While working on a recording together, Johnny Cash asked Bob Dylan if he knew "Ring of Fire." Dylan said he did and began to play it on the piano, croaking it out in typical Dylanesque fashion. When he was done he turned to his new friend and said, "It goes something like that, right?"
"No," said Cash shaking his head. "It doesn't go like that at all."
I can understand how Cash must have felt. Often when I hear politicians and pundits talk about "conservatism" all I can think is "It doesn't go like that at all." Most Americans--even those who self-identify as conservatives--appear to have no idea what the word even means.
Conservatives are likely the smallest philosophical faction in American. As a group they are dwarfed by the three L's: liberals, (small-L) libertarians, and lemmings (those who don’t even bother to think for themselves). Indeed, the majority of people who claim to be conservatives are really just conservative libertarians--the reverse being an oxymoron. What Russell Kirk, one of the greatest conservative thinkers of our time, wrote just over a decade ago is even truer today:
"Incidentally, now and again one reads of two camps of alleged conservatives: 'traditionalists conservatives and libertarian conservatives.' This is as if a newspaperman were to classify Christians as 'Protestant Christians and Muslim Christians.'
However, my lament is not that libertarians outnumber conservatives (though that does cause me concern) but rather that our collective failure to understand what constitutes a conservative philosophy or worldview is preventing us from increasing our tribe.
Part of the problem is that conservatism is such a slippery term. Unlike liberalism, nationalism, or socialism, conservatism isn't a distinct ideology. In fact, conservatism, as historian H. Stuart Hughes noted, is the "negation of ideology." Yet as Russell Kirk explained,
Although it is no ideology, conservatism may be apprehended reasonably well by attention to what leading writers and politicians, generally called conservative, have said and done…"Conservatism", to put the matter another way, amounts to the consensus of the leading conservative thinkers and actors over the past two centuries.
Herein lies another difficulty: Too many of us believe that conservatism began with Goldwater and ended with Reagan. Although these men were indispensable towering figures of the "conservative movement", they are not the sole actors that have shaped our heritage (indeed, one of them wasn't a conservative at all).
As for the "leading conservative thinkers", most of us are wholly unfamiliar with Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Abraham Kuyper, T.S. Eliot, or Erick Voegelin. Instead we learn about "conservative thought" from talk radio(!).
Of course, when I say "we" what I mean is "me." I call myself a conservative yet have failed to develop a coherent philosophy. I have failed to pay attention to what leading conservative writers and politicians have said and done. I have failed to consider the consensus of the leading conservative thinkers and actors. And I have failed to develop a coherent conservative philosophy of politics and society.
This infrequent series of posts will be my attempts to correct that error and to share with others what I discover. Though they may be stated dogmatically (a stylistic trope I have the unfortunate tendency of falling into) my conclusions and opinions should be taken as tentative probings. I am neither a Burke nor a Kirk so my views on conservatism will certainly be debatable. Nevertheless, I hope that you'll join me in exploring the contours of conservatism. Before we can save the movement we must first understand what we are saving.
Posts in the On Conservatism series:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4121
1
You may want to check out David Hume's version of conservatism also.
posted on 01.10.2008 12:18 AM2
So, your purpose is to redefine it so that it fits you belief system?
posted on 01.10.2008 11:55 AM3
So, your purpose is to redefine it so that it fits you belief system?
No, my purpose is to restore the term to its original meaning.
posted on 01.10.2008 12:10 PM4
Joe, I agree with what you say (or cite) about conservatism being a form of anti-ideology. Sociologically speaking, identity is not possible without negation, and sophisticated, well-structured identities comprise both negation and affirmative, constructive depictions of ideas and practices.
May I join you with a tentative proposal? I put this out there hoping for critical feedback. The formulation I"m about to write may well need correction. Here is one succinct statement of negation that informs conservatism:
Government does not exist to mitigate the consequences of peoples' foolish choices.
Families exist in part to mitigate the consequences of foolish choices. The Church, as the primary visible expression of the Kingdom of God on earth, exist in part to mitigate the consequences of foolish choices.
But government does not.
posted on 01.10.2008 12:23 PM5
GL:
I'd say that slightly differently. I'd say that government does not exist to eliminate the consequences of peoples' foolish choices. Government does exist to limit the consequences of peoples' foolish choices to other people.
Feel free to continue to embellish and/or correct.
posted on 01.10.2008 1:51 PM6
This is a great start.
posted on 01.10.2008 4:25 PM7
Already, your definition of conservatism is at odds with your promotion of populism. Populism appeals to the majority against "them" elitist smarty-pants (a minority) who don't think for themselves, but think they can lead you all around just by flattering you and holding out impossible hopes and turning you against those smarty-pants elites who keep you down. But you say true conservatives are perhaps the smallest thinking group there is, outnumbered by liberals, libertarians and lemmings. Very low and snarky rhetoric. Am I supposed to follow you now, after you've called me a lemming? Be careful, because it looks like you're just another elite who thinks he can offend the majority because he thinks the people, or history, or God is on his side. But this is technically a democracy and we lemmings rule. If you really want to be a populist you'd better start stifling your elitist urge to insult us and begin emphasizing all the great things your man can do for us by righteously punishing those pinheads and rich folks. We're not interested in your pedantic redefining of political terms, we just want their money. Just tell us God wants it for us too - then you can have your power, laws and programs.
posted on 01.10.2008 5:44 PMstay on message. (for more on populism and its potential for appealing to the lowest common denominator come join us over at Camp Edwards - he has all Huck's compassion, moral responsibility to the people, and even vaguer God-talk. or visit my liberation theology website).
8
Already, your definition of conservatism is at odds with your promotion of populism. Populism appeals to the majority against "them" elitist smarty-pants (a minority) who don't think for themselves, but think they can lead you all around just by flattering you and holding out impossible hopes and turning you against those smarty-pants elites who keep you down. But you say true conservatives are perhaps the smallest thinking group there is, outnumbered by liberals, libertarians and lemmings. Very low and snarky rhetoric. Am I supposed to follow you now, after you've called me a lemming? Be careful, because it looks like you're just another elite who thinks he can offend the majority because he thinks the people, or history, or God is on his side. But this is technically a democracy and we lemmings rule. If you really want to be a populist you'd better start stifling your elitist urge to insult us and begin emphasizing all the great things your man can do for us by righteously punishing those pinheads and rich folks. We're not interested in your pedantic redefining of political terms, we just want their money. Just tell us God wants it for us too - then you can have your power, laws and programs.
posted on 01.10.2008 5:44 PMstay on message. (for more on populism and its potential for appealing to the lowest common denominator come join us over at Camp Edwards - he has all Huck's compassion, moral responsibility to the people, and even vaguer God-talk. or visit my liberation theology website).
9
Mike Stimpson,
That is a helpful corrective. Well said.
posted on 01.11.2008 1:07 AM10
Joe, there was no "original meaning", just a series of interrelated theories and opinions through time. Conservatism wasn't handed down on carved tablets from God.
Funny that you would include Richard Weaver. Weaver thought that the decline of the West began with the triumph of Nominalism over Realism, going back to the days of William of Ockham. So all the accomplishments of western science and learning that developed in its wake is a sign of decadence. He pegged the downfall of music with Beethoven, not jazz or swing. You don't get any more paleo than that. His ideal for society was the antebellum South. So how do you reconcile such a figure as Weaver, who had no problem with slavery, with your family first conservatism that takes the dignity of every human being as a first principle?
posted on 01.12.2008 11:18 AM