Here's something else I've revisited in the process of selecting Sunday Night Journals for inclusion in a book: a series of posts from 2006-7 called "The Liberal Conservative," in which I lay out at some length my notion of a meaningful conservatism. It covers a lot of the ground we've visited here in recent discussions about the state of contemporary conservatism. Reading over it now, I don't see a great deal that I would change. One thing that strikes me is that we are noticeably further down the road toward the condition noted in the first piece: "The irony of liberalism the philosophy is that it leads to the death of liberal institutions." Is that necessarily true of liberalism the philosophy? I'm not 100% sure of that, but the experiment currently being conducted in the laboratories of the West show that it is in fact doing so.
Conservatism, Sorted
42 responses to “Conservatism, Sorted”
-
Thanks, Mac. Greatly looking forward to reading this.
-
It’s a bit long–I guess 1000+ words per segment–but I hope you’ll find it worthwhile.
-
Part 1 was good. I look forward to the rest.
-
wow! I really loved that second piece.
And I’ve heard some surprisingly loud complaints about European attitudes toward work, business, and bureaucracy from a couple of young Americans who have lived in France and Germany for a year or more and who are by no means on the political right (at least not by American standards).
I can’t decide whether the way things are done here in Planet Texas, at least, make me want to laugh or to cry. A bit of both, I think.
But I wonder if that’s just because things are different rather than “worse” necessarily. This makes me wonder then about the feelings of the young Americans in Europe. Just a thought. -
Thank you, glad you liked the piece.
I told you this place is crazy!
Yes, “different = worse” could be in play there. But maybe not, because I think in some of these cases there was an expectation that Europe would be better. -
This resonated with me: As a Catholic, of course I think the Benedictine response perfectly reasonable and possibly advisable, though I myself am not in a position to make it.
That’s pretty much where I’m at.
Rod Dreher in Crunchy Cons talks of it as an option, following Alisdair Macintyre (whom I have not actually read but am always reading about). Daniel Nichols and I and a number of others talked about it a lot in Caelum et Terra ten or fifteen years ago, but I notice neither Daniel nor I is talking about it much anymore. So far, aside from actual Benedictines or other religious, no substantial movement for the establishment of formally set-apart Catholic communities along the lines of the Amish has appeared, even though a great many of us think it might be a good idea. This, I think, reveals some weakness, and perhaps some child-of-the-times-ness: we aren’t, finally, ready to make the sacrifices such an effort would require.
I was recently involved with an online group of homeschoolers from all over the States and internationally where the family who had started the group are living a pretty Benedictine kind of life with all their children. They are farming and all the rest of it. It’s very appealing to me, but after a few months of interacting with this group I was pretty appalled at how much they looked down their noses at other homeschooling families and other orthodox Catholics in general. The level of contempt was astonishing and I could no longer bear to witness the regular derogatory comments about the way other Catholic wives and mothers went about doing things. It was such a severe disappointment. I still haven’t recovered from it and I doubt I’ll ever live the dream.
I’ve spent the last decade or so learning what I can about political and especially economic philosophy (the latter so I can work out how to invest my meagre savings in ethical ways), but I now feel a greater need to act than study.
The big question right now is “how can I live a good and happy life in the suburbs in Texas?” I mean “happy” more in the sense of blessedness than mere passing emotion. -
I told you this place is crazy!
Oh don’t worry – I remember these words… often! -
From the third piece (numbered ‘2’): Back in May, I started a discussion on the Caelum et Terra blog with the title Can, and Should, Constitutional Liberalism Survive? My own “quick and brutal” answer to the question was “As to the ‘should’: yes, I would like for it to, because I think at it’s best it’s worked very well. But as to the ‘can’: no.”
I’m pretty empathetic to this view. It is not actually in my nature to do anything other than “live and let live” but it’s just because I can see that liberalism is so intolerant of other views that I find a (very theoretical) Catholic state to be desirable. However, since that is not likely to occur any time soon, I would be pretty happy in fact with a society which protected the unborn and in other ways obeyed the natural law, while taking a very liberal and tolerant attitude to freedom of worship, freedom in the education of children etc.
I think one of the earliest problems for the USA though, was its much higher divorce rate, which the Catholic clergy were bemoaning greatly as far back as the late 1890’s. In this issue already back then, there would have been serious problems for any Catholic whose marriage was ended by the state, but whose religion did not recognise this divorce. There are terrible consequences now for Catholic divorcees in the secular courts that are directly at odds with their ability to practice their Faith in the issue of marriage and family. This is the direct result of the tolerance in religious differences.
