I have long thought the true value of conservatism is it's cultural and philosophical component, as opposed to the various political movements contending for power under its banner. I certainly think that conservatism should be, and is, more than a single-minded focus on free market economics. The free market is simply a tool, a means to an end and not an end in and of itself.
Consequently, I was pleasantly surprised to read this excellent article. I had never heard of the poet Peter Viereck before, but thanks to Mr. Syck's article I was directed to Peter Viereck's equally excellent article, "But - I'm a Conservative! While I certainly didn't agree with every point he made, I still think his essay makes some valuable points that conservatives would do well to embrace. That essay reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from another conservative writer, Russell Kirk.
30 comments:
While I’m out West I’m taking a break from the laptop, so anything longer than a phone post/comment will have to wait. I am thinking about things, though. Might have a response to this in a few weeks.
Tom,
What do I mean by conservativism? It is a philosophical orientation that accepts human nature as flawed and unchangeable. Consequently, you can only work with human nature, you can’t perfect it. From this understanding others emerge, such as an attachment to institutions and practices that have proven their worth over time. The wisdom, and follies, of the past are available to learn from but the future is an unknown country. One’s cultural and historical inheritance shouldn’t be discarded for the new and novel just because it’s new and novel. While change is inevitable, it should be managed with prudence and guided by experience. Such an understanding rejects ideological rigidity and recognizes that utopian master plans that promise a new heaven on earth, due to the flawed nature of humanity, will ultimately result in hell on earth.
Thank you, Joel.
That's clear and succinct enough that it makes one of my problems in understanding the concept of conservativism a bit clearer for me. When you say, "an attachment to institutions and practices that have proven their worth over time" and "One’s cultural and historical inheritance", maybe part of my confusion is that such conservative principles would result in very, very different things in different times and places.
For example, an English conservative will have different institutions and practices that have proven themselves as well as a different cultural and historical inheritance than an American, or a Japanese, conservative. Conservativism would also change over time as institutions, practices, culture and history develop over time.
Does this fit with your understanding of it?
Lately I've been gestating a new opinion. Agreed that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" or "progressive" and "traditional" and all are losing impact and maybe meaning.
I'm beginning to think we can better use a three-part system: Orthodox, Woke, and Red-Pilled. The Woke and Red-Pilled began by embracing their labels and more recently express a little concern, but they share a fundamental secular Gnosticism regarding the secular Orthodoxy. The difference is that the Red-Pilled believe most of the flaws of Orthodox culture arise from the polluting influence of the Woke (and Woke-ish allies). The Red-Pilled argue that an objective Reality exists and systems are developed to cope with such reality -- such systems still being imperfect and subject to gradual revision.The Woke, on the other hand, argue against the existence of "reality" and claim instead that only the Systems themselves exist. Systems will perpetuate themselves, in the Woke view, until they are isolated, destroyed, and replaced.
Still thinking...
Joel, your 06:56 comment could have been written by GKC.
Reading the quote from Kirk reminded me of this:
James Joyce is supposed to have said: in the [Catholic] Church, “here comes everybody.”
Maybe he didn't say that, but whoever did was correct.
Dad29,
You pay me way too great a compliment by comparing anything I've written to GKC. That man was an intellectual giant and a master of the English language.
Tom,
You are absolutely correct and it does fit my understanding. An English or Japanese (or any country or culture) conservative would be different from an American conservative, at least on a practical level, because the culture and historical inheritance we are trying to preserve is different.
J Melcher,
That is an interesting breakdown. I would like to see you develop that more.
Thanks, Joel. I'll have to let this way of thinking about it sink in.
J Melcher, I'm curious, why is 'traditional' a problematic term? For me, Orthodox would be questionable because it implies a correct teaching, and I don't think that's how you're using it. Traditional seems to fit better.
Your ideas about the Woke and Red-Pilled are interesting. I don't have a lot of experience or understanding of the "Red-Pilled" phenomenon, though I've heard the term here and there for a while now.
It would be helpful if we had terms that were descriptive of what groups actually believed, though as movements are emerging that's probably impossible. They're still working out what they believe.
Not necessarily 'working out what they believe,' as orthodox Christians have their theology pretty much nailed down. The hard part is moving that theo into civil praxis. It's also necessary, as Cult is the father of Culture, which is the father of Politics.
J. Melcher's "red-pilled" description: [t]he Red-Pilled argue that an objective Reality exists and systems are developed to cope with such reality -- such systems still being imperfect and subject to gradual revision fits very well with Russell Kirk's overall political philosophy and that of James Schall, SJ. It's also what seems to be the holding of Patrick Deneen, although his writings are not always perfectly clear.
