I am often surprised at the actions and statements of conservatives. ("Defending Freedom?", "You Lose When You Think You Win", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "Of Wheat and Doctors", "Selling Yourself Cheap", "The FairTax's Liberal Assumptions", The Difficulty of Principle", "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "Pyrrhic Victories") Sometimes at the senseless way they mix a belief in freedom with big government beliefs, without noticing the contradictions. ("Inescapable Logic", "Why Freedom Is Essential ", "What Makes Politicians So Special? ", "A New Look At Intervention", "IMHO", "Absolute Values", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"", "The Right Way") Sometimes at the hopelessly incompatible array of views they accept into the conservative movement. ("Many Types of Conservatives?", "Please Stop Calling Them Conservatives", "Reticent To Adopt a Title", "A Possible Designation", "The Right Identity") Sometimes at their tendency to confuse means and ends, much to their detriment. ("Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion", "Katrina and BP", "Static Defenses and Political Doctrine ") Often at their tendency to try to "fight fire with fire", by adopting the worst traits of their opponents. ("In Defense of Civil Debate", "The Angry Right and Conservatives", "Political Polarization and Divisive Politics", "Something to Recall ") And even more often at their incredibly self destructive actions, usually aimed at presenting a "gentler" conservatism. ("Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?", "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? ", "How Conservatives Defeat Themselves ")  And, perhaps most often of all, that, while accepting horribly authoritarian "social conservatives" in the movement ("The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation", "Culture and Government"), they often remain oblivious to the very real harm done by the trends in our society ("An Immature Society", "Pushing the Envelope ", "Slippery Slopes ")¹.

But I have written on all those topics, many of them several times. And though they all are important topics, and need to be examined, I don't feel like beating up on conservatives tonight, even if I only do it for their own good. ("The Need to Correct Ourselves") So, instead, let me say, almost as much as their blindness to social trends, conservatives surprise me by overlooking the obvious. That is, by failing to see the connections between various liberal movements. While they can take on each movement effectively -- at least most of the time -- somehow they fail to notice how one movement relates to another, how one liberal belief grew out of those that came before. Every so often they might notice that a given movement is something of a revival of a past idea, but even then they seem to ignore the underlying trends this reveals, and don't take advantage of these revelations to predict what is coming next.

For example, many years ago, there was a lot of noise about the silliness called "outcome based education", which was essentially a way to give students higher grades for "effort". Or, to make it more plain, it was a new name for social promotions². At the same time, the right was also upset, at least some were, by the creation of "hate crimes", effectively making a crime of one's intentions while committing another criminal act.

What most on the right failed to mention, in these cases and many others like them was the one common thread running through them, the common aspect which is my topic.

And that is the left's habit of placing intentions above results.

The role this plays in social promotion and "outcome based education" is obvious, so much so that we can pass on without wasting time. Instead, let us look at hate crimes, and ask why they should exist.  Hate crimes are not entirely without precedent, in traditional jurisprudence, I can think of three cases where intent was considered, those being murder, assault and burglary. Each of the three uses intent slightly differently, though burglary and assault are similar in that both use intent to distinguish the crime from either a minor misdemeanor or perhaps an innocent act. Let us look at those two first.

Burglary in common law requires "the breaking and entering into the dwelling place of another during hours of darkness with the intent to commit a felony therein." Such a definition seems a bit superfluous, after all why else would someone break into a house at night, but given the way "breaking" is defined, even including pushing open a door already ajar, it is possible to "break and enter" rather innocently, say trying the wrong door when visiting a friend, or making a delivery to the wrong home after the owner said "the door is open, just put it inside." Because of that burglary required intent be proven to ensure that innocents were not charged with felonies.That is, to limit burglary charges to those with malicious intent³.

Assault is similarly constructed, using intent to distinguish crime from accident, prank or poor decision. Assault is "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." In practice the word "intentional" has been interpreted to mean that the actor must intend to cause the apprehension. It is not enough that the victim be frightened, but the actor must also have intended to frighten. And, again, this makes sense, as there are countless acts which might frighten one person or another, but which should not be crimes.

