As said elsewhere, finding a “seed” of conservatism is difficult because concepts, like events in a chain of cause, come in a linked sequence.
When we say that the essence of conservatism is consequentialism, this unleashes a host of related concepts. For example, the root of “conservative” is the same as that in “conservation,” which is a preservation and nurturing of good things found in nature.
However, without consequentialism, there really is no conservatism. After all, why care about a forest? We only need so much forest, and so many animals in zoos, for our own human enjoyment. Caring about the environment “for itself” is alien to our utilitarian and individualist mentality.
One way this manifests itself is in originalism, which like conservatism is easily mistaken for worship of the past for past’s sake. In fact, it’s a more complex concept which holds that the original state in which something emerged from nature is its most-tested state, in that it as a whole was tested against its environment and forged by that complete, whole and organic challenge.
It’s entirely different from our human method of designing something for a single purpose and then only later finding out the “incidental” collisions with other aspects of reality. Originalists desire objects and ideas which have already gone through that collision testing over many years, and this is an important aesthetic and moral tendency present in all conservatives.
Wholeness and wholesomeness come from the original complete ideas, originalists argue. Thus if we interpret older ideas in our time, we take them as a whole and supplant as little context as possible. An originalist for example will be horrified by the hip-hop version of Beethoven’s 7th.
Older systems of government and society tend to be less “efficient” than our modern ones, but that is mainly because us enlightened moderns tend to measure results by a single factor — “more cars were produced under capitalism than communism” — without looking at effects on the whole. To a consequentialist, caring about more cars is essential. Ignoring its context is not; in fact, it’s destruction to the whole process.
These older systems relied on originalist concepts such as aesthetics, completeness and a reverence for life itself. To these thinkers, single details did not exist alone, but were connected to all other details, much as every part of a complex machine is necessary like all others.
While they were less singularly effective, these ancient ways were less destructive, and by being less democratic, less prone to we-all-fall-as-one scenarios. These systems were more like organic bodies with a nature as a whole, not granular products like the equal citizens and interchangeable parts of democracy.
Consequentialism measures these things as a whole. What is the best system? The original, organic and whole one. Where do we find this? Through the laboratory of civilization: history. Now that we know it exists, why not choose to decide in favor of this better option, since it is available to us? Because the pretense of others opposes it. However, we can show how the thought process of their pretense leads to our doom. From this chain of cause-effect reasons a conservative is born.
The opposite of consequentialism and conservatism is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism cares about what is best for the largest number of people; however, since they think valuing their preferences over reality is best for them, this rapidly becomes “what the largest number of people think is best for them.”
This in turn becomes the kind of mob scene for which democracies are famous, in which the treasury is spent and the nation borrows itself into bankruptcy to pay for little “gifts” to the citizens, justified by some group of disadvantaged ones whose condition barely improves.
However, from this dichotomy you see which idea works toward conservation and which works toward destruction. Consequentialists care about preservation of the functional; “progressives,” leftists and liberals (all of these terms mean the same thing) care about individual and social emotions.
We call conservatives by that name because they ultimately seek to conserve. For them, all of history has been a battle of a few learned people who realize the value of conservation, against the vast hordes of selfish, stupid and possibly criminal people who want a permissive society for selfish reasons.
It is not that we stand athwart the rails of progress yelling “stop.” What makes us conservatives is that we want any change to be considered in the light of its effects, no matter how distant, and those compared to the grandeur of the past. Those that don’t measure up should be discarded.
While this view will never be as popular as the free-form bazaar that is democracy, in times of trouble people return to it. They catch a glimpse of the civilization they might have had, had they not indulged pretense and had instead pursued a conservative ideal. Shuddering, they push that thought away.
45 queries. 0.975 seconds
It is a great article; however, there are too gaps and inconsistencies doesn’t give us an entire picture. It is way two-dimensional.
It is a very good article, I agree with you.
However, the rest of your comment is not informative or helpful in any way.
That crow he agree with that ferret.
Crow have to read essay many time.
Make no sense of essay first time, not second time.
Third time crow start see past words.
Fourth time crow see Brett him work hard at this.
Crow start see conservative work at make order from chaos.
Chaos fine for chaos. Chaos not fine for conservative.
Conservative sweep leaves and twigs. Move earth. Make garden.
Plant seed. Wait for seed grow. Maybe not see seed make tree.
Plant anyway. Him tend seed and sweep more leaves.
Him work hard. Not work for him. Work not for him. Him smile at work, make order from chaos. Him happy.
