02.18.09
That internal barometer that tells us when something just ain’t right
One subject I haven’t really weighed in on since it moved to the fore of righties’ concerns is the matter of who gets to decide how to define conservatism. After the Pub clock-cleaning in November, many a pundit didn’t wait for their reeling to subside to chime in. Purists from markedly different schools of thought dismissed the perceived apostates with the urgency of those determined to lead the charge against the newly empowered state Leviathan.
There are some quirky permutations out there, but the schism really boils down to the question of whether “cultural conservatives,” those whose primary concerns are “social issues” have a place at the table of modern conservatism. You’ve read the arguments by now. The camp that believes they aren’t welcome is itself a rather large tent, including east-coast chin-stroking types, such as Kathleen Parker and David Frum, libertarian types such as Neal Boortz, and generally-spot-on-but-occasionally-quite-oddball bloggers such as Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse. The other camp includes, obviously, politically engaged evangelicals, but also flagship journals such as National Review and talk show hosts such as Laura Ingraham and Greg Garrison.
In order to repair this schism as quickly as possible – there is, after all, a socialist takeover of our country, as well as an overall decay of the West, underway – several participants in this discussion are harkening to various bullet-point-type lists of foundational principles that can serve as guides. Russell Kirk’s list of ten conservative principles has been mentioned. Edmund Burke’s reasons for opposing the French Revolution, after having championed the American one, are getting an airing. (In this regard, may I offer the Bent Notes Manifesto as a useful benchmark?)
I think we may be helped by seeing that there are layers, or levels, if you like, to this ideology to which we all claim fealty and proper understanding.
The most accessible layer is to look at what has been going on in the West for the last seventy or eighty years – certainly in the last twenty – and declare what we’re against. You could get most self-proclaimed conservatives of any stripe on board by saying “We stand opposed to
a.) the disingenuous use of the word “diversity” as a way for such institutions as schools, arts councils and human-rights councils to erode a cohesive sense of what the West is about
b.) the whole “green” movement
c.) the notion that one should regard human sexuality in an utterly casual manner
d.) the notion that there is some magic alternative to free-market economics
e.) the notion that some kind of lasting “peace” for all humankind forevermore is achievable
f.) the notion that you can build the kind of vital and durable civilization that we have in fact built without having an ongoing public conversation about God be part of the exchange of ideas that builds it”
I could probably think of a few more items, but you get the idea.
Then there is the level on which we outline the principles that guide us in asserting what we do stand for as specific issues arise in our society.
I know it’s less easy to define and quantify, but the level on which conservatism is examined as a dispostion, a mindset, an attitude, ought to be part of the debate. If your read Kirk’s ten principles, they are really tendencies. They spell out a direction that a conservative’s response to a given societal development takes.
I think a conservative first and foremost takes his cue from history. We have some ten thousand years’ worth of clues as to what works and what doesn’t. Granted, not all institutions, customs or philosophies of governance that lasted a long time have been good, but even in these we can see what righted them with effectiveness and finality.
I also think the conservative, broadly defined, is instinctively wary of the notion of “fairness.” At first glance, a number of things look fair that, upon closer examination, must be regarded in light of nature’s parameters. A handy example of this is the feminist movement. It seems to the observer employing rationality but not referencing biology, psychology or history that men and women are equally suited for anything and everything in this world, from esoteric feats of engineering to nurturing infants to commanding armies to making a home feel like a home. Such an observer would surely conclude that questions of provision, protection, and final decision-making in family situations should not be colored by gender considerations. Alas, when what we know of the above fields of inquiry is brought to bear on our assessment, we are compelled to move toward some other kind of conclusion. Other examples abound, and as I think of them, I’ll use them for future posts on this subject.
My main point, though, is that there is some intuition involved in how a conservative thinks and operates. It’s a little like Louis Armstrong’s remark that if one has to ask what jazz is, he’ll never know.
The Freedom-Haters – yes, there’s that term, and I’ll keep on using it because it is flawlessly accurate – are taking great delight at the cacophony breaking out all over our side. I’m not denying the real points of difference that make for the din, but I think that as our hoss sense ever more clearly tells us that what is being done to a civilization we had assumed to be immutable will in fact destroy it, we’ll find our common ground fairly quickly.
