I apologize for the length - I have a lot of self- defending to do...
I am a conservative. I say it proudly and confidently – though not without a great deal of thought (of personal Q & A). That is, for a long time I've been concerned about ‘conservatism,’ both personally and intellectually. I’d questioned at times whether I could still consider myself a conservative if I supported someone as progressive as Barack Obama; consequently, I questioned the adequacy of even being a conservative at all if ultimately I’d admitted the need to support progressivism. Most of all, I questioned conservatism as it had been represented and understood, for as long as I could remember, by the Republican Party.
But, as it turns out, the Republicans are – and have long been (with very few interruptions since the party of Lincoln) – the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with Christian fundamentalism; with free-market fanaticism (or any kind of fanaticism); Conservatism isn't, for that matter, endeared to any any particular economic school (and would probably prefer Keynes - a consummate conservative, btw - to monetarists and supply-siders). Conservatism isn't opposed to a strong government that provides otherwise unprovided services; that intervenes occasionally for the 'welfare' of its citizens. Conservatism is not in favor of waging war on drugs or even war on crime if that means stupidly inflicting harsh but ineffective punishments; Conservatism has no inclination toward gruesome corporal punishments or torture; it doesn't conveniently forget to be humane - or forget that a criminal (or, more importantly, that we as punishers) are still human beings. Conservatives don't spend imprudently - or do anything imprudently, for that matter... The list could go on forever. The point is, the Republican Party is not the conservative party.
There hasn’t really been a conservative party in America since the Federalists, and only a faction (ironically) within that party actually embodied Conservatism. No doubt, there have been Conservatives throughout American history, but they have belonged to all the many American parties – and they have been few and far between (at least on the public stage). As it happens, by the time most would-be conservatives have become national figures they are more ‘politician’ than anything else (not overly pragmatic, which, as we will see, is a conservative trait; but overly opportunistic).
But conservatism is, I think, the natural disposition of Americans – as much the creed of the country bumpkin as of the establishment elite. But most Americans have been caught up in a confused dualism (Republican and Democrat) that demands (usually as a family inheritance) that one pledge allegiance to a party as much or more than to the flag; and most Americans have considered it only too natural to employ a set of given (though eternally misused) ideological labels - ‘conservative,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive’) – in their search for political self-understanding (however pathetically short-lived or short-sighted it may be).
But it turns out I can be a conservative while still being liberal – because what I want is to conserve liberal values and institutions; and I can be a conservative while still championing progressivism – because I want liberal values and institutions to progress – to evolve – as anything must if it is to survive and remain healthy. But I want that progress to be careful, pragmatic and fair – and, most of all, I want it to be based on skepticism of ‘progress’ itself, on an honest confession that we don’t necessarily have the answers; that our effort at progress will be based not on moving in a certain direction (e.g., a religious society, a free market society, a truly secular society) but moving intelligently. To paraphrase Barack Obama on the war, ‘A conservative isn’t opposed to movement; he’s opposed to stupid movement’.
Which brings me to the nexus of this whole issue….
I can – moreover, I should – support Barack Obama and still be a conservative; I can, moreover, want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party – not now and maybe not ever – and still be a conservative. And proudly, no less! But only if I know –and can let others know – what that means.
And so, I’ve indulged in a bit of manifesto writing – for which I apologize. But I think it’s important that I explain how and why I am a conservative.
I am a conservative in that I vehemently desire to conserve the existing values and institutions of American society, not in the interest of the prosperous part of that society but in the interest of American society at large, and especially in the interest of the less prosperous among us – for the immemorial values and institutions of America are the best friend the downtrodden citizen can have.
I am a conservative insomuch as I have an unshakable skepticism of human nature, of human reason, of human actions, &c; because I believe in community nearly as much as I believe in liberty – but ultimately I believe that liberty without community is dangerous, as is the converse.
I’m a conservative because I believe in domestic law and order; because I believe in a strong military – but not a military that ever descends in any form upon America itself.
I’m a conservative because I see the need in supporting existing spiritual authority – regardless of whether the creeds supporting such authority is ‘true’ or not. But I also see – and just as clearly – the need to support existing secular authorities – and to support their essential separation from spiritual authority.
I am a conservative in that I am a great lover of my country. Whether one calls me a patriot or a nationalist, I could care less. But I do care whether one understands that I do not believe in American exceptionalism – and I certainly I do not think we should view our country or our values in messianic terms. I see the value of international institutions, of globalization, of multiculturalism – but only to a certain extent. For, as a conservative, I believe moreover in the importance (and the essential centrality) of the Nation State. Human beings are hard enough to improve individually and in small groups – they are never perfectible; and thus the world, in my view, is simply too big a place (and too full of humans) to be improved as a whole – though we may certainly improve it ON the whole. Human beings are capable of great things – but they can never be great things. The individual will always be just that; he is a fleeting thing, and great things are not fleeting – they are lasting if not eternal. But nobility, because it is a fundamental possibility for human beings, will survive as long as our species.
