Jane Jacobs as a Conservative

The View From 1776, the conservative blog I have been reading, wrote a favorable article on Jane Jacobs, about her conservatism and her desire to preserve cities. I am glad that The View wrote of her as a conservative because I think of her as a liberal.

That The View wrote about her as a conservative points to the fine line and the topsy-turvy world which often exists between conservatism and liberalism. Jane Jacobs emblematized both philosophies, depending on the social issue. When it came to the preservation of cities and neighborhoods she was conservative. What made her a liberal is her support for things like affirmative action and social justice. Most of us are like her, a bit of both, depending on the issue. People aren't as black or white as the labels of conservative or liberal placed on them imply.

The idea of conservative comes from conservation. People who conserve are conservatives or conservationists. In politics it is the same. Conservatives want to preserve the old ways. Conservatism, as one conservative commentator wrote, "is the persuasion and mentality that seeks order". Most of us seek order because it gives us stability and security. So liberals have a streak of conservatism in them because they also appreciate order and security.

Jane Jacobs, in her conservatism, wanted to retain the order of neighborhoods and cities that she felt worked well in sustaining and animating urban populations. But she didn't hold that view at the expense of ignoring social improvements that could make neighborhoods and cities better, like the involvement of minority and fringe groups in decision making. Conservatives, then and now, are generally reluctant about such involvement because it upsets the order of the day. However, conservatives have come to realize that they can't remain totally rigged and inflexible about change. Some have realized that in order to maintain a secure and stable social environment they must accept change and the input from minorities in urban and social planning. If conservatives had prevailed in maintaining the status quo the barriers between the races may still exist today and with that an eventual social instability and disorder. So to retain order conservative have had to change, to be flexible and innovative in their social planning and policies, like liberals.

In many respects Jane Jacobs behaved like a liberal rather than a conservative when she protested to preserve the inner cities. She was fighting City Hall, that bastion of perceived order. To be noticed she sometimes broke the law and was jailed. Conservatives normally don't behave that way or indulge in civil disobedience.

The View, in its anti-liberal stance, explains that Jacobs had challenged a liberal notion about how modern cities should be designed. That is what made her a conservative in their eyes, that she challenged the liberal notion that modern people should live in tall buildings, spaced far apart like in a "garden city". In between the widely separated buildings would be a network of highways. On paper this liberal planning looked very orderly and efficient, but sterile and uninhabitable. However, that this liberal notion looked so orderly, with buildings and people in their proper places, the whole concept appeared to be a conservative plan rather than a liberal one. My feeling is that if "The View of 1776" had existed in the 60's when Jacobs was battling City Hall and its planners they would have perceived her as liberal and an anarchist, intent on creating chaos, as they think liberals do today.