Le Sabot Post-Moderne: Dystopian Wonderlands

Brian-

I'm really glad to meet you. :-)

Reading your post, it looks like a section near the top got "eaten" somehow, so if I'm not answering it accurately, I may have missed a relevant piece.

"I know people can understand the fallen nature of man and the world, but can "conservatism"?"

Conservatism isn't a monolith, and there are subsections that wouldn't reflect an understanding of fallen man's nature. Some of the more starry-eyed Neos, for example, seem to elevate Democracy to a panacea-like level much the way other Utopians have with everything from the Dictatorship of the Proletariate to Graham Crackers.

But if you take the conservative tradition as a whole, one of the unifying elements has always been a mistrust of one-size-fits-all master plans. A healthy dislike of mass centralization of power in the hands of intellectuals and bureaucrats. A disdain for revolution and a preference for gradual, natural changes in society. Since the time of Burke, conservatism has been anti-ideological. The primary virtue that conservative thinkers looked to was prudence -- wisdom was to be used in each situation, rather than the various rigid constructs that the various ideologies impose on every situation which arises.

But underlying all of these aspects was an understanding of the fallen nature of humanity. Which was why conservatives foresaw what would result during the French Revolution. Or why Bastiat was so prescient about the natural effects of "democratic plunder". We were suspicious of the religion of Progress, and that was vindicated by WWI and the despair which followed.

One of the clearest examples would be to compare Adam Smith's understanding of human nature with Marx's. Smith believed that though men could often operate out of generous impulses, they were in general, self-interested. An economy which didn't accept men for what they were would prove unworkable.

Marx, on the other hand, was an ideologue. ALL questions in history and politics revolve around economics, and things like religion and philosophy are just masks for economic exploitation. He looked forward to a new man who would be not self-interested, but rather work for the collective.

Many conservatives DO look forward to such a time. But it's an eschatological hope. We will someday be new men who dwell together in love and peace. But it will be the love and peace of Christ, and it will not be in this world. Some conservative thinkers have done a great work pointing out the similarities between the Christian vision, and Marx's. Marxism is in many ways just a secularized, bastardized Christianity.

"Are you suggesting that because a person is open to betterment that he expects perfection?"

It depends on what you mean by betterment, and to what extent. Conservatives DO believe in progress and reform -- in societal structures and mores. They just believe that lasting change is best brought about incrementally, and with an eye toward preserving those things which are good from the past.

On the other hand, they haven't generally believed in the betterment of human nature itself through political means. The same sins (and Original Sin) which bedevilled mankind 4,000 years ago are still inside us today. Only Christ can change a man's heart, not his Senator.

And because mankind is fallen, limited improvements are possible, but perfection will always be unattainable in this world.

Posted by: Discoshaman at octobre 29, 2003 08:25 AM

I am inclined to disagree with your “unifying theme” in the conservative ideology. If the conservative ideal is a disdain for mass centralization of power in the hands of intellectuals and bureaucrats, it has no trouble with, and in fact encourages the centralization of power in the hands of moneyed class (the corporate aristocracy). The French revolution differed from the American because the landowners were unable to hold power centrally, thus allowing the fracas to devolve into a proletariat revolt. I submit that the American Revolution was a conservative’s revolt. Both progressives and conservatives have a history of positive and negative changes be they slow or revolutionary. You say wisdom and prudence are conservative ideals, but I believe there are wise a prudent uses for rapid and severe change as well. Violence is not the only voice of rapid change however, nor is it the hallmark of progressives alone. Education, civil disobedience, and legal action have all proven useful tools in the fight for social betterment.
I suppose my difficulty with your post was that on the one hand you say there are no one size fits all solutions for all situations, but then toe the line on the black and white nature of conservative ideals v. progressive ideals...or more precisely that conservative ideals do not constitute an ideology.

Brian

Posted by: Shirt at octobre 29, 2003 10:18 PM

Shirt-

Once you have demonstrated how those who support rule by landed aristocracy, those behind rule by a restored monarchy, those wanting rule by small-scale property owners, others hoping for rule by virtually anyone breathing steam, and also those supporting a near-anarchic sort of libertarianism can all be unified under a single ideology, then I think you'll be in a place to toss the word in my face in bold print. Until then, it's seems to me somewhat inaccurate to call the conservative tradition an ideology.

This is VERY different than say, Marxism or Fascism, with their paradigmatic overlays with which to analyze all of history. Or the various neo-Marxian constructs which view all of history in terms of race, class, gender, or whatever the particular obsession of the ideologue might be. There ARE subsections of conservatism which are ideological, as I've allowed. If one lumps Libertarians in with the Cons, as many do, then it's clear that we have those who support a defined ideology. But mainstream conservatism was born in reaction to ideology, and has retained this trait throughout its history.