For the sake of that existence, and for many other reasons, I believe, as a conservative, in the value of family – and that means gay families, too. What matters is the community that grows out of love and proximity – its supreme naturalness, which is an amazing (and stubbornly metaphysical) thing. Human beings are thrown into the world, as Heidegger taught us; the world is experienced through Dasein. But we can escape Dasein (our unshakable and ultimately dreadful individuality), in a very real way, through the love we have for father and mother, for brother and sister, for husband, son and daughter – a love that is almost as natural and as fundamental as Dasein. We can – and do – learn to think of life, its possibilities and its dangers, in terms of ‘we’ and not just ‘I’. And that is the beginning – the necessary point of departure – for any concern we may learn to feel for the world at large. Thus the family must be preserved – its power conserved.
I am a conservative in that I am suspicion of Rationalism. I do not believe in grand theories or grand schemes. This applies, of course, to Marxism, etc – but also, and to the same degree, to Christianism (meaning Christian dogma – Christianity is a mode of living and understanding personally) or Islam. It is a fundamentally conservative trait to be wary of dogma, and, moreover, of anyone promulgating dogma or anything dependant on dogma. I certainly don’t believe anyone has the right to impose their version of the truth upon anyone else. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in ‘truth’ or even ‘the truth’; I am not a nihilist. But as a conservative I do not believe we can know ‘the truth’ or ‘the good’; but I do believe human beings have an innate ability to perceive when they are doing good and when they are telling the truth. And for this reason, and (once more) I believe in personal responsibility – and thus also in allowing a human being to be generally ‘free to choose’. We can, however, guide one another, but as concerned friends or caring family members; not as coercive moralists or ‘improving’ technocrats.
I am a conservative because in that I believe there is simply too much complexity and to much human variance to ever ‘really know’ about anything. And to the degree that, and with Hayek, I believe the exchange of goods (whether material or immaterial) to be simply too complex to ever allow of the ‘knowledge’ requisite for socialist planning. Thus, I believe fundamentally in market capitalism. But there are more important things than money, which has never been a fundamental conservative concern (or interest). ‘Fairness’, for example. And, as I believe in an innate human capacity to recognize their actions as ‘good’ or their utterances as ‘true,’ I also believe in an innate human capacity to recognize whether something is ‘fair’ or not. Belief in the market can attain a level of allegiance that makes it essentially indistinguishable from any other kind of fundamentalism, any other kind of systematizing – it can, in short, become a dogma. And in so far as I am a conservative, I am opposed to the dogma of market capitalism as much as I am to any other dogma.
Though I don’t believe we can plan the economy, I do believe we can plan generally in life. We can be prudent and maintain a healthy concern for the future. We can pay attention.
I am a conservative in that I find egalitarianism suspect – though I believe wholeheartedly in equality – especially before the law. But, while respecting contracts, I am also conservative in that I basically impossible to honestly understand society as a contract entered into by individuals – it is better to understand it as a partnership between generations – between the dead, the living, and the not yet living. Thus I desire – as a conservative - that our planet as well as our country and our society is handed down to our children in a healthy state and in recognizable form. Thus I am a conservationist and, to a degree, an environmentalist; and value the earth and nature more than money and the profit motive. I am therefore not opposed to regulation – so long as it is actually doing good. Regulation for regulation’s sake is stupid.
I am a conservative in that I am a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the only acceptable solution for someone who does not swear blind allegiance to anything. While I do value allegiance – to family and country and even party (though rarely) – and principles very much, I do not consider them absolute values. Thus I am a conservative insofar as I am willing to compromise, though that doesn’t rule out occasional stubbornness. I hate to see things be given up on too quickly.
Finally, I am a conservative because I believe that there is much to learn – though we can never learn everything, never know it all; thus I believe in education – especially in history and literature, which are so often passed over as inconsequential. That is a mistake – it is indeed praiseworthy to be successful in life, to be a successful professional, to be technically proficient – even dominant; but it is infinitely more praiseworthy to be successful AT life. When we face death – and we all must – our possessions and our know-how are valueless; but we are comforted by having understood life through history and literature – and, moreover, through living humanely.
And ultimately, it is a desire to live humanely (with all its varied meanings and implications) that is the fundamental desire of a conservative, like me.