On the other hand, premeditated murder is more akin to hate crimes, and may be the intellectual precursor which provided justification for those who offered up hate crimes as a new category of offense. Then again, murder has always been treated a little differently than the rest of our panoply of crimes, and with good reason, so even here it is more different than akin to hate crimes.

Traditionally, crimes were handled without thought of intent. The question was simply whether or not an individual committed a given act. If he did, he was guilty, without a thought as to why he did it. There were the few exceptions, as mentioned above, where intent was necessary to distinguish a crime from a licit action, but in almost all cases, intent was irrelevant. And if intent did arise, it arose from the other side of the table, as a defense. The prosecutor did not care about intent, he was concerned only with facts, but in those cases where the facts were beyond doubt, clever defendants often brought out intent to try to justify their actions. And so we ended up with the few arguments about intent being used to try to prove the defendant thought he was acting lawfully. For example, claims that a defendant thought he had legal title to goods he supposedly stole, or that a woman had consented in a case of rape. It was only in those few unusual cases that intent, or just the question of the defendant's perceptions and beliefs was raised.

And that is likely why murder ended up being the one area where intent became a question, independent of guilt, that is where premeditation became an exacerbating factor. Murder is unusual in a number of respects. Murder is one of the few crimes which might be wholly justified. Other crimes, if the facts are as alleged, can be excused, but not justified. Only murder, and the lesser included crimes such as attempted murder or battery, can be fully justified.And for that reason, perhaps we became used to dealing with intent in murder cases.

Allow me to explain.

If you are charged with theft, let us say, you will never be justified ion your actions. Once we establish that you have no claim to a good, and yet took it, you cannot be in the right. You might be excused by your belief you held title, but you will still be wrong, just not culpable. On the other hand, murder allows for a different outcome. We can establish that A killed B, and yet A can be not only excused, but fully justified. How so? There are numerous ways. A could have been defending his life again B. A could have been defending the life of another. A could have been apprehending a fugitive felon who resisted. A could have been surprised by B in his home at night. There are countless ways in which the murder of B can be not only excused, but justified. That is, murder can not only be forgiven, in some cases it can be the right thing to do in the eyes of the law. (There is also an "imperfect justification", where A thinks he is justified, but is in error. That ends up working out the same way excuse does for other crimes.)

What makes this unique is that murder almost requires the introduction of intent, as the most obvious defense, after the facts are established, is justification. And so, unlike many other crimes, murder trials dealt with the intent of the defendant long before other crimes did. And we can see this in the many gradations of murder. Theft, for instance, tends to exist in two forms⁴, a misdemeanor and a felony, and the only distinction is the value of the items stolen. Similarly, rape, though a violent crime, tended to be divided mostly based on whether one was armed or not,whether one used force or just threatened, and whether the victim was an adult or child⁵. The intent of the actor never entered into the picture. Murder, on the other hand, seemed from the start to accumulate distinctions based on intent.

Perhaps it is not just because intent was so often in dispute. Or that murder was so intimately associated with intent.  There is also the fact that murder has always carried the harshest of penalties, making juries inclined to find innocent even those who have imperfect excuses, rather than sentence them to a punishment seen as too harsh. And so, we ended up with many grades of murder, depending on whether one planned the crime, whether one was provoked immediately prior to acting, and a few other factors.

This probably seems like far more information than we need, and it may be, but it also helps show how hate crimes differ from other crimes, and why we argue that hate crimes are illegitimate extensions of the criminal law. While the examination of intent may have some precedent in the definitions of burglary and assault, or in the crime of premeditated murder, hate crimes also differ in even more significant ways.

As I have wasted enough time, let me be brief. In all the crimes I discussed so far, the charge was not based upon intent alone, intent was considered only to distinguish  crimes from licit actions. There was still an act which was the basis of the charge. Intent served only to either determine whether the act was licit or illicit, or what degree of culpability attached to the act. The act itself was still the crime.

