I'm finally getting around to working on this. Inspired by the commentary on Unclaimed Territory, and referencing a point I made in Part I of my Field Guide, I thought I would record a few thoughts on conservatism. In analyzing the history of modern politics, I mentioned that the origins of much modern political vocabulary can be found in the French Revolution and the period immediately following. Something I wrote back then has been resonating with me, reinforced by shooter242, Bart, et. al.'s attempts to defend the increasingly indefensible:
Conservatism becomes defined in reaction to the French Revolution. Conservatives believed in the value of tradition and reacted against the abstract rationality embedded in the projects of the revolutionary governments of France. They often supported monarchy, although not necessarily out of support for the institution per se, but rather because it was traditional. Indeed, this is the essence of (classical) conservatism: reaction against liberalism's emphasis of abstract concepts and rationality in favor of tried-and-true methods and the natural development of human society.
Conservatism then, in contrast with liberalism, is not an ideological movement.
This is not to suggest that conservatism has no ideology: quite the contrary, as the "Elephants" (as they like to call themselves) demonstrate. What I mean is that liberalism was always expressly about a set of ideas; liberty, equality, and brotherhood (liberté, égalité, fratérnité), for example. Conservatism, on the other hand, is essentially a rejection of these ideas in favor of established privelege (however constituted). It becomes especially reactionary when the priveleged élites feel that their power is mortally threatened or when they have been overthrown, as in the French Revolution.
Although the stances that constitute liberalism and conservatism have changed over time - I observe the evolution in Part I - the fact that liberals are always seeking a more pure expression of the ideas of equality, personal freedom (as opposed to property freedom), democracy, etc. and that conservatives are always trying to thwart these attempts has not. Conservatism exists only in reaction to liberalism. Once this is understood, it's not difficult to see why they abandon all caution and become among the most radical theorists of state power.
Over at Unclaimed Territory, Venha Futuro made an excellent observation:
Conservatives believe that they, by nature of being "conservatives", have superior powers of perception, and thus we cannot expect them to hold to "consistent" (to our limited perspective, to paraphrase the Medium Lobster) positions. They, and only they, truly understand the nature of each situation. So they, and only they, can see when judicial restraint is called for, and when judicial activism is required. Activism was the order of the day until the Warren Court, then it was restraint, until now, when activism is urgenly necessary.True, but incompletely stating the point. Conservatives believe this because it is necessary for them to do so in order to justify their defense of conservatism. They can't justify it ideologically, because conservatism has no real coherent ideological basis. So they have to somehow contrive to eliminate a whole set of ideologies from the debate, all of which can communicate with each other on some level because they have the genetic relationship of their descent from classical liberalism. It must be a justification of priveleged groups that are losing (or perceived to be losing, which amounts to nearly - but not quite - the same thing) their priveleges to the groups that were formerly unpriveleged.
This, then, takes the form of a defense of whiteness, masculinity, state power, law and order, private property/wealth, military power, haute culture vs. pop culture, religious faith, etc. and attacks on "liberals," left-wingers, academic freedom, free inquiry, "social liberalism," freedom of belief, etc. For everything that the un- or underpriveleged want/have taken, the opposite or at the very least something different must be defended and held up as the standard according to which everything must be judged. Otherwise, conservatism wouldn't seem to have the moral force that it does.
3 comments:
I feel like a star.
This is the big problem -- when they are convinced that they, and only they, can perceive a situation for what it is, with whom are they willing to discuss it? My ditto monkey cousin dismisses criticisms of his heroes with "but he's a liberal!" In his mind the fact that whoever disagreed with W is a liberal (and only liberals disagree with W) immediately invalidates the criticism. How can we talk to people who "think" like this? That's the challenge that faces liberals today. Most rank and file conservatives don't care about what you just wrote -- all they know is that only their leaders know what's really going on, so why should they care what someone like you, who disagrees with their leaders, has to say?
venha futuro wrote:
How can we talk to people who "think" like this? That's the challenge that faces liberals today. Most rank and file conservatives don't care about what you just wrote -- all they know is that only their leaders know what's really going on, so why should they care what someone like you, who disagrees with their leaders, has to say?
Quite simple. You don't. Instead, you look for simple ways to defeat their arguments and hoist them with their own petards. You're not trying to convince them, you're trying to convince everyone else. They won't be convinced, as you clearly recognize.
A large part of the problem is the media, of course. It facilitates the disconnect by feeding people disinformation. So we're going to have to recognize that the debate will be fundamentally flawed for awhile to come, and that we're going to have to fight them on their own turf.
This means turning the questions around on them, not allowing yourself to be trapped by their definitions, and pointing out obvious facts that they would rather not talk about. Pretty soon, they'll be frothing at the mouth, and normal people will recognize the pathology of their position.
"Conservatism then, in contrast with liberalism, is not an ideological movement."
Conservatism is purely ideological.
The three ideas central to conservatism are
(1)traditionalism (largely a fear/skepticism of political change, but also intellectually rooted in preserving established systems);
(2)elitism (the notion that managing public affairs is best left to those with some measureable skill & experience in political affairs--as per tradition);
(3) and the notion of a necessary connection between the individual and society (in which individuals without government lack some necessary & coherent meaning...people have different ideas about things, and therefore people require management).
(There is a necessary and contiguous relation: (3)requires (2)requires (1).)
Conservatism, despite being pure ideology, is itself hostile to the notion of theory and claims for itself the mantle of pragmatism.
Liberalism is itself an ideology most concerned with notions of freedom and change.
Amusingly, what constitutes 'conservatism' hasn't changed much in the past 2000+ years, but 'liberalism' seems subject to revision with each successive generation; because, I assume, it changes in accordance with the times.
Consider, also, that it is the nature of people & societies to grow and change over time.
Liberalism also demands levels of cogent understanding: the notion of rights and accountability, esp wrt the individual.
The logical opposite of conservatist political ideology is anarchy; the logical opposite of liberalism is authoritarianism. Or at least that's how I'm reading it.
Post a Comment