There has been some interesting discussion in this part of the internet recently about the nature of what it means to be “conservative” in political, or even in philosophical, terms. To start things off, Edward Trimnell criticized Vox Day in general for being unrepresentative of the ideals of what Trimnell sees as the conservative movement:
– Real conservatives aren’t sexist.
– Real conservatives aren’t racist.
– Real conservatives believe in the separation of church and state.(Some of the most influential and prolific conservative thinkers have been women and minorities, by the way: Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, and Jeane Kirkpatrick–just to name a few. And most of the Founding Fathers were lukewarm on the subject of religion.)
That is real conservatism. Phony conservatism is something else. “Phony conservatism” is the attempt to mix legitimate conservative principles with gender, religious, or ethnic biases.
This is not conservatism at all–but a cynical appeal to barnyard tribalism and group identity politics, the same thing that the Left preaches, only for different political ends.
As Vox quickly pointed out, Trimnell’s conservative vision is not meaningfully conservative in the grand sweep of history:
Due to its false foundations, his “conservatism” is not only neither rational nor coherent, it is more firmly in accordance with the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution than anything that can be credibly identified with conservative thought dating back to Athens.
The core of the problem is that the underlying political philosophy of the United States finds its roots in the ideals of the Enlightenment and the French Revolutionary period. Even though these were expressed somewhat differently in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution than they were in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the main ideas are congruent — all men are created equal, and the highest order principles are liberty and equality. All of our political discussions take these principles, these ends, as givens. The “debate” between the left and the right is about the relative importance of each, how each is to be properly defined, how each is best to be realized in policy terms, how each applies in different spheres, and, above all, about the appropriate speed and timing of substantial change, but both the left and the right see themselves as champions of the principles of liberty and equality.
And therein lies the problem.
If the political history of the U.S. since its inception is to be traced to these ideals of the Enlightenment and French Revolutionary period, then, of course, any conservatism which finds itself ensconced in the heart of that political history must be constrained by that provenance and find its main meaning within it. That is — our political discourse is all about what we think the heritage of the Enlightenment means, and what we think its best heritage is, and how we think that is to be achieved and when, rather than whether what the Enlightenment preached was good in and of itself. A true opposition would question that baseline, rather than assume a priori its goodness and desirability, and this is precisely why the conservative movement in the United States is neither a true opposition (whether it finds itself in power or not) nor a truly conservative movement, other than in contrast to the left side of the Enlightenment tradition — as between them it is more a dispute about ways, means and timing, rather than ideals. The current right and left in our political discourse really are just two sides of the same coin, each constrained by the same Enlightenment vision.
A true conservatism would question this ubiquitous and unquestioned allegiance to the ideas of the Enlightenment and revolutionary periods. As Mark Hackard has pointed out, Fyodor Dostoevsky identified a similar problem when looking at the political conservatism of his day:
Fyodor Dostoevsky has rightly been called a prophet of the modern age. With a depth of vision unrivalled, he saw that cultural, political, and economic disorder have their main source in a crisis of the spirit. Dostoevsky then foresaw how man’s rebellion against the Transcendent would progressively accelerate into full-blown anarchy. This idea became a central theme of The Possessed, his great counter-revolutionary novel. Within the book particular attention was drawn to the spiritual corruption of the ruling class, the so-called conservative elements of society.
Dostoevsky wrote about Russia, but he was also deeply sensitive to the West’s descent into secularism. By the 19th century “enlightened” European man had hurtled headlong into apostasy, abandoning Christ for the worship of self; his first act of regicide was the murder of God within his heart. Without sacral authority, power was said to derive from the perfect will of “We, The People,” guided by moneyed manipulators and their technocrats. Parties like the GOP and the Tories have done nothing to arrest the decline of our societies because they ultimately share the same radical, anti-traditional principles of the Left. For evidence, look no further than Britain’s rapid transformation into a crime-ridden, multicultural surveillance state, where the ruling Conservatives advance homosexual “marriage” as a matter of moral legitimacy.
The ideals of modernity, manifested in progress, equality, democracy, total individual autonomy, etc. form a counterfeit religion. So long as the self-proclaimed Right holds fast to any of these fantasies, opposition to liberalism is meaningless and purely cosmetic. Rhetorical nods to cultural consolidation, i.e. “family values,” are articulated within the corrosive framework of Enlightenment rights ideology, and only for the purpose of grabbing votes. Does anyone truly contemplate that Republicans will attempt anything meaningful against institutionalized infanticide? Lest we forget, over 50 million unborn children have been slaughtered in the United States since abortion was made legal by the Supreme Court in 1973. It is now a point of pride that American men and women fight for these storied liberties from the Hindu Kush to the Maghreb.