I am a conservative. I say it proudly and confidently – though not without a great deal of thought (of personal Q & A). That is, for a long time I've been concerned about ‘conservatism,’ both personally and intellectually. I’d questioned at times whether I could still consider myself a conservative if I supported someone as progressive as Barack Obama; consequently, I questioned the adequacy of even being a conservative at all if ultimately I’d admitted the need to support progressivism. Most of all, I questioned conservatism as it had been represented and understood, for as long as I could remember, by the Republican Party.
But, as it turns out, the Republicans are – and have long been (with very few interruptions since the party of Lincoln) – the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with Christian fundamentalism; with free-market fanaticism (or any kind of fanaticism); Conservatism isn't, for that matter, endeared to any any particular economic school (and would probably prefer Keynes - a consummate conservative, btw - to monetarists and supply-siders). Conservatism isn't opposed to a strong government that provides otherwise unprovided services; that intervenes occasionally for the 'welfare' of its citizens. Conservatism is not in favor of waging war on drugs or even war on crime if that means stupidly inflicting harsh but ineffective punishments; Conservatism has no inclination toward gruesome corporal punishments or torture; it doesn't conveniently forget to be humane - or forget that a criminal (or, more importantly, that we as punishers) are still human beings. Conservatives don't spend imprudently - or do anything imprudently, for that matter... The list could go on forever. The point is, the Republican Party is not the conservative party.
There hasn’t really been a conservative party in America since the Federalists, and only a faction (ironically) within that party actually embodied Conservatism. No doubt, there have been Conservatives throughout American history, but they have belonged to all the many American parties – and they have been few and far between (at least on the public stage). As it happens, by the time most would-be conservatives have become national figures they are more ‘politician’ than anything else (not overly pragmatic, which, as we will see, is a conservative trait; but overly opportunistic).
But conservatism is, I think, the natural disposition of Americans – as much the creed of the country bumpkin as of the establishment elite. But most Americans have been caught up in a confused dualism (Republican and Democrat) that demands (usually as a family inheritance) that one pledge allegiance to a party as much or more than to the flag; and most Americans have considered it only too natural to employ a set of given (though eternally misused) ideological labels - ‘conservative,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive’) – in their search for political self-understanding (however pathetically short-lived or short-sighted it may be).
But it turns out I can be a conservative while still being liberal – because what I want is to conserve liberal values and institutions; and I can be a conservative while still championing progressivism – because I want liberal values and institutions to progress – to evolve – as anything must if it is to survive and remain healthy. But I want that progress to be careful, pragmatic and fair – and, most of all, I want it to be based on skepticism of ‘progress’ itself, on an honest confession that we don’t necessarily have the answers; that our effort at progress will be based not on moving in a certain direction (e.g., a religious society, a free market society, a truly secular society) but moving intelligently. To paraphrase Barack Obama on the war, ‘A conservative isn’t opposed to movement; he’s opposed to stupid movement’.
Which brings me to the nexus of this whole issue….
I can – moreover, I should – support Barack Obama and still be a conservative; I can, moreover, want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party – not now and maybe not ever – and still be a conservative. And proudly, no less! But only if I know –and can let others know – what that means.
And so, I’ve indulged in a bit of manifesto writing – for which I apologize. But I think it’s important that I explain how and why I am a conservative.
I am a conservative in that I vehemently desire to conserve the existing values and institutions of American society, not in the interest of the prosperous part of that society but in the interest of American society at large, and especially in the interest of the less prosperous among us – for the immemorial values and institutions of America are the best friend the downtrodden citizen can have.
I am a conservative insomuch as I have an unshakable skepticism of human nature, of human reason, of human actions, &c; because I believe in community nearly as much as I believe in liberty – but ultimately I believe that liberty without community is dangerous, as is the converse.
I’m a conservative because I believe in domestic law and order; because I believe in a strong military – but not a military that ever descends in any form upon America itself.
I’m a conservative because I see the need in supporting existing spiritual authority – regardless of whether the creeds supporting such authority is ‘true’ or not. But I also see – and just as clearly – the need to support existing secular authorities – and to support their essential separation from spiritual authority.
I am a conservative in that I am a great lover of my country. Whether one calls me a patriot or a nationalist, I could care less. But I do care whether one understands that I do not believe in American exceptionalism – and I certainly I do not think we should view our country or our values in messianic terms. I see the value of international institutions, of globalization, of multiculturalism – but only to a certain extent. For, as a conservative, I believe moreover in the importance (and the essential centrality) of the Nation State. Human beings are hard enough to improve individually and in small groups – they are never perfectible; and thus the world, in my view, is simply too big a place (and too full of humans) to be improved as a whole – though we may certainly improve it ON the whole. Human beings are capable of great things – but they can never be great things. The individual will always be just that; he is a fleeting thing, and great things are not fleeting – they are lasting if not eternal. But nobility, because it is a fundamental possibility for human beings, will survive as long as our species.