Crow forget how write English. Crow not care.
Nobody read anyway.
Crow eat seed.
Leave some.
Seed grow…
I think there’s a lot of truth to this. Conservatives enjoy making order and stability out of chaos. I’m not sure that chaos is really chaos, but for humans to exist, we need a certain type of order. Crows have their own order. Sometimes the two overlap. They’d overlap more if humans would bury power lines and leave more open fields. It should also be considered a shame to waste stale bread on a trashcan when there are avian comrades about.
Crow think crow like comrade Realist.
Crow see many bad human.
Crow think not all human bad.
Not all human all bad.
Crow like stale bread.
If stale bread gluten-free.
Stale bread is best for making croutons. No salad is complete without them. Gluten-free bread is not as bad as people think. It doesn’t stop you up as much. I can’t find a delicate way to say that.
Any time you want to point out those “gaps and inconsistencies” I am willing to listen. I probably didn’t see them but in general these short pieces always have to gloss over complex issues or they’d be a lot longer. If you want to be taken seriously however take a moment or two to jot down your specific objections so it seems like you have read and analyzed the article. Otherwise it looks to many of us like you skimmed it and came up with a general objection or impression only.
Well, whether or not you want to take me seriously is your prerogative, just like Crow’s. I guess I’m not in this business to impress, but to share. If you think I skimmed the article, I guess that is what you think.
But I do find a lot of what you state worthwhile, A. Realist, so I try to point out a basic small one (since I don’t want to write long paragraphs).
So where to begin.
Mr. Stevens talks about conservation being a huge integral part of conservative (hence the sharing the same base word, linguistically). Seeing things in an organic way and not “measuring results by a single factor” (i.e. not having society revolve around single variables).
Good stuff.
However, one argument is that conservatives are highly capitalistic.
I think you know where I’m going with this.
If this the “germinal core” of what conservatives are then why would capitalism be a part of conservatism (mainly Social Darwinism)? The production of creating a good often (not always) comes at the cost of the environment. And in most cases, conservatives side against the environment. If conservatives are people who look at society organically (which is true to a large extent, I’m not denying) then will so many of them forgo the environment to be a leader in some new development?
After all, a huge slur against hippies is to call them “tree-huggers.”
Well, I think some of us are trying to imagine a new breed of conservative. Namely, one that does value the environment over making a quick buck. Economics is definitely not my area of expertise, capitalism is not my pet issue. I do know this, though, economics is one small part of culture. If economics or the greed to make a quick buck is overshadowing our greater values, then tinkering with economics is merely a proxy battle. In this sense the anti-capitalists have it wrong. You can’t change values by tinkering with economics. As I said, capitalism is not my pet issue, thus, for a long time I had a very negative view of these people trying to make a quick buck possibly at the expense of the environment, too. But I finally figured out that the only thing that could temper “hyper-capitalism” was culture, not tinkering with capitalism/economics itself. In this sense, I no longer resent the “capitalists.” If greed at the expense of the environment rubs you the wrong way, then look to the cultural aspects of conservatism rather than the economic ones. And also realize that mainstream conservatism is not necessarily true conservatism. Capitalism and Jesus are not my pet issues (although I am fond of religion), am I automatically not a conservative? Maybe I’m not in the mainstream sense, but I know I’m not a liberal, hippie, or tree-hugger (although I am fond of trees)!
I think Amerika.org tries to take an extremely broad view of things. This is why we can’t get bogged down in very specific and frankly false issues like environment VS. capitalism. It doesn’t work that way. That’s the proxy the media wants you to believe. In a truly integral culture, the economy would essentially be capitalistic, but it would be tempered by real values and culture. People would be so fulfilled by other things they wouldn’t need to make a buck by any means necessary. Don’t let the extremely mainstream view that conservatives “side against the environment” cloud the broader view of things. Amerika.org is trying to imagine what conservatism could be and should be.
In a nutshell, you don’t save the environment by tinkering with the economy. Maybe you save something here and there that way, but it’s not the long term fix.
I wrote a big piece but removed it.
I’m just presenting arguments. Not expressing my exact beliefs on this issue.
Could it be the politics be relative to the historical time periods from which they occur?
You now know why I (currently) have a disdain for pigeon holing.
Culture is hard to control for.
What do you think?
But yes, I see truth in the cultural vitality argument.
It isn’t really a view, when I’m simply stating the reality. A lot of conservatives are this way, are they not?
If conservatism is simply adding to what works and throwing out the majority of what doesn’t (which is what I think the article tries to profess), then wouldn’t conservatives in this present era retain some remnants of conservation, at least?