Hate crimes try, in one way, to reflect this pattern, as they require some underlying act. However, they are also quite different. For example, if you commit a premeditated murder, you are charged only with premeditated murder, you are not charged with manslaughter, without proving intent, and then premeditated murder based on the addition of intent. And yet that is what hate crimes do. An individual is charged with, say, murder, or arson, and then, in addition, is charged with a hate crime, ostensibly based upon the same act. In other words, though requiring some underlying criminal act, hate crimes are not based so much upon that act, as that act is normally charged separately under a more traditional offense. Hate crimes are essentially based upon the proof of intent.  That is, unlike past crimes, individuals are being jailed based on little more than their intentions.

And that lengthy digression brings us back to my main point. In each of these cases, unremarked by most conservatives, the liberals revealed one of their most puzzling beliefs, that being that intentions are not just important, but likely more significant than actual outcomes. Nor are these the only evidence of such beliefs, whether assigning blame based upon unworthy motives, or assigning p[raise based on their opposite, it seems almost every aspect of the liberal world view is permeated by a belief in the importance of one's intent.

But why? It is easy enough to make the argument that one should be judged on outcome, as reality itself is based on such a system. But why would anyone decide that it is better to focus on the intent of an actor rather than his results?⁶

I think the first, and probably most significant, answer, is to be found in the lack of faith the left places in reason. Oh, they claim to be the rational faction, contrasting their supposed rationality with the "emotionalism" and "irrationality" of the right, but in truth, the left, even more than the right, subscribes to modern pragmatism ("Impractical Pragmatists", "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again") and completely dismisses any effort to establish a unified theory of government⁷.

Because they reject reason as a valid tool, and thus believe that the only answer is to try one solution, see what happens, then try again⁸,  it is impossible to base one's judgment of others upon the results they achieve, as the results are effectively unrelated to the actions one took. And so, since there is no way to link results to efforts, the left can only judge someone on the basis of his intentions, assessing him based upon what he hoped to achieve, rather than what he really did.

But that is not the whole story. The left also has another reason for viewing intentions as paramount.

I have argued before ("Why We Need Adults", "All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events", "Some Thoughts on the Media", "Liberalism, "Idealists" and Internal Contradictions", "One Final Question for the Day"), those on the left draw a lot of their personal identity from their politics.  Partly this comes from the liberal fascination with utopian ideals, making their politics seem more important to them than their counterparts on the right. Partly it comes from the fact that, having rejected most other traditional sources of personal value (religion, traditions, etc -- see "In Defense of Standards" and "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards""), they are left with nothing but secular salvation, which they find in politics. And finally, it comes from the elevated sense of value they get form their political views, at least in part because liberal ideology tells its proponents that they are part of a small elite, smarter and more enlightened than their fellows, making them feel their political actions make them worthwhile. ("Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences", "Man's Nature and Government", "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Intellectual Elite", "The Essence of Liberalism")

All of this is significant for the same reason that liberals take criticism of their politics so personally. With their politics providing such a large part of their self worth, they take such criticism as a personal affront. ("Liberal Tolerance") But, on the other hand, among other liberals, they also wear their liberal beliefs as a badge of honor. Among those who agree with them that political identity shows one's worth, they proudly proclaim their intentions in order to gather praise for their enlightened beliefs. And so, among those who behave in such a way, it is only natural that intentions would come to seem quite important, as one's intentions provide insight into who he is, even more than what he has achieved. Thus, the left has a tendency to almost ignore the results of actions in favor of the reason those actions were undertaken, as the reason matters much more than the results.

Of course, one could likely find other reasons as well. The left, though more unified than the right in its political identity, is still hardly a monolithic whole, and any behavior likely has several different meanings to the many individuals on the left. And so, though I think the two reasons above (as well as the one in the footnotes) provide a pretty good explanation, there are likely many who emphasize intentions for other, wholly different reasons.

Still, though individuals may have their own reasons, and even some groups may have differing motives, I think in a large movement it is possible to argue there is a motive more prominent than the rest, and one could properly call it "the" reason behind a given act⁸. And in this case, I think the motive is to be found in the explanations I have already given. And based on that, I would also argue that it provides a rather interesting insight into the mindset of the left, in the same way overlooking it again and again provides an informative perspective on the mind of the political right.