"For example, an English conservative will have different institutions and practices that have proven themselves as well as a different cultural and historical inheritance than an American, or a Japanese, conservative. Conservativism would also change over time as institutions, practices, culture and history develop over time."
It's true, Tom, they would, but one is not limited to looking into the past of one's own culture- one can look into history for any culture. The founders looked throughout Western civilization and all the cultures connected to it to see what the pros and cons were of each culture's political system to establish ours. One could even go further than that if one wished. All that said, though, and it's almost a certainty that Japanese conservatism will look different than American.
Dad29, I was talking about the 'Red-Pilled' phenomenon. It's newish and I don't know a lot about it, but it seems to be people who have had a political conversion experience (taking the red pill) and are casting about to sort out how to move forward. But please correct me if I'm wrong. (It's interesting, though, that both of the terms "woke" and "red-pilled" refer to waking up out of a dream or illusion.)
As for Christians, how would you move the "theo into praxis"? I can easily see how they can affect culture by getting into the arts and humanities, and everything else, of course. But having a much greater presence of Christian writers, artists, movie makers, etc., would be a good thing. What are your thoughts on it?
douglas, I have great admiration for the founders, but I never thought of them as conservatives. They violently separated from their traditions and followed new, Enlightenment philosophies. That's hardly the slow, respect-for-institutions attitude I'd expect from conservatives!
Or am I wrong? What does everyone think? Were the revolutionaries conservatives?
Tom,
The Founders were largely conservative. They weren't trying to remake their society into some new utopian promised land. They were trying to preserve their existing institutions and practices from unprecedented British interference. They maintained their same systems of law and government. This is why the American Revolution succeeded while the French revolution not only failed, but ultimately unleashed a long period of warfare that engulfed all of Europe.
Underlining Tom’s point about the difficulty of these labels, the Whig faction in British politics gave rise to both radical leftist parties and the modern Conservative Party. In America, the Whig Party was formed to oppose the Jefferson/Jackson Democratic-Republican Party; it was then considered a conservative party because it opposed more radical democratic reforms that Founders like Jefferson wanted (and Jackson, in the second generation).
Tom, there are limits to how much political "praxis" can come from Christian theo. Generally, law can only say what can NOT be done. Thus it would be impossible to enforce law enshrining the Beatitudes, e.g.
It has been said that art precedes (forecasts?) social movements so your suggestion that well-crafted Christian-themed stories, or graphic art, or music, may inspire legal or political reforms. But........will the overly-sensual back-beat rock'n'roll go away? Will Christian literature bring about another prohibition of homosexual practice? Abortion?
We are well-aware of what is 'right' and 'wrong;' that's inborn in ALL human beings. Hasn't done much good in the West since 1920 or so, has it? In fact, the "Enlightenment" was no such thing; it was merely the most-recent push away from Christian principles, and given human nature after The Fall, it may well be that entropy is the state of nature in the West.
Countering that is a seemingly-widespread but small counter-revolution: the "Red Pill" phenomenon. It it a result of Chesterton's work? Herbert Howell's? That of some of the Evangelical speakers? (It certainly has to do with God.) Is it the result of prayers?
Maybe all of the above. We get clay-pots like Mel Gibson and Don Trump, but they seemingly have an effect.
Long way around to YES, the arts will be a necessary part.
Joel, I can see that much, but at the same time they adopted a rather radical (for the 18th century) philosophy to justify it. The Declaration of Independence includes the claim that all men are created equal, that people create governments to protect their rights, etc. This inverted the European worldview that power come down from above, that sovereignty was invested in the sovereign and not the people, etc. Those same ideas were radical in England even halfway into the 19th century.
After the Revolution, the Constitution set up an Enlightenment-style government, drawing on Locke and Montesquieu, eschewing an established religion, setting up representative government, not creating a new aristocracy, etc. That makes me wonder about the Kirk quote in the OP. He doesn't seem to have cared for the Enlightenment, and yet, the Founders drew on Enlightenment thought.
You can see my confusion. What do you think about all that?
Also, I agree that the continuity was a key reason the US succeeded where France didn't, but I think it was that Americans had mostly ruled themselves for more than a century and so they had a body of experienced leaders, legislators, judges, etc., whereas the French revolutionaries did not and so, after they'd won, they didn't know how to govern. We also had the advantage of having the Atlantic Ocean between us and Europe.
Dad29, thanks for the reply. What do you think will be part of that beyond the arts? Or have you worked that out? Or, do we just rely on strengthening our presence in the culture and trusting that politics really is downstream of culture?
I don't know what I think about the Enlightenment. I used to have a very positive opinion, with some reservations, of course, but I've been re-evaluating.