" If the conservative ideal is a disdain for mass centralization of power in the hands of intellectuals and bureaucrats, it has no trouble with, and in fact encourages the centralization of power in the hands of moneyed class (the corporate aristocracy). "

This goes a long way toward helping me clarify my point. There are plenty of conservatives in the pantheon who are friendly toward capitalism in its modern incarnation. Then there are others, such as the Southern Agrarians, many Paleo-Cons, and much, much, much of the Contintental European strain that view Capitalism with either disapproval or suspicion. In fact, free trade and the like was a Liberal idea in Britain back in the day. Now which of these must we consider normative if we're to call conservatism a defined ideology?

"I submit that the American Revolution was a conservative?s revolt."

I agree. It was more a revolution averted than a revolution enacted. The King's desire to aggrandize new priveleges and powers to himself would have been a revolution in Britain's relations with its colonies. The colonists fought to prevent a revolution in many ways.

And no conservative argues that there aren't times when fast action needs to be taken. Facing a threat such as George faced, or in the face of Pearl harbor, OF COURSE quick action is needed. But when we speak of prudence, it's in the daily course of life and legislation. The structure of our Senate, with its infinitely slow process of legislating, is a wonderfully conservative institution. Lawmaking can only be done slowly, and with the minority holding a hand on the brakes.

This is quite opposite from radical democracy, where a 51% majority can run roughshod over a 49% minority. It also prevents demagogues from whipping up the people and demanding immediate and unconsidered action. While sometimes frustrating, the Senate is a wonderful institution because of this deliberative nature.

"Education, civil disobedience, and legal action have all proven useful tools in the fight for social betterment."

Certainly they have. And all of them are generally gradual processes. Legal action requires the formation of a sympathetic judiciary. Civil disobedience is part of a program of changing the hearts and minds of the people. Education is the most gradual of all, involving looking to the next generation for changes... I don't see any of these as inimical to conservatism or gradualism.

"Both progressives and conservatives have a history of positive and negative changes be they slow or revolutionary."

It depends on how we define progressives. I think the old Progressives in America did some GREAT things on worker's rights, civil rights, and other issues. They were much less ideological than the New Left. They were also much more American in their orientation, with their idealism often growing out of the old Puritan and Awakening impulses toward reform. This is especially seen in the 19th century progressive movements.

The New Left, however, is a different animal. It is much more rigidly ideological, and I see precious little that it has done that can be called good.

"but then toe the line on the black and white nature of conservative ideals v. progressive ideals."

I'm not toeing anyone's line. Modern Progressivism, with some exceptions, holds to presuppositions about the nature of man and reality that are very different than mine. Because our metaphysics and epistimologies are so divergent, our politics, ethics and everything else also differ. Sometimes our diagnoses of problems are the same, but our solutions are almost always different.

It's not that I think Progressive ideals are always wrong (though I think that trying to enforce equality generally results not in an increase in equality but rather a decrease in liberty), but rather I disagree with their means of achieving them. And in the degree to which these goals are realizable in a fallen world. Many of their ideals are laudable, and shared by conservatives. I just think we're more realistic and imaginative these days in how we would accomplish them.

Posted by: Discoshaman at octobre 31, 2003 01:09 AM

Now this is why I come to Le Sabot:

"everything from the Dictatorship of the Proletariate to Graham Crackers."

What's frightening is that I think I actually get the reference. Are we speaking of Mr. Kellogg?

Posted by: pentamom at octobre 31, 2003 05:07 PM

I hardly meant to throw the word in your face...my apologies. Perhaps italics were more in order. What I hear you saying is that conservatism is merely an umbrella-like tradition consisting of the prudent and wise limitations and uses of government? I disagree with that definition. When I see "conservative", and this might be my problem, I see the use of political inertia to halt social change. If it "depends on how we define progressives..." then it likewise depends on how we define conservatives. The New Left does not represent progressives any more than the Libertarians represent conservatives. I will admit that the New Left is controlling the Democratic party, but then the Dem's are not the ideal I represent when I say progressives. The early abolitionists were not homogenously liberal or conservative. I cannot predict what would have happened had the liberal's taken hold of the American Revolution, but I would venture to say that there would not have been a 3/5ths rule in the constitution (if there would have been a constitution). Good or bad for "The American People" on and individual level, the emancipation of the slaves at that time would have been much better for all on a physical as well as spiritual level.

