As part of our series into why people choose to be conservative, as opposed to joining the vast wave of popular sentiment that follows liberalism, and to explain this upcoming election, it is important to look into the goals of conservatism and liberalism in contrast.
This sense of goals is not “issues” or even “platforms,” it’s a sense of ultimate goals. If given the reins freely, like the tools of a sculptor and a block of unformed clay, what type of society would they create?
One of the great paradoxes of politics reveals itself here. It’s easy to know what you hate; it’s harder to know what you love, at least in a whole vision. If you have a laundry list of things you like and some you hate, to know a whole vision you have to reconcile all of those and design a society around them.
To employ the overused automotive metaphor, it’s one thing to want a 450 engine in a station wagon, and quite another to design one that drives well and doesn’t explode on the test track.
Knowing more than dislikes and likes requires us to construct a whole vision of what civilization should be. This in turn reflects our personalities and moral character. What delights us? What do we sense would be the most fun, the most joy and beauty? As you may imagine, this varies widely between conservatives and liberals.
Liberals (leftists, anarchists, Communists, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians) want a society dedicated to the individual. The primary means of achieving this is individual equality, which requires “freedom” so that no judgments are made on the individual, and that in turn requires a pacifistic, permissive, pluralistic and relativistic society.
To that end they want this society to celebrate the individual as unique, an exception to the rule, ironic, different, special, exciting, novel and a constant center of attention. Theirs is a society where people get their fifteen minutes of fame in rapid succession, and where socialization is more important than anything else. If it is accepted by all individuals, then it threatens no individual, and thus is good.
A liberal society strives for progress toward a Utopian state of universal tolerance (and thus, total equality). Everything else is secondary. It lives in the moment, for the sensation of life itself, as an expression of freedom. It perpetually widens this freedom to new groups and to all who are exceptions to the rule, which is everyone. Each person is equally important.
Conservatives (rightists, Republicans, traditionalists, paleoconservatives) tend to view the liberal worldview as a side-stepping of the question. For a conservative, the question is what is best, and the guide is what has worked in the past. This is not substantially different from the scientific method.
To a conservative, what matters is that a process is in place so that all are treated fairly, especially the society as a whole. For this reason, it does not endorse individualism, but balances the needs of the individual to those of the whole. To keep the whole from being tyrannical, conservatives pair the whole not with the collective but with certain timeless ideals that bring about what is best.
A conservative therefore does not desire individual equality, but recognition for what is actually exceptional, which is behavior/results above the average or pushing in some desirable direction. Conservatives do not view all individuals as exceptional, and are distrustful of human nature, except that which through study of reality and self-discipline rises above its animal instincts and disorderly impulses.
As a result, conservatives desire an entirely different type of society than liberals do, and vice-versa. The liberal wants universal tolerance and a collage of different activities; the conservative wants similar activities so that those who do well can rise and society can maintain a social order that is conducive to function, not projection of the individual as an object of fascination.
For this reason, it is fair to say that conservatism and liberalism are not political positions. They are desires for different types of civilizations. Conservatives want something more like Sparta, and liberals want something more like Babylon. There is no middle ground, at least none that lasts, because the two directions are incompatible and only meet through self-negation.
When you approach the 2012 election, ignore the issues — those are generally grandstanding for the short-attention span types — and think instead about what type of civilization you would like. Support the party that pushes you closer to that ideal. If they get elected, view them as you would a paid service-person and put the pressure on them to finally do the job right.
This will help separate the two societies. Liberal society is newer, and needs to stand on its own. It is based on a vision that is primarily emotional and social, and is designed to make the individual feel better about life through constant attention and social approval. The type of person who wants this will not be happy in a conservative civilization.
On the other hand, for conservatives society is not a canvas upon which to paint. It is a foundation upon which the individual stands, making moral decisions that define him or herself as who they ultimately are. To people who want this kind of civilization, drama is anathema and the struggle within is essential. They find a liberal civilization to be distracting and unstable.
Instead, they value stillness and silence. Stillness, to eliminate the unrealistic and pointless. Silence, to contemplate oneself and to encounter what we might call the soul. The quest for the conservative is not in making the outside world approve of the individual, but in disciplining the individual to the outside world, such that both may be great.