It’s all very complicated to me. -
Liberalism, in both the philosophical and political senses, taking evolution as a paradigm, never expected the atavistic obstructionism of religious believers to continue to be a problem for it as late as the 21st century.
Yes. That’s probably a bit of a surprise for a lot of people. -
Have you looked into becoming an oblate of a monastery at all?
-
You’re talking to Louise, not me, right? I haven’t. My wife and I did participate in a 3rd Order Dominican group for a while many years ago, but it never really got going.
-
More later–I’ve been too busy at work to reply.
-
I hadn’t really thought about it, Paul. Maybe I’ll look into it.
-
Yes, it was meant to, but humorously.
-
I’ll have to wait till later to watch the video, which certainly looks promising.
-
I wanted to respond to Louise’s encounter with the home-schooling group: “They are farming and all the rest of it. It’s very appealing to me, but after a few months of interacting with this group I was pretty appalled at how much they looked down their noses at other homeschooling families and other orthodox Catholics in general. The level of contempt was astonishing”
I’m afraid I can’t say I’m astonished by this. It’s unfortunately a pretty common tendency among Catholics who seek to break away from the mainstream and live in what they see as a more authentically Catholic way. I’m not saying it’s not more authentically Catholic–obviously in some ways at least it is–but the point is that’s what they intend, and accordingly set themselves apart from and against–and not infrequently above–the average Catholic. I’m really, really sympathetic to that impulse, but clearly it carries with it a big temptation toward the kind of self-righteousness, pride, and hostility that you describe. Though I have to say this sounds worse than the usual.
There was a time when my wife and I would have joined a group like that, pooled resources, bought land, etc. etc. Now and then we think about it and say “Thank God we didn’t.” -
I didn’t realize the U.S. divorce rate was already higher than other places in the 19th c. Somehow not surprising, though.
-
This is good stuff, Mac. It’s difficult to discuss these topics in a cohesive, coherent way when there are so many different understandings of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ out there. As you said somewhere else, the conversations tend to get bogged down in definitions.
That Mark Henrie article does not seem to be available anymore, alas. Henrie is the guy that I heard describe neo-conservatism as “conservativism that’s made peace with modernity,” by which he meant philosophical liberalism. Your issue with the neos (and with mainstream American conservatism on the whole, I gather) is the same as mine: a refusal to examine, or even consider, the negative aspects of corporate capitalism.
I do believe that liberalism is ultimately self-defeating, in that it relies on the autonomy of the individual self. The problem with it is that there is always going to be someone more liberal than you, and the philosophy has no internal check or governor to limit individual autonomy. What’s left is state power; the state’s primary role comes to be seen as a guarantor of individual freedoms, while simultaneously acting as protector of people from the overreach of others’ autonomy. The state grows ever more powerful and instrusive in its efforts to police conflicting freedoms, and thus older mediating institutions, even liberal ones, are subverted as the state becomes more bureaucratic and “omnicompetent.”
The unfortunate thing here is that to the extent that aspects of conservatism are rooted in philosophical liberalism, those aspects of it so rooted will exhibit the same dynamic. Industrial capitalism thus demonstrates a similar self-defeating tendency, evinced in the so-called “cultural contradictions of capitalism.” -
Thanks!
“The problem with it is that there is always going to be someone more liberal than you, and the philosophy has no internal check or governor to limit individual autonomy.”
Yes indeed. You see that constantly, when the less liberal liberal nearly always yields the moral high ground to the more liberal liberal. Conservatives are not immune to it, either. And it was really visible in the ’60s, when liberal college administrators etc. tended to be pushovers for radicals. -
There may be multiple links in those pieces that don’t work anymore. Such is life on the web…
-
I just now watched the video Art linked to. Excellent. I’d never heard of that. Some Fawlty-esque moments there, though I gather it’s not all comedy.
-
The less liberal liberal becomes the new conservative, because he expresses resistance to the “progress” espoused by the more liberal liberal.
Of course as numerous commentators have pointed out, “progress” implies a goal. But I’m not sure that today’s progressives have anything concrete enough in mind that could be described as a goal. It’s all vague and idealistic, sentimental and romantic, thus taking them off the hook for failing to reach it, while simultananeously motivating them to keep trying. -
A good read along these lines…
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/09/what_is_american_conservatism_1.html -
I’ve been planning a post on a particular instance of the “progress toward what?” question. Probably won’t get it done for several days yet.