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

1. I know many, conservative and liberal, will be shocked when I suggest that conservatives are oblivious to the social decay around them, but I stand by my statement. They may, from time to time, rankle at a specific horror, and some may group together all of these specific wrongs and rant about societal decay, but there are few conservatives who have proposed any sort of comprehensive explanation for these problems, much less offered a solution. Oh, some will blame a lack of religion, or say we should "go back to" whatever is their favorite period, but those are still vague and, in the case of religion, confuse a symptom with a cause. Coercing nonbelievers into displaying faith will not cure society's ills, and there is no way to force them to believe. So the question remains "why is there so little faith", and the right has not been quick to answer. (I have offered an explanation of the mechanism in the posts linked above and others, and think it provides a sound explanation. As to why anyone would choose to obsess upon youth and change to the detriment of society, I cannot say. But I can tell that is the cause of many of our problems.)

2. Social promotions are a difficult topic as there are both idealist and mercenary versions of the concept. The idealists hope to use social promotion to "build self-esteem", to reduce the emphasis on grades, and all the other cliches we know from the far left of the education establishment. On the other hand, school bureaucrats (see "Bureaucratic Management", "The Bureaucratic Mind", "Bureaucracy Revisited", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing") are often motivated by self-interest to "cook the books" and make it appear their students are doing better than they truly are. "Renorming" tests is one way to do this, and social promotion is another. But, with the motives being so far apart, it can be difficult to speak of social promotion, as there are, in essence, two different concepts going by the same name. At least as far as the purpose behind the actions is concerned. (For some more insight into motivation of bureaucrats, or any government worker,  see "Bureaucratic Management", "The Bureaucratic Mind", "Bureaucracy Revisited", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises", "Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing", "Busy Bodies, Public and Private", "In The Most Favorable Light" and "Pokemon Are Smarter Than Politicians".)

3. The alternative would be to include a host of justifications, or to rewrite the definition to include numerous disclaimers. But both would make the law much more complicated than simply asking the intent of the one charged.

4. Actually, the common law divides theft into a host of differing charges based on all manner of criteria. Theft, embezzlement, conversion, refusing to surrender a bailment, fraud, and so on. But those are more the residue of old legal practices, and most states have done away with them, or at least pushed them aside, in favor of unified theft statutes, making such arcane distinctions no longer as important as they once were.

5. There are other distinctions in many common law states, partly due to the historical definitions of these crimes. For instance, for sexual molestation of male children by female adults, rape was inappropriate, and so it was generally rolled into a "sex offense" charge, or something similar. Likewise, in incidents which did not involve penetration, traditional rape statutes were often unsuitable, and so a number of other charges were developed. Some states have tried to unify these charges the way theft charges were, but in others they remain a confusing welter of terminology all describing essentially the same actions.

6. I won't go into it here, as it is not relevant to this argument, but there is one possible motive I won't be discussing. That is the desire for mutual absolution that appears in many political and social systems, and not only among liberals. That is the concept that I won't blame you, if you don't blame me. For example, many criticisms of the rich include an element of this. Basically all involved agree not to point out the actions, or lack of action, which resulted in another failing to obtain wealth, and in exchange the other will not point out the same about his opposite number. Instead, both will blame the rich for somehow taking advantage of  others to make their fortunes, and thus the critics absolve one another of any blame in their lack of financial success. (See "The "Lucky" Rich", "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse") Similarly, this theory is delightful for those who rarely meet with success, as they can offer up their motives in place of results, and thanks to this theory receive the sort of praise they previously saw going only to others. And so many agree to value intent above outcomes as a way of offering absolution to others who failed in exchange for receiving their absolution in turn.

7. We need to be careful here, as there are two different aspects to this view. The left, and to a lesser degree, the right, dismiss any attempt at a comprehensive theory of government, arguing that theories such as mine, which propose a unified and consistent approach to the role of the state, are simply "unworkable". On the other hand, the left tends to be exceptionally enthusiastic about letting "experts" control specific aspects of government. ("Some Additional Thoughts on Technocrats", "A Thought on Technology and Technocrats") In other words, they dismiss the use of reason to establish an overall plan, favoring "pragmatic" solutions, but after breaking down the big task into smaller units, they are willing to accept that individual units can be controlled rationally. (Ironically, as I argue in "The Limits of "Scientific" Management", "In The Most Favorable Light" and elsewhere, those individual units are actually the place where "rational" management fails, while it is perfectly possible to develop a unified, rational system of overall management. ( "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism", "An Analogy For Government", "A Simple Proposal", "Man's Nature and Government", "Prelude", "Negative and Positive Rights", "Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government") In other words, the left has this completely backwards. (To be fair, the right is almost as bad when it comes to theories of government. Cf "The Political Spectrum")

