From the Right
Good evening, gentle readers.
I will be the partaking the role of the voice of the Conservative within the confines of strangeland.net . Conservatism is a mutable, subjectively defined ideology when used in the context of popular culture. I will be using a bit more tried and rigid framework, borrowing heavily from Russel Kirk for the first principles of conservatism.
(1) Belief that a Divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.
(2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
(3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes. The only true equality is moral equality; all other attempts at levelling lead to despair, if enforced by positive legislation.
(4) Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic levelling is not economic progress. Separate property from private possession and liberty is erased.
(5) Faith in prescription and distrust of ’sophisters and calculators.’ Man must put a control upon his will and his appetite, for Conservatives know man to be governed more by emotion than by reason. Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man’s anarchic impulse.
(6) Recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress. Society must alter, for slow change is the means of its conservation, like the human body’s perpetual renewal; but Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of Providential social forces.
I will admit that my views are far from the only ones that will exist within the Conservative camp; indeed, most of the diversity in political thought today is the product of debate among Conservatives — if you doubt this, consider the number of legislative matters on the agenda – voucher and school choice, privatization of Social Security, tax reform, and legal definitions of marriage– all are the interests of different factions of the Conservative movement.
My arguements will often be supplimented by the thoughts of others whom will be given due citation for their contributions and recognition to the best of my ability. I claim no unique thought, or special wisdom, as I firmly believe in the Conservative tradition, that over twenty centuries of Western Civilization has tested and refined what works and what leads to human misery far better than any individual’s ego-driven mind ever could.
As an heir to a rich philisophical and intellectual tradition that remains peopled by vibrant, active thinkers, I will not hesitate to let their influence shine through. D’Souza, Regan, Goldwater, Kirk, and Burke will all make their presences felt through my writing. If you have issue with my content, I will be happy to address comments and inteligible feedback. There is a point beyond which no person should stoop, though, and I will not sink to the level of arguement with fools, lest the reader forget which role I am fulfilling in the exchange.
The Conservative tradition is not limited to a single political party or interest group; it is, however, not an unlimited, all-encompassing theory. It is exclusive only within the confines of the principles underpinning the ideas. No person is born a Lesser Being morally; there is no inherent personal/racial/national superiority.
Conservatism emphasizes the possible over the ideal, the pragmatic over the perfect plan, past experience over future promises.
Let us begin our discussions in the hope of gaining an understanding of one another; even if we cannot reach agreement, we can learn about ourselves and our neighbors.
Your philosophy definately falls into one branch of the Conservative movement, but certainly does not span that movement.
For instance, you do not really talk about foreign policy. Traditional Conservatism is usually ranges from isolationist to reserving involvement to direct threats against the country (thus the nomenclature of the Neo-Conservatives who advocate a more aggressive foreign policy for various reasons). I am curious where you sit on that subject.
I do not think that the “average” Conservative distills all political problems to religious ones and it seems to me that your views fall more in the realm of the Social Conservative camp of the GoP (at least in that area).
Point 5 is odd since it is often seen that Liberalism is the politics of emotion and Conservatism seen as the politics of reason (though I suspect that both sides feel that way).
I do agree with you that the majority of political discourse appears to be coming from the Conservative camp. I think this is more because of their majority standing and the coalition nature of the caucus that the GoP currently maintains. When you pitch a large tent to accomodate many views, you get a lot of ideas as well.
dbroussa: Point 5 is odd since it is often seen that Liberalism is the politics of emotion and Conservatism seen as the politics of reason (though I suspect that both sides feel that way).
Strictly from a philosophical standpoint modern liberalism is an extension of the Rationalist movement, which places greater emphasis on reason than emotion. The idea behind this being that only those subjects that can be rationally defined within the scope of our senses can be used to come to a rational decision. The epithet of “emotional Liberals” is an extension of the “Bleeding-Heart-Liberal”, which again finds its origin in slurs against the defense of protections for the poor.
Is this to say that Conservatives are the emotional side of the spectrum, no. Only that the idea of one side being more emotional (and therefore less capable) than the other is an ad hominem. But we will all have the opportunity to get into that one later on.
Code_archaeologist: I agree with you in that both sides rely equally on both reason and emotion for their arguments. I think it is possible to make an argument that one side uses emotion to propose an argument and then rational ideas to argue it, while the other side uses rational beliefs to propose an argument and then bases that argument on emotion (or rather not on reason).
In the end every person is different, as are their arguments. Publius has been chosen to represent the “right” on this blog and I want to point out that he represents only one facet of the “right”.
Mr. Broussard,
The positions I advocate are genuinely Conservative positions, not conservative positions. The average American may well be a conservative, but not a Conservative– yet.
The difference is usually lost on most people, but I believe you understand the difference, despite the lack of acknowledgement in prior comments. I will point to the overlooked sections of the previous text.
[Little C] conservatism is a mutable, subjectively defined ideology when used in the context of popular culture. I will be using a bit more tried and rigid framework, borrowing heavily from Russel Kirk for the first principles of Conservatism.
Kirk’s principles echo those of Edmund Burke and other prominent intellectual Conservatives to differentiate their beliefs from any variant of liberal political philosophy, whether it what is loosely termed ‘market liberalism’ or classical liberalism, or God help us, Post-modern liberalism. To some extent, all politicians in the modern discourse speak in mixed terms, whether it be embracing free-market Capitalism or the advocation of state intervention in social levelling whilst still embracing an idea of the good life and the morally responsible state.
I will speak to and on conservative standpoints as they do dominate political culture and discourse in the United States. I will, however, represent a Conservative viewpoint.
Within the Republican Party exist real differences that threaten to sunder an unstable coalition of Conservatives, Free-Market liberals, and Libertarian thinkers. Political parties forget that they lack ideological uniformnity at their own hazard; one need look no further than the collapse of the modern Democratic coalition that dominated the US Congress for more than 50 years.
As to Point 5– Conservatives are the supporters of Institutionalism – Constitutions, Churches, Courts, the Rule of Law, the nuclear family– these are the structures that have sustained Western Civilization and made its ascendancy possible.
No less than the venerable Edmund Burke said it best when stating ‘People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.’ — the essence of Conservatism is a profound skepticism to newly revealed wisdom whether it be in terms of proposed social engineering or Keynesian economics– man learns little in the space of a generation that is worth knowing.
Conservatism in Foreign Policy is a case-by-case basis. There are circumstances where realpolitik will cast the advantages of a given position as an absolute necessity to guard the physical and moral well-being of a people. In other circumstances, moral linkages may dictate actions where they seem counter-intuitive to interests. The Conservative is, above all else, interested in that which works– those things that are proven by experience and time to be standards.