Eclipsing Liberty

 

I have a recollection of Conservatism in American politics and culture.  It may be outdated; it may be inaccurate, but it seems quite clear.  While it was characterized by a respect for tradition and authority, it also respected individual freedom.  Freedom from government interference in the thoughts and lives of individuals, specifically.

While its fetishization of the past and accepted customs made it-over suspicious of change and too willing to tolerate established injustices, it was possible to acknowledge its merits because, at least in theory, it abjured autocracy and totalitarianism.  That's no longer the case with respect to what passes for Conservatism today. 

Nor do those who pass for conservatives now have any concern for the freedom of individuals from the control of government. On the contrary, they apparently favor government control, provided they find the government favorable.  As long as that's the case they seem entirely willing to ignore the restrictions of the powers of government the Founding Fathers built into the foundations of our Great Republic.

This is an extremely selfish and short-sighted position for them to take.  They sanction the unrestricted imposition of control by a regime they disfavor which might replace the current regime.  Thomas More said something to the effect that he would give the devil protection of the law to protect himself from the depredations of government. It's difficult to believe that those who call themselves conservatives now lack this wisdom.

It's unclear whether this willingness to see the power of government used to restrict individual liberty is the result of self-indulgence on their part, or fear, or some other irrational motivation.  It may be, though, that H.L. Mencken was right and they value security far more than they value liberty.

That security likely is, for them, security from the freedom of others to do and think as they believe to be appropriate.  This would explain their toleration of if not support for government intrusion in education and regulation of lifestyles, heath, art and entertainment; even of history, Soviet-style.

It's a strange sort of Conservatism that seeks to radically increase the powers of a central government to regulate and curtail life and liberty in what has, traditionally, considered itself to be "the land of the free."

The Continuing Vulgarization of Conservatism

One of the many aspects of our times, and our country, which sadden me is the deterioration of a once reasonable political, social and cultural perspective--conservatism--into a contemptible, irrational, self-righteous, dull, bigoted, totalitarian and often preposterous ideology, worthy of Jonathan Swift's Yahoos or members of the Know-Nothing Party.

I say "reasonable" as opposed to, say, "admirable" because I think reasonableness is the best we can expect in matters involving politics (and perhaps in anything we humans do).  Even when it was respectable (which stopped being the case not all that long ago) conservatism had its share of loonies and stout defenders of the primitive and immoral.   The normally shrewd and thoughtful Edmund Burke, a great figure in conservatism, wrote, infamously, an extremely silly kind of Romantic rhapsody regarding Marie Antoinette in his work regarding the French Revolution.  John Calhoun, who seems to have had a sharp intellect, unfortunately devoted it to rigorously defending the institution of slavery.  But much the same may be said of liberalism and its devotees.

Conservatism once stood for limited government to facilitate the exercise of individual rights.  This position requires a commitment to laws which protect individuals from the limitation of rights arising from government power and authority, which in turn requires a commitment to the rule of law.  A commitment to the rule of law requires that the law be deemed to apply in all cases, subject only to reasonable exceptions, the purpose of which is not to restrict liberty but to foster it.

Conservatives in this country continue to pay lip-service to these ideals, but are ready and in some cases eager to disregard them.  That's because they take the position that they know what's best for everyone and the country, and seek to use the law and government power to impose what they know is best, whether other citizens agree that is the case or not.  It is, after all, for their own good or if not for their own good than it's for the good of anyone who matters.

This is of course reflective of the same kind of arrogance and totalitarian thinking conservatives once maintained were characteristic of liberals and liberalism.  This repressive stance may explain why many now prefer to identify themselves as libertarians or "independents" rather than conservatives.

An acquaintance of mine who is conservative recently responded to my complaints about conservatism by stating that the view that individuals should be free to do what they want provided they don't harm others was all very well and good when there was a consensus regarding what was appropriate conduct and thought, but that's no longer the case.  So, presumably, individuals should no longer be free to do and think what they like.  It's a telling statement, one that indicates that concerns with individual liberty are not all that concerning, to conservatives.  What is significant is conformity to certain standards.

As may be guessed, given the timing of this post, it was made in connection with the Jenner situation.  We Americans have always been unduly fascinated by sex, of course, as well as gender, or what may more properly be called how we perceive and broadcast our gender and that of others.  In this case we have someone who is or wants to be a woman seemingly eager to relate that to the world at large, thereby assuring an adverse reaction from those who are disturbed by it which has also been related to the world at large.  I care nothing about sex between, to use a cliche, consenting adults, and think it should not be of any concern to others, but think those who try to make it our business one way or another are wrong to do so.