From your journal here I know you understand that the world does not consist of conservatives and progressives only. Certain situations require swift and immediate change, while others ought to be played ought slowly. At least here in America we are being played by a two party system and a media that uses dichotomy and the resultant controversy to sell cars. There are as many ideas about the proper use of government as there are people in this world. Two sides cannot possibly represent even a majority of these ideas.

Epistemologies aside, anarchists and libertarians agree more than they disgree. Reductions in liberty are neither bad nor good, they just are. Where they lie in context is how they take on an ethical value. The conservative tradition in my estimation has sought to slow the pace of change even if change happens to be worthwhile. Why not toss out the conservative-liberal divide and act with wisdom and prudence as you say, but alas...controversy sells Frosted Flakes.

I would venture to say that the conservative tradition has just as divergent epistemologies, metaphysics and ethics as has the progressive tradition.

"Conservatism isn't a monolith..."

Then why give it holy cow status? You have an excellent nose for the ridiculous and an impressive grasp of history. I like your writings because I can remove what I see as a nominal conservative blanket, which might really just be wisdom and prudence, that covers it and see plain good sense.

Respectfully,
Brian--who thinks we have argued substantively over denotative/connotative semantics

Posted by: Shirt at octobre 31, 2003 09:38 PM

Brian-

"I hardly meant to throw the word in your face...my apologies."

And my apologies for jumping to conclusions. :)

"What I hear you saying is that conservatism is merely an umbrella-like tradition consisting of the prudent and wise limitations and uses of government? "

First, I appreciate you clarifying and summarizing, that's very helpful. And you're certainly on to something when you use the term "umbrella-like" tradition. I'll clarify a bit more. When I speak about conservatism in my writing, I'm doing it on two levels. The first is the modern, which is rather partisan, and is peculiar to 20-th Century America. This is the everyday language of news reportage and the like. It IS more defined in terms of issues, because it's situated in a particulae time-space.

The second, and the one I have in view in this thread, is the historical. This refers to a loosely conjoined tradition straddling both sides of the Atlantic. It is best understood in terms of reaction -- a long-term, often losing fight against the radical elements of the Enlightment and its children, such as Marx or Rousseau.

In many ways it's almost a temperament rather than a philosophy. And it's VERY broad, as anyone sitting in opposition to the forces unleashed by the Age of Revolution seem to automatically be tossed into the Conservative bin. It emphasizes tradition and prudence, and is suspicious of blueprints for humanity or plans to overhaul the human race.

It's difficult in this format to do justice to the subject. You might really enjoy reading Russell Kirk on the subject. He's put out some of the best popular histories on conservatism as a tradition. "Roots of American Order" is a good one to start with.

I think I can help defuse some of your reaction to my post by pointing out that Progressives are similar in nature. It's a broad, umbrella term that encompasses widely divergent groups.

When I speak of ideologues, MOST of them do fall under the Progressive label. But that doesn't mean that Progressive = Ideologue.

And I don't think that everything in the conservative tradition is laudable and everything on the other side is unspeakably evil. In Europe especially I would have been on the side of the Liberals in many cases over and against a corrupt tradition.

And when it comes to the American Founding, we see a genius fusion of both Conservative and Enlightenment ideas coalescing into the most remarkable governmental system the world has ever known.

"Why not toss out the conservative-liberal divide and act with wisdom and prudence as you say"

Because the New Left, which DOES today represent the center-of-gravity of progressivism, has an entirely different set of presuppositions about reality than modern conservatism. We often use the same words, but we MEAN different things. Many times there simply isn't a common ground upon which to work. Your thought had more merit (and more frequent application) in a previous era when progressives and conservatives shared the same basic worldview. But that time has passed. Ignoring that fact won't make it otherwise.

"Then why give it holy cow status?"

I don't. :-) In fact, I don't give politics itself Holy Cow status. I'm much more concerned with Christ's Kingdom than I am with any earthly one. But I /do/ have certain defined beliefs about ethics and politics, and the conservative tradition, particularly the modern strain, best fits those. I also retain the label, because discussion requires terminology, and this is the term that best defines what I believe.

That doesn't mean that I think all those who think differently are stupid or wholly wrong. Nor do I disfellowship anyone based on their politics.

Thank you SO much for the kind tone and thoughtful nature of your responses. It's great getting to know you and talking through these things with you.

Yours always,
John

Posted by: Discoshaman at octobre 31, 2003 10:41 PM

Le Sabot Post-Moderne

octobre 24, 2003

Dystopian Wonderlands