And, I know that today’s conservatism, based on this site, is just a slightly different shade of liberalism (due the idea that liberalism started in the enlightenment and everything before that was conservative); but still, I would figure, that via an evolution of ideology, ecology would carry over to this “branch” of conservatism–because after all you are trying to conserve “what is.” After all, we are building upon what already works and throwing out what doesn’t.
It is interesting that you use a progressive mind to envision what conservatism is supposed to be [despite what mainstream and past conservatism was], when the cognitive structure of conservative thinking is based upon automatic appeal to tradition.
So, usually, a conservative of this mindset will impulsively argue (due too inherent thought processes) that capitalism works because it is what made the country great. That “American industrialization” is a cornerstone of what is culturally America. “To achieve the American dream.”
Ended up writing another long piece. Damn. I hate myself.
You say you are here to share, Mr. Sun.
Yet you then say that what you share are not your beliefs, only arguments to advance.
I confess, I can make no sense of what you share, whatever it is, and this seems to be not only my perception.
Maybe you could try sharing those things that actually are your beliefs. And sharing them in an organized way.
If you read the comments of regulars, you will notice a clarity and strait-forwardness, that allows easy understanding. This wasn’t always true, but it has developed, over time.
Newcomers often jump in ahead of understanding what works, and what doesn’t. Sometimes it doesn’t work.
Everyone who reads, and comments, here, was a newcomer once. Except for Brett, who is actually Moses.
You probably do have useful things to share, so discovering a successful delivery-system would be good for us all.
Mind you, I am only a crow.
A noisy, annoying thing.
Some people simply ignore me, and who could blame them?
Conservatism is confused, and because of the leftist onslaught, it has to choose its highest principles. Socialism is based on anti-capitalism or rather anti-Social Darwinism. To keep themselves separate conservatives have become purposeful capitalists. The other problem is that the left poisons everything it touches. Tree huggers are useless. People who go to Washington and create national parks or write other laws to stop open land development, that’s useful. Another great example of this is the global warming farrago. Left in the hands of liberals it becomes this manic crusade for the West to bankrupt itself with carbon caps while giving the third world, who dumps more raw pollution into the world, a free ride. That’s a stupid idea and any sane person will oppose it. The problem is that caring for the environment gets lost in the confusion. If you ask me the solution to the environmental problem is to be hostile to growth, to stop welfare and immigration, to stop saving people from themselves, and to use the law to make sure that half or more of our natural lands stay that way. Our stupid nanny state runs around trying to save heroin addicts from killing themselves but we already have too many people, and importing Mexicans when we have too many people, and giving welfare to illiterates in the ghettos and trailer parks when we already have too many people. Let social Darwinism do its work and let Death do hers. People who don’t want to live and contribute should be allowed to pass away, rich or poor. We should also stop importing new people and send the third world people back, because they’re not working out in a European-style society. I also think conservatism is confused about homosexuality because I think we should encourage it for confused people so they do not reproduce. Put the clear-minded and purposeful ahead, and drown everyone else in homosexuality and drug use or send them to the third world. When the US had 200 million people it was a really nice place but with 300m, it’s now a nightmare.
Whether this article makes any sense or not is secondary. Conservatives do not know what they believe. They have a “gut feeling” and a few talking points but that’s about it. This is why almost none of them can define conservatism and Buckley’s definition is about the best anyone has. The result of all this confusion is that conservatives get forced into a defensive role, and end up sounding like nagging aunts compared to the “dynamic new ideas” of liberals.
New is well-forgotten old.
Sometimes. Mostly, perhaps.
But truly ‘new’ is entirely possible.
To take what is known, and add to it.
Contribute your own contribution.
Nobody else, in history, could do that.
Only you.
Create!
“To take what is known, and add to it.”
This way we get the unknown old. ‘New’ is a subjective notion indicating our ignorance.
Speak for yourself, toothy one.
Ignorance is for the ignorant.
New means new.
Leap…
In the case of liberals, we “forgot” their ideas because they didn’t work out so well. The same way I forget to call my alcoholic Aunt Margot after six PM.
Bad!
Make sure you remember to call your Aunt Margot, now.
Endure the difficulty. Make sure it’s after 6 p.m…
I’d rather talk to her before noon when she’s lovely Aunt Margot, and not after she’s good and potted when her real self is not even there. Alcoholism sucks but they choose it for themselves and we just work around it. We all have to duck when the fit hits the shan.