In other words, I have no desire to hear of it.  It may be that Jenner has sought this publicity, in which case an adverse reaction should have been expected.  I assume yet another "reality show" will soon appear.  But the adverse reaction is nonetheless founded on a belief that something is permissible and other things impermissible, and this is a belief today's conservatives take with increasing frequency; worse yet, they seem inclined to use the law and government power to eradicate what they consider impermissible.

Conservatives seem particularly inclined at this time to adopt laws or interpret or apply laws in such a manner as to prevent, or limit, the conduct of those who don't think as they do, and to preclude even the presence of those different from them in the United States.  The U.S. is very much a product of the Enlightenment; it's Constitution is very much the product of Enlightenment thinkers.  Yet it is insisted it is a "Christian nation" which is to attribute a certain religion to the nation contrary to the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers.  It is a nation of immigrants not only because its laws allowed immigration, but because it accorded to immigrants the same rights accorded to other citizens.  Conservatives seem less and less inclined to allow immigration and to allow others to seek let alone possess the benefits of citizenship.

Conservatives have begun to favor certain rights over others.  The fetishistic regard for the Second Amendment, uber alles as it were, is a symptom of this rejection of the rule of law, as is the growing tendency not to take a neutral stance as to religion but to favor religious beliefs and conduct (but only Christian in nature) in legal situations.  Zoning decisions are now subject to strict scrutiny if they involve religious uses.  The use of the law to provide for the teaching of religious beliefs in the form of creationism is another example of the new conservative urge to legislate in such a manner as to assure that what they think appropriate is taught.

In short, conservatism as a political and cultural force has become a threat to individual liberty.  Conservatives want us to be free to do as we please provided we do as they please.  They don't want us to do otherwise, and actively seek to prevent us from doing so. 

It's natural to wonder how far this perversion of traditional conservatism, which has its basis in classical liberalism, will go.  Ultimately, I think, what is now called conservatism has its basis in fear (and loathing, I suppose, as the late Hunter Thompson would day).  Fear of change, of most everything that is different.  It's likely that change will come regardless of efforts to prevent it from taking place, because to put it simply and frankly, people die.  It seems most who call themselves conservatives are older, and overwhelming white.  The demographics of this country are changing, and the older of us generally die before the younger do. 

No Balm in Gilead?

It's interesting that we expect others to understand, or at least recognize, phrases or stories taken from the Bible.  The Old and New Testaments have permeated Western imagination and thought, at least to the extent they supply ready grist for a variety of mills, reference points, expressions, thought-images.  The West has other common reference points as well, of course.  Most of us know instantly what is intended when the Trojan Horse is mentioned, for example, or when reference is made to Caesar crossing the Rubicon.  These are commonalities of the Western mind, foundations on which may be placed all manner of constructs and comparisons.  Analogy can instantly prompt understanding in certain cases.

Here I refer to the sickness which characterizes our Great Republic, and the question whether we have become a hopeless case; thus, no balm in Gilead.  Jeremiah 8:22 according helpful Google.  Not quite as common a reference as would be one to the Walls of Jericho, or Daniel in the lion's den, I know, but you see this healing balm referred to by Poe in his poem The Raven, and elsewhere.

I know--you tire as I do of doomsayers.  There are so many of them and they are so insistent and noisy.  This is especially the case, as it always is, with those who have much to lose and are fearful of losing it, and with the old.  What was the case will not be the case, more than likely, and change, though the darling of nature as it was called by Marcus Aurelius, has always evoked fear among those who cannot abide change.  The content are satisfied with what they are and what they have and care next to nothing about anything but remaining content.  When there is a chance that something will happen which would endanger their satisfaction, however, they are rabid in their defense of the status quo. 

"Radical conservatism" has a nice ring to it, but I hesitate to call "conservative" what passes for the Right Wing these days in our Glorious Union.  "Radical" seems an appropriate enough word, however, though "reactionary" may be more appropriate.  Intelligent conservatism doesn't deny that change will occur or maintain that change is in all cases something bad, something to be avoided at all costs.  If that was the case then J.S. Mill's remark that most stupid people are conservatives would be true, as stupidity is required if one is to object to all change, any change.

A true conservative may be cautious in making changes, and leery of social experiments when engaged in by the government, but isn't ipso facto against all change and an unswerving supporter of tradition.  Conservatives once thought, and may even have thought truly, that they were more reasonable than their Liberal counterparts.  But it is necessary to employ reason in order to be reasonable, and reason seems to be something those who style themselves as conservatives now conspicuously lack.

Today's conservatism is in fact anti-reason, anti-science, anti-education.  It scoffs at evidence of climate change.  It would be more reasonable to acknowledge the evidence and do something about it rather than yammering over whether or not it is in whole or in part or not at all related to the conduct of our rapidly multiplying and exceedingly selfish species.  It seeks to require than creationism be taught in school; that homosexual relationships be at best ignored if not criminalized, but in any case recognized as qualitatively different from heterosexual relationships and accorded no status in the law; that our nation involve itself militarily in disputes all over the planet; that drug use be criminalized; media regulated; religion (Christian, that is) not merely tolerated but encouraged and granted special benefits by the law, and seeks to make what was intended to be a secular state assuring religious freedom into a state actively fostering religion of a particular kind.