Alas, I've been enjoying this discussion but tomorrow will be traveling and out of internet range. I'm interested in your thoughts and replies and will be sure to check in this weekend.
Tom, there’s a competing Medieval tradition that you’re not considering. The position that you’re ascribing to the earlier age existed and was defended by bishops and kings; but click on the flag at the top of the page and, after that, on “Feudalism and Liberty” on the sidebar. There was always another, better side: and conservation of the principles of Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath is not possible without loyalty to the principle of the right of rebellion. They were already there, long ago.
I found it interesting that Peter Vierek [spelling?] wrote about the Letter of the 400, where many of the leading "intellectuals" of the time made fools of themselves, by defending Stalin's Soviet Union against Hitler, shortly before Hitler & Stalin signed the NonAgression pact.
J Melcher, I'm curious, why is 'traditional' a problematic term?
Whose traditions? I'm fond of Charles James Napier's view on reconciliation between English/Christian traditions versus India/Hindu traditions.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4451
Our modern secular consensus -- what I term the orthodox -- view on capital punishment has shifted and continues to shift towards preserving life in most circumstances -- the pre-born and the terminally ill excepted. But the orthodox view is adrift, without anchor in religious or legal or philosophical traditions. The conservative is labeled OWSH for opposing religious practices of polygamy or female genital mutilation. The progressive labels ximself politically correct for opposing religious restrictions on hetero-monogamy, male circumcision, and modern medical "gender affirming care". The Woke argue that the powerful manufacture consensus via application of power -- a la Napier. The Red-Pilled argue that reality -- like genitals -- just exists, (like the real economic problem an unmarriageable widow represents to a poor village exists) so that solutions must be considered consequentially, in how well they address the problem.
All still embryonic thoughts, I fear.
Grim: ... there’s a competing Medieval tradition that you’re not considering
I will go read what you suggest, but I don't think it was a competing tradition for the Founders. I think they drew on both. (Though after I read I may change my mind, of course.)
Still, I don't think there's any way around the idea that they drew on Enlightenment philosophy. The early part of the Declaration of Independence is paraphrased Locke. Washington had Paine's Common Sense read to the entire Continental Army. Separation of powers was drawn from Montesquieu. They did away with kings and nobles and established churches. The Founders were men of the Enlightenment.
That does not mean they were not also drawing on English medieval traditions. The Enlightenment itself, although it advertised itself as breaking from the medieval, drew on Renaissance and Medieval thinkers as well. It moved away from them, but there was never a complete disjunction.
J Melcher,
Indeed, and whose orthodoxy? I can't see any difference between your objection of "whose tradition?" and mine of "whose orthodoxy?" Catholic orthodoxy? Orthodox orthodoxy? Secular humanist orthodoxy? Sunni orthodoxy?
In any case, "ortho" is correct and "dox" is "teaching." Without being anchored in a specific teaching, it seems impossible to be orthodox.
Anyway, I look forward to reading your developed thoughts.
And what does OWSH mean?
Okay, Grim, I've read those two things. I think you're right that the Founders drew on these English traditions, and in fact it seems impossible that they wouldn't have. It doesn't change the fact that they also drew on Enlightenment philosophy and formed the US using both.
So, were the Founder conservatives? They did of course keep some essential English traditions, but they tossed some other vital English traditions like the monarchy. They justified their revolution in Locke's terms, not medieval terms. So far, I'm not convinced they were conservatives.
As a side note, I believe the ancient Athenians only gained the right to vote after military service, so it goes back to both the classical and medieval traditions.
Simple things first "OWSH" is "On the Wrong Side of History" -- a term the Woke tend to apply to ... well, everyone else.
In this three part conjecture, the Woke and Red-Pilled are the Gnostics, on more or less opposites "sides" of and amorphous and ill-defined Orthodoxy. The Gnostics claim knowledge hidden from the Orthodox. The people in or of the more or less silent and uninterested secular middle way don't identify as Orthodox, or anything else, really. Not since Nixon labeled them the "Silent Majority". The terminology breaks down in that the secular American Orthodox are not publishing doctrine, teaching a catechism, or rooting out heretics.
The Red-Pilled would argue that the failure to teach, or the abandonment of, doctrine by the Orthodox is precisely the problem. The Woke would argue that hiding and leaving un-published an Orthodox "Theory" to be "Criticized" is deliberate, nefarious, and oppressive, so that only current power-holders and puppet masters know the code and communicate to each other in "dog whistles".
Efforts to draft and promote an orthodox doctrine (Common Core) have immediately been attacked by the both fringes as OWSH or worse.
Comparable, maybe to the notions of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. Revolutionaries, Reactionaries, and Establishment.
