[Bill,
May 28, 2009]
Still thinking about the conservative narrative
I started writing the conservative narrative in my head ... found myself thinking there are several. The various liberal narratives are usually similar to one another -- one may see reason as the thing that dispels the darkness, another may admit, finally, that reason has failed, and that we're up in the air.
Progressives in the political sphere, however, are almost always people who deny the failure of the Enlightenment project -- to come up with a source of rationality and morals independent of God. I would've thought Godel would've taken care of that. (He proved, mathematically, that a system cannot be defined within its own terms -- it needs to point to something outside it to define its terms or becomes incoherent.)
Some didn't get the message, though; in fairness, I know a few that do. A couple of friends I know have mentioned that if you ask why enough times, eventually you come to the answer, "Because Jesus wants it that way." However, one is an independent and the other is a progressive, and both have senses of humor, which is rare in true progressives.
So I'm thinking about the conservative narrative, and wondering to myself -- why am I have trouble with it? ('Cuz Jesus wants it that way :) )
The issue is you need to know what it means to be conservative. When we Americans say "conservative," we mean "classical liberal." I understand a conservative philosophy, but not necessarily a conservative narrative. Progressive narratives seem to transcend nationality and culture -- but the conservative narrative I think in is western, Christian, and even Catholic.
I can tell the Catholic or Christian narrative. But at some point, you have to say what you're trying to conserve, which requires it, glancing at history, between choosing what to preserve and what was actually progressive. Which is a more complicated tale.
Perhaps it's this: Human nature has no history. Essential human nature involves both sublime virtue, lofty aspirations, mind-boggling brutality and wickedness. These virtues and vices run through all men.
The natural state of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. To rise above barbarism and improve man's "being," there are specific tools: technology, government, law, economics, science, engineering, art, music, etc. These tools give mankind knowledge, pleasure and power. These tools, thus, are a double-edged sword, knowing mankind's nature.
For mankind not to destroy himself, he must use these tools wisely, cultivate virtues, and become civilized. However, every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians; in Hannah Arendt's term, they care called children. Unless mankind passes on these virtues each and every generation, the entire artifice of civilization collapses amid distraction and triviality (Huxley's theory) or a power-mad elite puts a technological boot on every man's neck (Orwell's theory).
Thus, the battle continues. The virtues must be preserved -- the whole thing depends on it. But progressives often attack virtues as benighted. They also tend to switch which virtues they like and which are wrong-headed generation after generation. As C.S. Lewis put it, licentious generations condemn violence and violent generations condemn licentiousness.
In Chesterton's formulation, the virtues themselves, when separated from faith, become like walking monsters -- and one is emphasized at the expense of others, creating all sorts of problems. Progressives, so eager to demonstrate their open-mindedness, are blind to the need to respect these virtues, to beware of replacing them easily, and from ignoring the lessons of the past. Tradition is democracy of the dead -- it usually has a time-tested social function. It may be unfair, need questioning, need altering, but change must be prudentially considered, especially in light of the new incentives and disincentives it will create. Otherwise, we'll discover the hard way what the social function was of the thing we just scrapped.
And at all times, mankind, when considering change, must remember who we are and what we are made of -- that we are sinful, fallen creatures made in the image and likeness of God. We will never be gods. We will always have limits on our being, pleasure and knowledge. We must remember are limitations can destroy our aspirations.
******
That's probably a start.
What do you think?
Progressives in the political sphere, however, are almost always people who deny the failure of the Enlightenment project -- to come up with a source of rationality and morals independent of God. I would've thought Godel would've taken care of that. (He proved, mathematically, that a system cannot be defined within its own terms -- it needs to point to something outside it to define its terms or becomes incoherent.)
Some didn't get the message, though; in fairness, I know a few that do. A couple of friends I know have mentioned that if you ask why enough times, eventually you come to the answer, "Because Jesus wants it that way." However, one is an independent and the other is a progressive, and both have senses of humor, which is rare in true progressives.
So I'm thinking about the conservative narrative, and wondering to myself -- why am I have trouble with it? ('Cuz Jesus wants it that way :) )
The issue is you need to know what it means to be conservative. When we Americans say "conservative," we mean "classical liberal." I understand a conservative philosophy, but not necessarily a conservative narrative. Progressive narratives seem to transcend nationality and culture -- but the conservative narrative I think in is western, Christian, and even Catholic.
I can tell the Catholic or Christian narrative. But at some point, you have to say what you're trying to conserve, which requires it, glancing at history, between choosing what to preserve and what was actually progressive. Which is a more complicated tale.
Perhaps it's this: Human nature has no history. Essential human nature involves both sublime virtue, lofty aspirations, mind-boggling brutality and wickedness. These virtues and vices run through all men.
The natural state of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. To rise above barbarism and improve man's "being," there are specific tools: technology, government, law, economics, science, engineering, art, music, etc. These tools give mankind knowledge, pleasure and power. These tools, thus, are a double-edged sword, knowing mankind's nature.
For mankind not to destroy himself, he must use these tools wisely, cultivate virtues, and become civilized. However, every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians; in Hannah Arendt's term, they care called children. Unless mankind passes on these virtues each and every generation, the entire artifice of civilization collapses amid distraction and triviality (Huxley's theory) or a power-mad elite puts a technological boot on every man's neck (Orwell's theory).
Thus, the battle continues. The virtues must be preserved -- the whole thing depends on it. But progressives often attack virtues as benighted. They also tend to switch which virtues they like and which are wrong-headed generation after generation. As C.S. Lewis put it, licentious generations condemn violence and violent generations condemn licentiousness.
In Chesterton's formulation, the virtues themselves, when separated from faith, become like walking monsters -- and one is emphasized at the expense of others, creating all sorts of problems. Progressives, so eager to demonstrate their open-mindedness, are blind to the need to respect these virtues, to beware of replacing them easily, and from ignoring the lessons of the past. Tradition is democracy of the dead -- it usually has a time-tested social function. It may be unfair, need questioning, need altering, but change must be prudentially considered, especially in light of the new incentives and disincentives it will create. Otherwise, we'll discover the hard way what the social function was of the thing we just scrapped.
And at all times, mankind, when considering change, must remember who we are and what we are made of -- that we are sinful, fallen creatures made in the image and likeness of God. We will never be gods. We will always have limits on our being, pleasure and knowledge. We must remember are limitations can destroy our aspirations.
******
That's probably a start.
What do you think?