I don't mean to claim that conservatism is the disease we suffer from, first because conservatism has been jettisoned but also because what may be a fatal disease is one that runs deeper, and has its basis in the abandonment of reason as a guide to conduct.  This has many consequences, but among them is a tendency to tribalism and thoughtless adherence to what is familiar.

What conservatism has lost sight of is its roots in classical liberalism, which emphasized individual rights and civil liberties.  Today's conservatives want people to act in specified ways and to think, if at all, in a particular manner.  They do not want people to have the freedom to live as people themselves think best; they want people to live as they do.  Today's conservatives seek to create their own version of a nanny state, they've merely chosen a different kind of nanny interested in pursuing other goals.  Their nanny is God-fearing, traditional, close-minded, distrustful, insular and unreasonable.

There may in fact be balm in Gilead, though, but if so it is not a balm which need be applied.  Death may be the ultimate medicine for our nation's illness.  Death and globalization. Soon, those who call themselves conservatives will die off, and it is not at all clear that there will be others to take the place.  Unfortunately, it's not likely that this will result from the fact that younger generations will be better educated and more reasonable than their hidebound elders.  It will more likely result from the fact that the traditions to which their elders adhere will dissipate as we all come to be more familiar with different customs, different traditions.

What conservatives should be doing is assuring that reason and science are given prominent places in education and that the young grow used to employing critical thinking in decision making.  This would be the best way to assure that actions are taken only after intelligent consideration.  But critical thinking is not respectful of tradition and generally not indulged in by those who want nothing more than to have things just as they are or were.

Pennies from Heaven

I tend to read a fair amount, and being somewhat eclectic in my reading (at least when it comes to politics) I sometimes read National Review just as I sometimes read The New Republic, and sometimes Reason and sometimes The Nation.  I came across an article in National Review which attempted to make the interesting point that conservatives would be well advised to tout capitalism for moral reasons as well as, or perhaps even more so than, for reasons related to its purported efficiency as a tool for creation of wealth.   The author noted that the Right is at a disadvantage because the Left typically attacks capitalism on moral grounds but the Right fails to defend it from such attacks.  Appeals to morals are generally more persuasive than appeals to efficiency is, essentially, the argument made.  Therefore, the Left is winning the ideological battle , because it positions itself on the moral high ground and the Right makes no effort to take it.

Just what, though, is compellingly moral about capitalism?  Well, it can be said that it is founded on the idea that we should all have the benefits of our own labor, and on the idea that those who work harder and more efficiently are entitled to more than those who don't, and on the idea that those who demand benefits while not inclined to work for them shouldn't receive those benefits, particularly to the disadvantage of others.  It can be maintained, then, that capitalism's moral basis is its appeal to and incorporation of the concept of fairness.

There is a certain danger in this approach, though, if it is used to justify the great accumulation of wealth by some in light of the poverty of others.  Even those of the Right must recognize that it is at least conceivable that some are poor not due to their own laziness but for other reasons and that many of the wealthy have far more than they could possibly need to live comfortably.  Is it fair that some have such wealth while others do not?  What use is such wealth, unless one is interested in living a life of unmitigated self-indulgence?  Does the fact that the extremely wealthy worked for their wealth (if that is the case) justify their retention of that wealth for no reason but for the fact it is their wealth?

The call for the moral justification of capitalism is presumably prompted by the hue and cry over taxing the rich more than others (said to be unfair, or class warfare), and fears that our President and his cohorts are determined to socialize the United States and redistribute wealth.   But the Right has a difficult task in front of it in this respect, as it is difficult, very difficult sometimes, to sympathize with the "plight" of the wealthy.

For someone like me, who has concerns regarding government regulation of our lives, the idea of the government stepping in to assure that all is right and well is frightening.  The belief that government should do this goes back at least to Plato, a kind of archetypal anti-democrat.  He was rather fond of analogies, and one of them was that of the ship; the ship of state.  We wouldn't trust a novice to sail a ship, we would want an expert captain to do so.  Only such a captain would have the knowledge to guide the ship safely to its destination.  We need an expert to captain the ship of state.  We wouldn't want the passengers to do so, would we?

The problem is that in Plato's system, and I fear in the case of any government which considers itself to be the best judge of what is good for its citizens, the captain of the ship not only sails the ship, the captain determines where it is to go as well.  Normally, of course, if we charter a ship we wouldn't presume to operate it, but we would expect it to go where we want it to go, not where the captain and crew think we should go.

