culturally and historically bound pigeon-holing of ideas has created such clutter that we had to come up with the term "neo-Conservatives" for George W. Bush and his supporters - after all, they are affiliated with the Republican Party, which is "conservative". Generally of course in American politics what we really focus on is social and cultural change - are you claiming to be building the a new world emphasizing "traditional" values or are you seeking to break with convention?

    Even this is somewhat disingenuous as both liberals and conservatives tend to claim historical roots and try to show they their values are the real virtues of our founding fathers and the cause of our nation's successes, while the other group's values have been at odds with these virtues and have been responsible for our nation's failures. Hence other characterizations are bandied about - liberals don't like individualism and prefer group solutions, whereas conservatives distrust group solutions and focus on the individual. Or liberals associate justice with compassion and equality whereas conservatives equate justice with punishment and morality. And this in turn leads to accusations that liberals don't want or understand the worth of personal responsibility or that conservatives don't care about the poor and disenfranchised.

    ReplyDelete
  3. hi, indeed, as you say in economics the term liberal classically means those at the further extremes of free market beliefs. For me as someone coming from a broadly liberal perspective, much of my disillusionment with the modern left is the common demonization of anyone of a more moderate or conservative view as completely uncaring or verging on evil. While this may sometimes be true, I am happy to accept that the majority of conservative's genuinely believe their perspective is ultimately aimed at a greater good. The polarization in this thinking I'm sure must have some intersting perspectives in Buddhist ideas of non dualism. Most importantly though I think is how we constructively and respectfully engage with those we disagree with and there have been some interesting points over on Bodhipsksa's blog about how to engage in respectful but challenging debate.
    Warm regards
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the notification, I will go and take a look. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello,

    I’m Buddhist, and Conservative, and anti-egalitarian. Of course I am against equality. Honestly, how could I do otherwise? Inequality is NOT caused by the wrong structure of society or wrong politics. It’s caused by karma. People got what they deserved, based on their former actions. Private charity is good, because you always have to keep compassion and wisdom in balance, but the forced redistribtion of wealth is just too much towards compassion, and too little wisdom.

    Also, there is a question of justice. Person A drinks, womanizes and therefore does not make use of the opportunities in life. Person B works hard and saves, therefore becomes richer. By what right should Person A receive a portion of Person B’s wealth? Why should society punish good action (action that generates goods, wealth) and reward bad action (action that generates bads, like poverty or sickness) when karma itself doesn’t do so?

    The best way to make society work mostly OK is to make karma fast.

    Punish bad actions (strict criminal justice), because if karma is fast people don't crime the next time. (No capital punshiment, but a good whipping shouldn't be out of question.)

    And reward good actions. Actually, you don't have to, the market does so: people don't buy from vendors who do not treat them well and so on. Just leave the market alone. Low taxes, relaxed regulation, no redistribution.

    The root of every Progressive idea is that consciousness is created by society, and by reorganizing society people will become better people. How could any Buddhist believe that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. ***My reply below is based on all the discussions of karma I have witnessed, heard, or read from Buddhist monks, scholars, etc. It is not exhaustive nor authoritative! I am not tying to impose those views on anyone, I am simply using them to address a comment. While I highlight some areas of apparent disagreement on Buddhism below, I am silent on the political end as far as various programs and policies are concerned because I don't want this post and comment section to be about debating politics. I really want to provide a space for sharing conservative Buddhist politics.***

    I’m Buddhist, and Conservative, and anti-egalitarian. Of course I am against equality. Honestly, how could I do otherwise? Inequality is NOT caused by the wrong structure of society or wrong politics. It’s caused by karma. People got what they deserved, based on their former actions. Private charity is good, because you always have to keep compassion and wisdom in balance, but the forced redistribtion of wealth is just too much towards compassion, and too little wisdom.

    Karma as I understand it is not a magic trick or a miraculous transformation. It's not like we had an equitable society and then karma came in and "Presto chango", some people got poor and powerless and others got rich. There are deep historical roots which have led to such situations. Some would teach that karma may determine who is born into a particular situation, but the situation has a history of cause and effect - karma cannot occur in a vacuum.