For the sake of that existence, and for many other reasons, I believe, as a conservative, in the value of family – and that means gay families, too. What matters is the community that grows out of love and proximity – its supreme naturalness, which is an amazing (and stubbornly metaphysical) thing. Human beings are thrown into the world, as Heidegger taught us; the world is experienced through Dasein. But we can escape Dasein (our unshakable and ultimately dreadful individuality), in a very real way, through the love we have for father and mother, for brother and sister, for husband, son and daughter – a love that is almost as natural and as fundamental as Dasein. We can – and do – learn to think of life, its possibilities and its dangers, in terms of ‘we’ and not just ‘I’. And that is the beginning – the necessary point of departure – for any concern we may learn to feel for the world at large. Thus the family must be preserved – its power conserved.
I am a conservative in that I am suspicion of Rationalism. I do not believe in grand theories or grand schemes. This applies, of course, to Marxism, etc – but also, and to the same degree, to Christianism (meaning Christian dogma – Christianity is a mode of living and understanding personally) or Islam. It is a fundamentally conservative trait to be wary of dogma, and, moreover, of anyone promulgating dogma or anything dependant on dogma. I certainly don’t believe anyone has the right to impose their version of the truth upon anyone else. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in ‘truth’ or even ‘the truth’; I am not a nihilist. But as a conservative I do not believe we can know ‘the truth’ or ‘the good’; but I do believe human beings have an innate ability to perceive when they are doing good and when they are telling the truth. And for this reason, and (once more) I believe in personal responsibility – and thus also in allowing a human being to be generally ‘free to choose’. We can, however, guide one another, but as concerned friends or caring family members; not as coercive moralists or ‘improving’ technocrats.
I am a conservative because in that I believe there is simply too much complexity and to much human variance to ever ‘really know’ about anything. And to the degree that, and with Hayek, I believe the exchange of goods (whether material or immaterial) to be simply too complex to ever allow of the ‘knowledge’ requisite for socialist planning. Thus, I believe fundamentally in market capitalism. But there are more important things than money, which has never been a fundamental conservative concern (or interest). ‘Fairness’, for example. And, as I believe in an innate human capacity to recognize their actions as ‘good’ or their utterances as ‘true,’ I also believe in an innate human capacity to recognize whether something is ‘fair’ or not. Belief in the market can attain a level of allegiance that makes it essentially indistinguishable from any other kind of fundamentalism, any other kind of systematizing – it can, in short, become a dogma. And in so far as I am a conservative, I am opposed to the dogma of market capitalism as much as I am to any other dogma.
Though I don’t believe we can plan the economy, I do believe we can plan generally in life. We can be prudent and maintain a healthy concern for the future. We can pay attention.
I am a conservative in that I find egalitarianism suspect – though I believe wholeheartedly in equality – especially before the law. But, while respecting contracts, I am also conservative in that I basically impossible to honestly understand society as a contract entered into by individuals – it is better to understand it as a partnership between generations – between the dead, the living, and the not yet living. Thus I desire – as a conservative - that our planet as well as our country and our society is handed down to our children in a healthy state and in recognizable form. Thus I am a conservationist and, to a degree, an environmentalist; and value the earth and nature more than money and the profit motive. I am therefore not opposed to regulation – so long as it is actually doing good. Regulation for regulation’s sake is stupid.
I am a conservative in that I am a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the only acceptable solution for someone who does not swear blind allegiance to anything. While I do value allegiance – to family and country and even party (though rarely) – and principles very much, I do not consider them absolute values. Thus I am a conservative insofar as I am willing to compromise, though that doesn’t rule out occasional stubbornness. I hate to see things be given up on too quickly.
Finally, I am a conservative because I believe that there is much to learn – though we can never learn everything, never know it all; thus I believe in education – especially in history and literature, which are so often passed over as inconsequential. That is a mistake – it is indeed praiseworthy to be successful in life, to be a successful professional, to be technically proficient – even dominant; but it is infinitely more praiseworthy to be successful AT life. When we face death – and we all must – our possessions and our know-how are valueless; but we are comforted by having understood life through history and literature – and, moreover, through living humanely.
And ultimately, it is a desire to live humanely (with all its varied meanings and implications) that is the fundamental desire of a conservative, like me.
No comments:
Post a Comment