I think that if the Right wants to make a moral case for capitalism, it will have to proceed cautiously, especially as to claims of fairness.  The Right must resign itself to the fact that there is nothing admirable about the accumulation of great wealth, i.e. wealth beyond that needed for someone to live comfortably and assure that those one loves may do so as well.  The claim sometimes made by the defenders of the wealthy that they "create jobs" will not play well, and it is questionable that most of them do this unless they invest that wealth, which would seem to require that they part with it.  In these times especially, we can't rely on pennies falling from their pockets like those once dreamed to be falling from heaven. 

For one who professes to be a Stoic, the accumulation of wealth would seem to be the accumulation of things which are indifferent, to which we should be indifferent.  It would seem to lessen the chance of attaining wisdom and serenity, and increase the chance of corruption of mind and body.  This is of course the great problem Seneca had in claiming to be a Stoic.  Someone who tries to be a Stoic in these times walks on an edge, like many others do.  The accumulation of wealth, and the wealthy, are not admirable, but for government to take their property or restrict their liberty is not admirable either.  How, then, should we proceed?

Libertarianism, Liberalism, Conservatism and the Dangers of Idealism

Reading Murray Rothbard can, in a sense, be comforting to someone with libertarian leanings.  This is because Rothbard recognizes that the libertarian view has its origins in what was called classical liberalism, and is antipathetic to authoritarianism in all its forms, theocratic, feudal, aristocratic, collectivist, mercantile.  This is comforting because Libertarianism has come to be associated with Conservatism (note the capital letters) and Conservatism, at least in these dark times, is unattractive in several respects.

This is not to say that what is now called Liberalism is particularly attractive, and certainly not when compared with classical liberalism.  Both Liberalism and Conservatism as currently practised in what remains of our great republic seem overwhelming concerned with controlling us, in one way or another, for our own good, of course.  And both seem intent on manipulating the government to do so, albeit in different ways.

Liberals have for some time thought that only government can save us from those who have the power to enslave us, and some of them appear to believe that we can only avoid this enslavement if most all aspects of our lives are regulated by the government.  Conservatives, while claiming that we must have less government, seem sometimes to feel primarily that less government means less government authority to prevent us from acceding to certain social and religious standards.  Federal government, and particularly the federal courts, should not have the power to prevent us from living as we feel appropriate, nor should it have the power to prevent us from requiring others to live as we feel appropriate, something it is believed can be achieved most readily through local government.

Rothbard notes that for those who prize liberty, there is little difference between the kind of collectivism associated with "communism" and the authoritarian government which arises through a partnership of the government with great business interests, sometimes associated with organized religion as a not very silent third partner.  This may be called fascism by some, but I hesitate to use the term as it is used so commonly these days that I'm uncertain it is meaningful in any useful sense.

I view Liberalism and Conservatism (and other things as well) as ideologies disassociated from the practical in the sense that they're dependent on certain ideals which are unquestionable, notwithstanding facts or circumstances to the contrary.  And it seems to me that the reliance on such ideals is the result, in part at least, of certain kinds of philosophical idealism.

John Dewey once gave a series of lectures at around the time of the First World War which were subsequently published under the name German Philosophy and Politics.  In those lectures he opined, with many a caveat, on the relation between German Idealism and the German Politics (and it should be said militarism) of that time.  It's an interesting read, if only because he is on occasion witty, indeed wry and sardonic at times, and at least in my reading of him this is unusual.  That it should come at the expense of German Idealism is perhaps not surprising in a pragmatist, and is in any case enjoyable to me as I'm not fond of German Idealism and the German Romanticism I think comes with it almost necessarily.

As I understand him, he sees in this idealism a kind of substitution of Divine Providence with the a priori.   Humans in a way impose on nature certain forms or categories, and these may include moral concepts such as duty.  These do not result from experience, nor do they result from God.  They are not of divine origin, but they are nonetheless supersensible, and it seems that certain German thinkers feel that Germans, whether due to their language or their unique aspects are particularly good at understanding them.  Others tend to think empirically only; they base their judgments purely on consequences or utility, for example.

Even when the a priori is claimed to be rational in some sense, viewing such knowledge or morality as distinct from what we experience--as something which experience is formed by, something which facts are to fit within as necessary--can lead to the belief that they should be controlling regardless of facts, regardless of consequences.  And therein lies the danger, as when we begin living our lives, or demanding that others live their lives, regardless of consequences according to certain unquestionable ideals which cannot be corrected or modified even if problems result in the "real world" we can be very dangerous indeed.

Making judgments based on reasonable methods shown to be successful rather than ideals, and allowing for modification of judgments based on circumstances and results, abjuring certainty, may not be inspiring or glorious, but it may be the only way we can live our lives freely, neither dominating nor dominated by others.