With the traditional West devastated and hierarchy inverted, there is precious little to conserve besides one’s faith and lineage, the necessities for survival and resurgence. But modern conservatives reject the divine-human and heartfelt essence of culture, thereby serving as the liberal order’s most ardent defenders. How easy it is to cheer the next war, demographic dissolution or crass popular amusements, all acts in the founding of a Garden of Earthly Delights, what Dostoevsky imagined as a glorified anthill. The conservative movement knows what’s really important: generous contributions from the financial and defense industries to maintain policies of corporate centralization and overseas empire.
The mainstream Right has led the West to systemic cultural collapse in full collusion with the slightly more radical Left.
Indeed.
In the context of the contemporary West, and the U.S, in particular, conservatism is essentially a waste of time as a distinct political philosophy from the reigning spirit of liberalism. If your allegiance is to the ideas of the Enlightenment, then full-on liberalism is surely a better option, because it adheres even more closely to that agenda and worldview, and does so on a more uncompromising, immediate track. Conservatism functions as its handmaiden in being the sweetener that makes the left’s medicine go down more easily. In a society thoroughly oriented around the ideals of the Enlightenment, as is the case with the United States, this is the political function served by conservatism — support for the more radical agenda of the left by slowing it down and thereby making it more palatable for those portions of society who are more resistant to, and hesitant of, radical change. It seems plausible and understandable that in this context what labels itself as conservatism is more attractive to those members of the society who are less naturally disposed to being accepting of swift and radical change, but this does not really distinguish it fundamentally from the political philosophy of its supposed opponents — the differentiation is relegated to notions of speed, timing and means, whereas both sides share the same basic goals of increased liberty and increased equality.
If one is really interested in countering the juggernaut of leftist thought, one must go outside the Enlightenment tradition, because leftist thought is simply the purer, faster, less compromising manifestation of that tradition. It isn’t the left, or the democrats or labour that is wrong — it’s the underlying philosophy, and it’s a philosophy that the republicans and the tories share almost completely. For people who find themselves at odds with the contemporary system — not just its policies or means, but also its ends — it’s high time to move elsewhere, away from conservatism, and towards other options that more fundamentally address the flaws in the underlying assumptions of our society at their source. Options that address the ends — and not simply squabbling about how to best define the same ends — and not merely the means. And each of these options will be something that is quite different from what we currently call “conservatism”.
I think it’s too simple NovaSeeker to simply equate the Founders – and many other prominent Americans (e.g. Lincoln) – with the Enlightenment and nothing more (Actually the term Enlightenment itself is too simplistic, since for instance the French Enlightenment and the English Enlightenment were quite different, although there was often overlap). They were well aware of the sinfulness of man, of the need to conserve institutions and the like (Consider the constant fears the Founders had of ‘the mob’ as well as the dangers of Ceaserism). They also knew how vital it was for certain institutions – families, religion, and the like – to act as brakes and anchors in the midst of liberalism and capitalism.
As an aside, I’m very glad that you are starting this blog, which I’m sure I will enjoy writing. I’ve long enjoyed the comments you’ve made at blogs like The Social Patholigist – it will be good to read your thoughts in a more elogonated form.
Glad to see that you are blogging. You’re by far my favorite commenter on many of the blogs I read and I always go out of my way to read your comments.
I have several thoughts on this. First, like Jason, I think it’s too simple to equate the Founders with the Enlightenment. This is actually a very common meme, that has as its most visible statement George Will’s “Statecraft as Soulcraft” and also certain passages in Bloom’s Closing. Will’s book came first but he got the argument from Bloom and Bloom’s students.
However, as Jaffa and his students have shown, the American Founders actually had three great sources for their thought: 1) early modern philosophers, above all Locke and Montesquieu; 2) classical republican thought and ancient histories (Federalist 1-14 is basically a long meditation on ancient history and republican theory); and 3) the Bible. Jefferson famously described the sources of the Declaration as being “the elementary books of public right, Aristotle, Cicero, Sidney, Locke &c.”
Regarding #3, there is an assumption today that all the Founders were deists or agnostics. Not so. It certainly fits Jefferson, who was outspoken on that point, and probably Franklin, who was more guarded. Washington, Hamilton and Madison never said a public word against religion and said many things in favor, whatever their private beliefs may have been. Adams was devout. You can make a case that Washington was as well. And then beyond this you have a virtual tidal wave of words from virtually everyone else that was quite religious. The people were quite religious and there is a trove of founding era sermons that links the cause of the revolution to religious principles.
Second, the Enlightenment is a second order problem. The Enlightenment is just the propaganda arm of modernity. Modernity is the real problem.