    When people talk about structural inequality, they are talking about how the systems in place help in generating and maintaining what we see. It doesn't mean that such effects are always intentional, or that they account for 100% of the patterns of inequality we see. This doesn't obviate personal responsibility but balances it with context.

    Moreover, karma as I understand it is not a straight jacket nor is it somehow a form of punative action. It is not about blame or retribution. Nor is it all about material wealth. Some are just as or more cursed by their supposed blessings as those who are in material poverty.

    Karma as I understand it is an opportunity to learn and grow and practice. If something we perceive as "good" or "bad" happens to us we have a chance to grow. If something we perceive as "good" or "bad" happens to someone else and we have a chance to act, this is also our karma and a chance to grow.

    Karma as I understand it is not a moral blame game excusing us from taking right action. Nor are wisdom and compassion opposite poles, like hot and cold. They are different aspects of the same depth of insight. There is no such thing as too much compassion if it is genuine compassion nor can it be at odds with wisdom.

    [T]he forced redistribtion (sic) of wealth is just too much towards compassion...

    The best way to make society work mostly OK is to make karma fast.

    Punish bad actions (strict criminal justice), because if karma is fast people don't crime the next time. (No capital punshiment (sic), but a good whipping shouldn't be out of question.)

    And reward good actions. Actually, you don't have to, the market does so: people don't buy from vendors who do not treat them well and so on. Just leave the market alone. Low taxes, relaxed regulation, no redistribution.

    The root of every Progressive idea is that consciousness is created by society, and by reorganizing society people will become better people. How could any Buddhist believe that?


    Karma as I understand it is not something that happens in a vacuum and is confined only to what we ascribe as individuals, nor does it only work in the timescale of a single individual's lifetime. Karma doesn't operate on a timetable according to our wishes.

    People may have different ideas about what right action is when it comes to working with our karma,
    and much of this will determine ones politics. I don't want to debate political agendas here, which is why I am only responding to the bits about karma.

    In any case, I am glad to see conservative Buddhists such as yourself expressing your take on the Dharma. I wonder not so much what progressive Buddhists would think of your views so much as other conservative Buddhists. I suspect it would be a mistake to assume all conservative Buddhists see all of these issues the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "When people talk about structural inequality, they are talking about how the systems in place help in generating and maintaining what we see."

    But this approach presumes that inequality is bad. And I just don't see why. If we see wealth as a reward, it's distribution should be proporptional to merit, not equal. But I don't even see wealth as a reward, I see it as a tool for getting things done. Mainly, investment. Thus, I think those should own most of the wealth who know how to use it well - generally, to not waste it on indulgence but invest it. The future-oriented ones, who live sober, diligent lives, who don't drink or generally, don't consume most of it. And this tends to correlate with one's social class. Human action is generally driven by habit. Wealthy parents tend to imprint good habits into their children. Poorer parents often neglect to. To put it very bluntly, I've known many poorer people to whom more wealth would do no good, they would just get a bigger TV and more junk food. Better to leave it at the folks who actually invest it and use it.

    Note: this what I wrote relates to those people who are the majority in Western societies: those "haves" who have a smallish business or something, and those "have-not" who, despite classified as poor, nevertheless have TV's, often cars or computers etc. On a broader level, when you look at billionaires on one hand and starving people in Haiti on other hand things look different and could warrant some redistribution. Just don't skin the hard-working upper middle class to feed the Western welfare clients who are already fat enough, that's my point. Don't punish diligence, don't reward laziness.

    " There is no such thing as too much compassion if it is genuine compassion nor can it be at odds with wisdom."

    Yes - after you spent 20 years of meditating in a cave and are already Enlightened :) But the rest of us who can hardly get 5 minutes of slightly-less-confused consciousness on a good day have to balance these. Because compassion and wisdom gets into conflict on that level all the time.

    ReplyDelete

Hello! Thanks for leaving a comment.

Everything but spam and abusive comments are welcome. Logging in isn't necessary but if you don't then please "sign" at the end of your comment. You can choose to receive email notifications of new replies to this post for your convenience, and if you find it interesting don't forget to share it. Thanks!

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...