43 queries. 0.976 seconds
I’m not sure that libertarians should be included in “liberal” society as the term “liberal” is defined in the popular lexicon. Many libertarians (and I’ll agree that trying to define what is a libertarian is almost impossible) are actually personally quite conservative and believe that if the government were to stop supporting bad (typically “liberal”) behavior and allow people, firms and local governments to fail, conservatism would ultimately return. The problem that most libertarians have with conservatives is that governments are so easily “captured” by subgroup so that the difference between big-government conservatism and big-government “liberalism” is simply an election (putting aside the ratchet effect). Accordingly, I would argue that libertarians deserve their own category apart from “liberals” and conservatives. FWIW, this sort of approach is also supported by Jonathan Haidt’s empirical work on moral political psychology.
I disagree. In his book, Haidt acknowledges that libertarians are indeed different than American liberals and conservatives but ultimately places them on the left. Unlike rightists, the libertarians only care about 3 out of his 6 moral domains. This makes sense from the historical perspective. In Europe, the term ‘libertarian’ means anarchist, and during the French Revolution the libertarians were clearly the radical leftists. In the USA, this history is obscured because libertarians made common cause with the Republicans against socialists, worker unions, etc. Many forget that Hayek, Rothbard, and other libertarian and neo-liberal thinkers opposed being called conservatives and often called themselves anarcho-capitalists. In this vein, I would also lump Ayn Rand with the left, because even though she was a fave of the American right and hated socialism, her worldview strikes me as having the same libertarian, individualistic impulse (although she claimed she was opposed to libertarians).
In fact, this article should clear it up really well:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp -Libertarians: Right or Left?
Libertarians think you give everyone ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ and then as if by magic, society just does fine on autopilot. This is why people think of them as leftist, because that’s the kind of thinking that is common to all leftist movements but no rightist ones.
Libertarians are basically anarchists who like capitalism. That puts them on both left and right, but mostly left, since they’re still anarchists. If the libertarians got their ideal society we’d all be living in caves.
“Libertarians are basically anarchists who like capitalism. That puts them on both left and right”
Is capitalism really “right”? =) It emerged hand in hand with the Reformation and the decline of normal monarchies.
Capitalism creates goods and services for profit, not to satisfy the corresponding needs. What kind of “right” is that?..
For some reason people forget this truth when talking about social issues, and thus create utopias.
Profit is made in competitive environment.
Competition makes all means acceptable, as long as there is profit.
Inventing unnecessary products, cheap stuff, consumerist style propaganda, advertisement aimed on children – all is ok.
Now about the left and the right, both are the wings of the same capitalist bird, at least as it understood in the US:
“The contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals, and is generally identified with the Republican Party. In general, right-wing implies a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for a free-market system, and “traditional family values”. The contemporary Right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of banking, commerce, and industry.” [wiki, Left-right]
That means, deregulated, most efficient capitalism, making great profit and growth, and highly competitive. Thus, consumerism.
Unless we have a different definition of the Right, e.g., monarchy + feudalism, we are still supporting consumerist society that ruins traditional values.
There are better definitions than this. What do they have in common?
A belief in doing things the right way, as honored by time and a history of results, instead of following whatever snake oil preacher has come to town with his vision of equality and peace.
Of course, there should be.
What these better definitions of the Right say about capitalism, do they approve it or not?
The point was, if the Right is pro-capitalist, consumerism is inevitable part of it, unless maybe, there will be a market capitalism as proposed by the Chicago School and Milton Friedman. Kind of clean and honest capitalism, without corrupiton and government intervention. Though not sure it will help.
Gosh I think I’m a born conservative. I’m also an artist by nature. But I feel that I’m at my best when there’s a larger task to contribute to.
I hate dogma and view it as too restrictive of my mind, so I hate churches and memberships and clubs and group identity. I don’t even feel safe in some places that are full of liberals who love to spout their ideologies. The same with conservatives!
I know that huge efforts can’t be done by individualists. Someone’s got to sweep the sidewalk so the wheels don’t get caught in debris. The sidewalk sweeper’s got to have an understanding that their role is easy, just do it and get out of the way of the wheel driver. The wheel driver can’t waste time looking down at the sweeper to say, “good job my friend.” That’s patronizing–it was just sidewalk sweeping. Now I’m going to go smell the roses, big wheel.
I’ve always felt this way even back in elementary school, in a way. The popular kids with the shiny clothes who played on the teams were always talking about how great they were doing and how everybody should be like them. But I just wanted to sit on the edge of the playground and daydream. My ego had a hard time with it, though. Hard to maintain perspective.
I remember during the aftermath of Watergate. All the TV shows and public people like on Phil Donahue were really destroying “Tricky Dick” but I knew he’d gotten punished and there were then better things to move on to. I knew the detractors were having fun being nasty and mean. That’s why I was kind of secretly on Nixon’s side. People don’t realize that there are individuals like me who can’t stand stuff like that.