8. Obviously any actions will appeal to different individuals for different reasons. For example, many individuals fought in the Civil War for reasons outside of slavery, state's rights and federalism. However, it would have been almost impossible for the war to have started were it not for the disputes on those three topics. And for that reason, I think it fail to describe those three issues as "the" causes of the war, even if many fought without a thought of those three. Similarly, my explanation may not describe every individual on the left, but those motives drove most of those who adopted this mindset, and without them I cannot see the emphasis on intention becoming so prominent.

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

POSTSCRIPT

I had started writing this post several times in the past. However, other topics arose that captured my attention, and somehow it was never written. So, what changed? Why am I finally writing it?

Strangely, this post, like "Liberalism, "Idealists" and Internal Contradictions", was inspired by Billy Jack.

You see, while reading Mr. Begg's review of "Billy Jack Goes to Washington", I saw this quote:

Finally, Grandfather explains, “Do the best you can. Then your work will be your prayer, and the results need not concern you.” I’m sure that today’s older Billy is proud to know that this sort of thinking—that if you take the Correct Position, it doesn’t matter one whit whether you actually make things better or worse—is still around today, and in fact remains the central tenet of the sort of political ‘progressive’ that he pandered to back in the day.

and I was reminded of the post I had been putting off for some time. And, thought I don't quite know why, as soon as I remembered the post, I had to write it. With the results you see before you.

Normally I would not bother writing postscripts on such trivial topics as the inspiration behind my posts, especially when it is something rather mundane. But, in this one case, it seemed worth mentioning, as how many conservative blogs can honestly say at least two of their essays were inspired by Tom Laughlin films?

POSTSCRIPT II

It has nothing to do with this essay, but the review I cited above has one of the funniest lines I ever read. "Grandfather further muses that this might be another test for Billy to overcome on his path towards spiritual enlightenment, as documented in the previous film when he talked to a cartoon flame and punched out Jesus." And people still claim the sixties (and early seventies) were a time of enlightenment and soul searching? I think that sentence alone argues for a time of stoners without adequate oversight instead.

POSTSCRIPT III

And as I mentioned in my previous post ("Liberalism, "Idealists" and Internal Contradictions"), that Mr. Begg is noteworthy for his conservative views, allow me to provide a perfect example from a lengthy digression in this same review:

Egad, is any 'progressive' trait more ghastly than their wont to make everything 'nationalized,' i.e., overarching and uniform? (Well, OK, there's their tendency to slaughter millions whenever they actually manage to seize power. But aside from that?) No one must escape the scope of their intentions!

Look at how they continue to hound smokers, for example. First they make it illegal to smoke inside public buildings, and then when smokers go outside, they do their best to make it illegal to smoke out there. Get with the program, they don't want you smoking at all, get it?! Stop making choices they don't agree with! And that includes driving SUVs! The whole point was to get rid of cars by making them less attractive, smaller and more dangerous and more uncomfortable! Having people instead opt to drive even bigger vehicles ruins the whole thing!

And finally, yes, I know that a national kid's camp—well, 'boy's' camp—was what Jefferson Smith wanted to do in the original movie. However, that was in 1939, not long after the Depression, and before grim decades' worth of bloody lessons about the failure of expensive government programs to solve social problems. Forty years later, it's harder to grant Billy's good intentions while overlooking what an obvious boondoggle his "national children's camp" would inevitably be. Ironically, voting for the supposedly villainous nuclear power plant would have served the country far better than creating yet another government entitlement program.

See? I told you his views were at least part of the charm of his site. (And note how his complaints about smoking mirror my thoughts in "Practicality Versus Dogma", "Slippery Slopes", "In Defense of Discrimination", "How Health Nazis Are Killing Me", "Coincidence" and "Abstinence Versus Moderation".)