One thing they seem to be vaguely aiming for is absolute equality of condition, which would be a nightmare. -
I watched that video (The Norman Conquests) Art provided the link for and then your thoughts on just what the ultimate progressive dream might be and that made me think of a remark the character Tom made in the video about the character Annie needing to smarten herself up because she looks “a mess.” By today’s standards, she looks quite kempt!
By the way, do you realize the actress who played Annie is the same one who plays Isobel Crawley on Downton Abbey? -
Very fine piece by Jeff Martin, Rob. I particularly like the section on American anti-communism, although it’s not really the main thrust.
“Conservatives, more so now than at any time in the past, cannot define what it is that they propose to conserve”
That was a big part of the reason that I wrote the “liberal conservative” series. I’m pretty clear about what I want to preserve, in both immediate and long-range terms. The long-range ones really transcend the “conservative” label, to wit the spread and revival of the Christian faith. -
No, I certainly didn’t realize that, Marianne. Which one was Annie? Must be the dark-haired one–I can more or less see her turning into Isobel Crawley (I wish they wouldn’t spell “Isobel” that way–I can only hear it in my head as “iss” “oh” “bell”, not “izzabell”.
Anyway, she is certainly quite kempt by our standards. That puts me in mind of this complaint by Mona Charen against the coolness of “pimp”. -
Yes, Annie’s the dark-haired one in the gray sweater — she makes her first appearance at around the 0.45 point.
-
We all know the shock of seeing pictures of our younger selves. It must be worse for actors, who are confronted with those images constantly, and simultaneously with the current ones.
-
I’m afraid I can’t say I’m astonished by this. It’s unfortunately a pretty common tendency among Catholics who seek to break away from the mainstream and live in what they see as a more authentically Catholic way. I’m not saying it’s not more authentically Catholic–obviously in some ways at least it is–but the point is that’s what they intend, and accordingly set themselves apart from and against–and not infrequently above–the average Catholic. I’m really, really sympathetic to that impulse, but clearly it carries with it a big temptation toward the kind of self-righteousness, pride, and hostility that you describe. Though I have to say this sounds worse than the usual.
I was not astonished to find spiritual pride in the group, it’s the degree that really amazed me. It was totally over the top. And the particular things they were bitching about were unwarranted imo. It’s sad really, b/c the program they had looked very good in many ways.
I can see why you and Karen are glad you didn’t take the plunge. -
My revenge, for some personal insults aimed at me, will be to live a good and happy life wherever I am, with whatever timetable/lifestyle I happen to devise and to get to heaven too in spite of a less “ideal” life.
-
I do believe that liberalism is ultimately self-defeating
It does seem that way. -
We all know the shock of seeing pictures of our younger selves. It must be worse for actors, who are confronted with those images constantly, and simultaneously with the current ones.
I certainly know the shock of seeing myself in the mirror. 😛
I really would hate to be a public figure. -
I have changed so much since the time I was married (29 years ago) that I’m hardly recognizable.
-
True for most people at some point. Certainly for me. I guess the point varies.
We have to put up with the mirror, but for movie stars it must be like having a picture of younger self taped beside it. -
It’s not even twenty years ago in my case, and once when a colleague was visiting she looked at a wedding photo on the wall and said in astonishment, “I didn’t know your wife had been married before!”
-
The thing about being authentically Catholic is you have to be sort of catholic about it. Sectarianism or exclusivism just isn’t universal.
-
Re the wedding photo: ouch.
It’s a natural tendency to form groups and get into conflict with other groups. There are factions within the Church that seem to dislike each other more than they dislike the enemies of the Church. Most unedifying. (I used to think “edify” was more or less a synonym for “educate.” I was glad to learn otherwise. It’s a good word.) -
FORGET, PLEASE, modern conservatism. It has been a failure because it has been, operationally, de facto, Godless. In the political/civil government realm it has ignored Christ and what Scripture says about the role and purpose of civil government. Thus, it failed. Such secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago
: ”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.
“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
In any event, “politics,” for the most part today, is whoring after false gods. It will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.
John Lofton, Recovering Republican
JohnLofton.com
Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Active Facebook Wall
JLof@aol.com -
I’m not a Republican. Never have been. I’ve always thought the connection between the RP and conservatism was tenuous.
-
As is the connection between conservatism and Christianity. People should know the difference, though of course they don’t always.
Light On Dark Water 
Leave a reply to Marianne Cancel reply