Popularity always has a force behind it that dwindles. At the same time, it creates its own enemies from the start.
Okay I’m rambling. Great essay. I’m sure other regulars will have brilliant things to say. I do prefer a conservative-style society. I want to do my part and let the larger purpose play out.
If only more thought like you.
Popularity by its very nature is against reality. The liberal wants everyone to agree on some notion so they can claim it’s reality and force everyone to obey. Other people see this as projection and claim it’s insane. It’s the people sitting on the edge of the crowd, daydreaming and thinking, who make all the good things in life.
If everyone were like me, everything would be great.
And that’s the modern mindset.
Childish, silly, not gonna happen.
Nobody is, or can be, like anyone else.
The best anyone can do is to discover what serves the bigger picture, best, so the bigger picture is not at odds with them. Because the bigger picture is: bigger.
Get out of the way. But most of all: get out of your own way.
Learning about the real world out there has never served me wrong. Otherwise I am trapped in my own mind.
This is a quote taken from the newest fembot to take the reigns at the local YWCA:
“I believe nonviolence and local economic self-sufficiency are the paths to peace — and peace requires equality,” Maczka said. “White privilege and sexism are huge causes of inequality, and I believe it is our work to recognize them and address them in our relationships and institutions.”
The society the left is wanting is one where white males are either turned into self loathing serfs or completely expunged from it.
Personally voting now is a non issue for me now. There is no change in direction for this nation. The left is now not an ideology, but a religion that will punish and expel all those who do not comply.
Sad about the fembot.
Peace comes from truth.
It certainly doesn’t come from demanding that it comes.
And yet she is propped up with tax subsidies to promote her filth. Her predecessor was promoted to a regional post and is also on the county board. That’s why there is simply no reason to vote. They are fully entrenched and the only way to get them out is to starve them out.
Maybe there is no need to get anybody ‘out’.
With so many of them turning reality into dysfunctional fantasy, there will inevitably be nothing left to get them out of.
All termite mounds eventually become untenable and collapse. One may be saddened at this, and think “but there was no need”, yet entropy rules all, once active creation ceases.
I agree, though, it is disheartening to watch it happen, and to be unable to do anything about it.
If we just restructure our public system around competence instead of political correctness, the problem will take care of itself. The only reason this woman is spouting this insanity is that she is not actually good at her job and needs another reason to claim that she is important. If she were good at her job, she would just use that. “I’m competent” is always better than “I’m PC” but our governments are rewarding the PC people so many incompetents are using it as a path to power.
Liberals: shouting at the truth, demanding it be more liberal.
Cultivating that easy government money and the headlines everyone wants to hear. It would just be so easy if it were that simple and yet it never is.
Oh, just let them idiots try and implement the “local economic self-sufficency”. =))) Put them in charge of it, or let them drive grain harvesters, or hand out personal pitchforks, rakes, spades and hoes to them. In a couple of famine years they will forget that last E-word she said. =))
Oh and she’s a Catholic too. Why the religious are seeing a dramatic decline in its males.
monarchists)…
Interestingly, the scientific method itself has conservative roots and very old traditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Ibn_al-Haytham
I regret bad behaviour on my part, as shown on this site.
The fundamental that conservatism stand upon is nature and its laws.
Throughout history, however, people have made laws and religions of their own. Conservatives, being that in nature, will have a tendency to look to and conserve these laws even as they are outdated or destructive in the first place.
This have bred dangerous traditions of various kind. In the western world tradition generally means christian tradition, and christianity as we know it is a very suppressive and nasty thing. With the suffering and the celebacy and the what-not. People were bound to react to this sooner or later, a need for ‘breaking free’ became something very natural.
I don’t mind whether there’s a conservative or a liberal rule, as long as it is a good one. Conservatism is a powerful, stable politics but not without its weaknesses. It generally lacks a sense for people’s emotional needs, aswell as maintaining unhealthy traditions without enough looking into them. Emotional intelligence is intelligence also. This site could use an EQ chart aswell as an IQ chart. Intelligent men can be spoiled, it is not a question of emotional intelligence.
Thanks for reading and considering this.
A new and improved Tucken? Well that’s nice.
A little dose of humility does everyone lots of good.
Conservatism is, if nothing else, about respect, for all its built-in limitations.
That is why I could never get behind ay mindset that operates from a lack of respect. Like leftism, which dishonestly only gives the appearance of good things, while being solely about selfishness.