Our Conservative Ideals

Conservative thoughts should not be condemned, there are some thoughts that might benefit the public at large. Being modern and practicing modern actions may not be a good idea since the evidence of that is seen at large.

Values of the profession should remain politically neutral and focus on the importance of information as function of empowering one’s ambitions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is nothing politically conservative or liberal about being on equal grounding with some who has to use the computer at the library because they are unable to afford a computer of their own at home. Or someone attending a community based  event on tax preparation sponsored by the local community library helping people to better know tax laws before the yearly filing periods.

Conservatism and liberalism are political arguements that are insanely futile in substantiating the tangible value of what libraries and librarianship offer to the future of information management.

One of the things that drives me crazy is the definition of "conservative" (and "liberal", and whatever).  One of the posters makes a good point about being conservative economically, as opposed to "conservative morality"; you can also draw distinctions between "conservative" and "Republican".  What is often overlooked is that many people are "conservative" in one part of their lives (e.g. economically) but perhaps not others (socially, politically …), and that "conservative" has many meanings.   I am politically liberal but totally agree with Andy in that the library is a "loan" to provide opportunities to build up educational and other skills and it is an investment in our intellectual capital and, ultimately, our future.  I was just reading about John Winthrop and other "Puritans" and was astounded at how much they emphasized "commonality" and the "common good" - eeek, were they Socialist?  Unfortunately, an emphasis on culture, education, and learning is too often seen nowadays as "elitist"by those who call themselves "conservative". 

I also find it interesting that Glenn Beck has told his followers that he educated himself at the library - "it’s free!", he said.  Well, it’s not - it takes tax dollars.  And too many of the people to whom he speaks are fired-up about cutting taxes.  So how to deal with this conundrum (for lack of a better word)? 

I am afraid this argument is a bit too reasonable for "the regional talk radio host who refers to libraries as ‘welfare bookstores’ and calls our users ‘freeloaders’" and the people who would agree with him.   People who don’t support the equitable distribution of information aren’t advocates of Democracy—they sound more like the upper-crust of late Cold War Russia.  The vitriol that is coming from the right conistently involves denegrating "intellectuals" and other people who make an attempt to be informed.  The vocal right has essentially abandoned the conservative values that Spackman outlines above in favor of identity politics.  What I would like to see is reasonable, humble people to the right take back their values from the likes of Beck and Limbaugh, who have essentially high-jacked the Rebulican party.  Perhaps then we can all have a meaningful discussion and not be limiting in who gets information and who doesn’t.  If I remember my history correctly, African slaves brought to this country were forbidden to learn to read and write—because knowledge is power.  The far-right would have us return to that model for anyone they don’t see as "worthy" of information access.  Unfortunately, the great masses of U.S. citizens fit into that "unworthy" category, according to the far-right, who seem to find their voices only in aging white men.  Leaving the masses without consistent, unjudgmental, and free access to information will effectively disenfranchise them…but perhaps that is the aim of the far-right…

Andy, thank you for expressing the "other" point of view.  I know many liberal librarians who seem to want a one-party system.  We’ve seen how well that has worked in the past!  Conservatives offer a "will this [whatever] really work?" and "do we have the money to pay for it?"  We also think that our traditional values should not be thrown out the window (after all the human race has had centuries to develop these traditions).  Libraries are extremely traditional institutions, so why would we want to get rid of them?  We just want to make sure they work!

Signed by "Usually keeps her mouth shut"

I think we should be emphasizing the fact that libraries are important to the democratic process and an informed electorate. That is neither liberal or conservative.

How refreshing (and surprising) to see an article supporting a conservative perspective published in an ALA publication. It is frankly embarrassing when I see an organization that depends on intellectual neutrality and absence of bias to fulfill its core values taking public political stands that have nothing to do with those core values.

The best way to promote unihibited free expression and free access to ideas is to build in the community a reputation of neutrality on all positions except those that represent our core values. That’s hard to do when the dominant organization that represents your profession takes political stands on a range of issues that have nothing to do with free access to information.

As a librarian with conservative sympathies, I can agree somewhat with Mr. Spackman’s essay.  The library profession could certainly use more intellectual diversity along with the other kinds it promotes, which might go further in helping it secure or protect needed funding when liberal politicians are not in power.   Jefferson and Adams’ support for public libraries presupposed that they would be institutions promoting the moral and intellectual improvement of citizens, whereas our libraries have abandoned any such responsibilities since at least the early 20th century.  Furthermore, in their time local communities were almost completely self-governing and what libraries they did have were almost all funded privately and locally.  What Spackman seems to arguing for is a piece of the recent federal "bailout", which would only encourage libraries to become dependent upon federal largesse—not a conservative goal, really.  For librarians to earn the support of conservatives, they will have to learn to take the moral presuppositions of conservatives seriously.  This means, for instance, that censorship in libraries cannot be thoughtlessly condemned (especially since it is practiced by people of all political stripes to some degree or another).  This also means, that librarians should do a better job at justifying their positions, especially since their dismissal and contempt for physical books and the reading skills they require is, willy-nilly, turning our libraries into little more than free internet cafes.  Why fund a library for resources you can get over the web, or pay librarians who are worse at research than the patrons they are paid to help?