Now, I agree that “me-too” conservatism is a spent force, and useless. The question of what to replace it with is rather hard however. My own view is some return to ancient notions of teleology, natural right and virtue. I think all these concepts were present at the founding by the way, above all natural right, but it does seem that they have been eroded in the acid bath of modernity.
Is such a return possible in current circumstances? I think, probably not. But modernity is close to being a spent force, exhausted and riven with its own contradictions. Machiavelli describes world-views—both religions and secular—as “sects” that have a life cycle. My sense that modernity is nearing the end of its. What comes next I could not say. However a simple return is likely to be complicated by the ongoing presences of modernity’s two greatest successes, natural science and technology. Absence some kind of total collapse and calamity—which science and technology themselves make less likely—it’s hard to see them going away. And as long as they are around, they complicate (to say the least) a return to older principles of thought.
I also think the effort to find new principles of though blew itself out with Nietzsche and Heidegger. We went as far as we could go in thought and action down that path and the results were very bad. That’s why return is, IMO, the only option.
Just to elaborate point #3, the Declaration makes four specific references to God: “Nature and Nature’s God,” “Creator,” “Supreme Judge of the world,” and “Divine Providence.”
Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance, officially considered along with the Declaration one of the “organic laws” of the United States, begins with “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
And so on.
Off-topic: Cail has raised an important issue a couple of months ago that nobody in the Manosphere seems willing to discuss.
alphagameplan.blogspot.hu/2012/09/communication-and-la-difference.html?showComment=1347482533213#c2783914998473260574
alphagameplan.blogspot.hu/2012/11/the-challenge-of-intersexual.html?showComment=1352419330640#c6578927332237159424
Interesting comments.
I am on the road this weekend but will respond later in the day.
great post.
Barbarosssaaa has a good video about the Gynocentrism of Contemporary conservatism:
The key to your post I think is where you point out (or quote someone else) on the rebellion against the Transcendent.
That’s absolutely correct but let’s be clear that on modernity’s terms, that’s a feature not a bug. It’s been baked into the design from the beginning and is in fact one of the whole points and purposes of modernity.
I’m skipping and simplifying, etc. but … I remember this SNL skit around the 1992 election, a parody of one of the debates. And this shaggy loser gets up (based on a real question from “pony tail guy”) and says, in essence, we want a government that will give us our stuff. Which of you will give us our stuff? And Phil Hartman (RIP) doing a dead-on Clinton, says “In my administration, every American will get their stuff.”
The promise of modernity is to give you your stuff. That’s what they said they would deliver. And they have. Materially, the human race is better off by orders of magnitude today than it has ever been. Thank modernity and the early modern philosophers for that, they made it all possible and got it all rolling.
Now, concomitant with that was to attack the transcendent, above all religion. They thought this was necessary because they thought that religion was holding the world and mankind back. The early moderns were not merely atheists, they were anti-religion. They thought it not merely false but pernicious, an obstacle to “progress” (not incidentally, a concept they invented). So, one of the reasons (really the main reason) that the West is so irreligious today is that for 500 years its leading intellectual lights have been almost all atheists hell bent on undermining and ridiculing faith. A Cardinal Newman here or there, as brilliant as he was, has not been enough to stem that tide.
But that’s not the only reason. There’s also the “bread and circuses” aspect of modernity. Modernity (at least in its original form) essentially reduces man to his appetites and then sets about satisfying them. The physically sated man is a complacent man.
Then you add modernity’s most successful children, science and technology, and they demystify the world to such an extent that to more and more men the whole idea of religion begins to appear ridiculous. Scientists and engineers become de facto the new gods. The provide the “miracle” that most men don’t understand but benefit from every day.
Which is one reason why I said that, going forward, science and technology are a huge problem. If the Enlightenment is modernity’s propaganda arm or PR firm, then science and T are its frontline troops. They are not going away even as political/philosophic modernity collapses.
Spot on. I’ve long argued that ultimately, American conservatism is a fools’ errand, because America was founded on liberal principles, and ultimately, that means a true American conservatism is impossible, because it represents a paradox – trying to conserve what ultimately was liberal from the get-go.
But then, I’m a Canadian and a monarchist and a small-t tory, so I would say that. 🙂
Still working on a response to some of these comments, but a very interesting post by Slumlord offers from very good correctives and additions here.
If you aren’t “racist” then you aren’t conservative. Every principle conservatives value is almost exclusively found among Whites and only White society. Name me some “conservative” non-White area. You can’t.
BTW, Ayn Rand was a racist and supported her tribe’s socialist nation called “Israel.” She sells individualism to the Goyim because her tribe is most threatened by White conservatives. All other groups the easily manipulate. You think her group controls the media by acting as individuals? No. They work together.
[…] Lounge opens its doors; it will shortly point out that Trimnell’s “conservatism” is “essentially a waste of time as a […]