Thanks, J.
I don't want to go on about it, but everything you're describing as Orthodox seems like arguments to use Traditional. For example, tradition can be implicit, but orthodoxy is taught and explicit. If it's amorphous and ill-defined, it's tradition. Or, even the term "Normals" or "Normies" might work better.
But it's your system and I'm interested in what you're doing. I'll leave that quibble with terms alone for now.
So, you've said, "Our modern secular consensus -- what I term the orthodox", but other than that I'm not sure what you mean by the term. Could you fill that out a bit for me?
Tom, thanks for the interest.
My terminology for the middle is driven by my understanding of how the fringes see and label themselves, bragging about their superior knowledge and understanding in contrast to everybody else. Both the Woke and Red-Pilled claim this higher ground.
"Everybody else" doesn't label itself. To whatever extent it does think and talk about a general viewpoint, it refers to (lower case) common sense; the way things are; the usual case, normal, typical, traditional, customary... The masses between the fringes certainly do NOT regard themselves as distinctly ignorant, or ill-informed, or cynical or skeptical. And the mushy middle is also pretty secure that what individuals don't know, is nevertheless knowable and known, in the community, without spending years in a commune or ashram or off-the-grid compound or an ivory tower.
I mention the ivory tower etc because the original religious Gnostics AND the modern secular versions tend to assert a need to withdraw from the ordinary world of paid labor and trade and physical concerns, while engaging
in Theory or Prayer.
In the traditions (grin) of religious disputes, those who reject any variety of Gnostic's claim of privileged secret knowledge are the Orthodox.
Those who reject THIS heresy in favor of THAT heresy have other labels.
Thanks.
Do you see this as just applying to recent circumstances in the US? I think the 'woke' and 'red-pilled' are recent phenomena, and the terms certainly seem to be. Or are you working out a broader descriptive or explanatory framework?
To go back to some things you mentioned earlier, I have some thoughts.
The Woke would argue that hiding and leaving un-published an Orthodox "Theory" to be "Criticized" is deliberate, nefarious, and oppressive, so that only current power-holders and puppet masters know the code and communicate to each other in "dog whistles".
This is just my own perceptions and opinions, but I don't think the Ws are actually bothered by the Os not having an official theory. They have taken to heart Barthe's dictum that the author is dead and the only thing that matters is the reader's interpretation. Along with this, they see all action as text (signs, at least), and so feel that they can understand the Os perfectly well, better even than the Os do themselves. So, they can recognize the dog whistles and signs (as they believe there must be) and interpret them properly. (This despite the truism that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog. Just another poor analogy on their part, I assume, or if the universe is more bizarre than I think, it could be a twisted recognition of their own projection.)
I've dealt a lot more with Ws and (at least as I understand your meaning) Os than RPs, so I don't have a good sense for the RPs. What would you recommend for me to get more familiar with them?
Then, you said: Efforts to draft and promote an orthodox doctrine (Common Core)
I thought Common Core was an educational framework, and it was drafted by education experts. So, I wouldn't normally think of this as an attempt to frame a doctrine for Os w/ their common sense. What did you mean there?
Tom and J.M., just letting you know that some of us are following this conversation and enjoying it very much. I don't really have anything to add at this point, but was hoping you wouldn't abandon it yet. Thank you.
HI Douglas. Boring the community was a concern. Thank you for speaking up.
We might focus on whether or not "Orthodoxy" is a valuable label for the mushy middle. Or maybe it's orthodoxies. Again, both of the extremes I worry about claim superior knowledge of how things work. So, "Gnostic". But what of everybody else?
Tom, efforts to establish a canon, catechism, dogma, etc go back to Charles Eliot's "Five Foot Shelf" and the Harvard Classics books. More recently, Allan Bloom decried the failure of more recent generations in his work "The Closing of the American Mind". And then we have E.D. Hirsh's Core Knowledge series, "What your 1st grader (etc) Should Know". The private foundation effort was popular enough it got picked up into the DoE's "Common Core" version, which was so UNpopular that both cores were reduced to corpses. Anyhow, there are efforts to identify and carry forward the best traditions and perspectives of our forefathers, but nothing, perhaps, powerful enough to be considered and Orthodoxy.
Hey, douglas. I'm enjoying it, too. Just waiting for replies.
I will add that I'm wondering about the term 'gnostic' here. The Gnostics believed they had (or could obtain) secret knowledge, but the RPs and Ws seem to think their evidence is obvious (hence the condescension of the Ws at least when you don't "get it" - still don't know much about RPs - are they the same?).
Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of various ways to view political groupings. It also includes the term 'political map,' which seems more accurate to me than 'spectrum.'
Post a Comment