Sunday, October 4, 2009

"Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?": A Retort.

"Is Conservatism Brain-Dead?" by Steven Hayward

It never ceases to amuse me when self-appointed spokepersons for the right ask themselves rhetorical questions and then proceed to smear conservatism in the most superficial, disconnected, and pointless manner. If you, Mr. Hayward, consider yourself a conservative, then I can understand why you imagine conservatism to be brain dead.

But for the sake of briefly entertaining your premise, let me disabuse the assuredly astute and open-minded readers of the Washington Post of several ridiculous assumptions in your screed, lest anyone should confuse your article for political wisdom or something of serious intellectual merit.

Firstly, as a matter of philosophy, conservatism in the Burkean mold is merely a recognition of the limited capability of men in each generation to apprehend and adapt to their environments. It poses that radically destroying institutional, religious, and societal constructs disorients individuals and may lead to anarchy, chaos, destruction, and reaction.

Cultural Marxists and Fabian Socialists early in the twentieth century recognized many truths of philosophical conservatism and adopted them to their "radical" socialist programs. Examples of "radicalism" adopting philosophically conservative elements include: The Gramscian strategy of infiltrating and co-opting institutions, instead of attacking and destroying them; Saul Alinsky's use of "pragmatism" to refrain from frightening the lower and middle classes with "Weatherman" style radicalism - to convert people with religion, or by using language within their realm of experience; and the Cloward-Piven strategy of using existing government welfare programs and overwhelming "the system" with new applicants and massive debt. All of these "radical" strategies recognize a certain classically described "conservative" tendency in human beings.

Secondly, let us consider that conservatism in the American context is not associated in any manner with European statism or traditional authority. American conservatism, as we know it now, is in direct and unequivocal opposition to statism; this is a distinction that requires recognition.

To condemn conservatism as "out of ideas," so to speak, is to feign that the American experiment in freedom, as conceived, was ever seriously tried. In fact, early in the Republic the state-adoring Hamilton introduced a central bank, specifically condemned and ruled out at the Constitutional Convention. This outrage was followed by suppressed rebellions, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the "progressive" obliteration of limited government under the rubric of the "necessary and proper clause," and the "general welfare clause" (both condemned by the likes of Jefferson and Madison). The American "conservative" vision of freedom and organized liberty cannot seriously be called a "failure," as if all that we've had in the U.S. since the founding was monolithic "freedom" or "capitalism"; such a conception is laughably common, even among so-called "intellectuals."

Thirdly, it is one of the great philosophical tricks of the left and right Hegelians to embed "temporality" in philosophy; as if the relative rightness or wrongness of a philosophy matters on its situation to the left or right on a timeline. The incessant bantering about "progress" on the left is a self-conscious ruse to propagate in the culture the idea that they stand for the inevitable future, and those who stand opposed are teleologically backward and swimming against the tide of history. The left acts as if opposition to their self-described "progressive" agenda of reversing limited goverment and The Constitution must be inherently antequated and thus obsolete.

To draw on an idea of Karl Popper's, we must not stand on the shoulders of giants, we must stand side by side with them. The ravings of a Janeane Garafalo, a Michael Moore, or a Keith Olbermann are not more sage or prescient than the astute observations of an Aristotle, a Marcus Aurelius, or a Thomas Jefferson simply by virtue of the former having post-dated the latter.

The world we live in is one conditioned by material reality, and we may choose to live in accordance with that world and to accrue wisdom to pass on to our children, or we may burn it all in a futile rage, out of dissatisfaction or impatience. To develop a mature mind, able to accept hard truths and to warn one's fellow men of them is an inglorious and often thankless task; but it is more beneficial than concocting self-destructive fantasies and attempting to superimpose them on the world whether it is amenable or not.

Delusions are acceptable in a political order where each individual is free to live according to his own conscience and to suffer his own consequences. To attempt to institute utopia in a government, an inherently coercive body, is not only the height of folly, it is morally wrong; as it often produces cruel results, including an increase in human misery and suffering.

10/4/2009 11:45:37 PM

4 comments:

Reaganx said...

=Firstly, as a matter of philosophy, conservatism in the Burkean mold is merely a recognition of the limited capability of men in each generation to apprehend and adapt to their environments. It poses that radically destroying institutional, religious, and societal constructs disorients individuals and may lead to anarchy, chaos, destruction, and reaction.=

By the way, I disagree with this Burkean/Hayekian idea. As you know, the American Revolution was "radical", not "conservative", in more ways than one (though not in the leftist sense). The destruction of institutions hostile to liberty is sometimes absolutely necessary. Liberty cannot be justified on the ground that the destruction of some traditional institutions leads to chaos. First, this assumption is false - it does not necessarily lead to chaos. Second, liberty is necessary because it is required for survival and is the only state consistent with human nature, not because of what Burke and Hayek think.

Anonymous said...

ReaganX, I don't understand your counter-argument. First, it is clear that American conservatism has radical roots. That is why I brought up that a distinction should be made between what people call conservatism in America, European conservatism, and the philosophy of conservatism. Second, psychologically, it takes time and effort for people to adjust to contexts that they are unfamiliar with. You remove the institutional and societal framework people are used to, and they become disoriented. This leads to unpredictable behavior, such as aggression, and in other cases, alienation and withdrawal. Third, I did not appeal to Burke or Hayek's authority to shore up an argument. Last, liberty does not occur in a vacuum. Some institutions, such as a court system preserving the rule of law, and a police force to maintain the peace, are necessary. The point is that you cannot remove institutions hostile to liberty immediately without tumult. Social security and other welfare programs are a perfect example. Remove those immediately and you will really see the shit hit the fan, regardless of theorizing or philosophizing about how morally wrong those institutions are.

Reaganx said...

=Some institutions, such as a court system preserving the rule of law, and a police force to maintain the peace, are necessary.=

I agree. However these institutions are necessary not because people are accustomed to them or because they’re old or traditional but because individual rights should be protected. If you take some other institutions – the Church, for example, - they’re not necessary for liberty and sometimes even hostile to it (it doesn’t mean I advocate violating the Church’s property rights or something).

=Remove those immediately and you will really see the shit hit the fan, =

I concur that a transition period is necessary to switch from a statist society to a free one. For one thing, if people don’t understand the full implications of liberty, a free society can’t last long. It takes time to make a sufficient number of people understand the whole conceptual framework required for liberty.
However, I don’t buy the “conservative” idea that the removal of traditional institutions is somehow destructive of liberty. Transition periods may or may not be required but simply the fact that people are accustomed to some institution doesn’t make it pro-freedom.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you that traditional conservatism, which is the argument that it is almost irrelevant what traditions are being preserved as long as they preserve social stability, is wrong. I believe exclusively in those institutions that support freedom and liberty. Those institutions that prop up tyranny must be systematically and strategically removed.