Here is Daniel McCarthy, writing in the American Conservative:
Edmund Burke might not like what American conservatism has become. With its devotion to abstract rights, democracy, and perpetual growth, the American Right today looks more like a stepchild of Thomas Paine than an heir to the author of Reflections on the Revolution in France. But Burke would recognize the conservative movement’s rhetoric of liberty, its anti-elitism, and its alienation from institutions of authority. Those are the hallmarks of a disposition Burke described as “the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the Protestant religion.” In 1775, that was how he characterized the creed of Britain’s rebellious New England colonies. Today, those words apply to the faith of many in the Republican Party’s base.Read the rest of this excellent article here.
5 comments:
Sorry, Martin, but that article was, IMHO, a crock.
It bases its entire presentation on an analogy between the Anglican church and politics. "Lov-church" vs. "high-church" conservatives, indeed. If you leave your terms undefined, you can ramble all you want to, and sound cultured. Big deal.
What's amazing to me is that he could write an entire article about conservatives and what they need to do to retrieve political power, namely go back to the "high church" approach, without once proposing any policy whatever.
As best as I could tell, the purpose of the article was to express distaste for people who are conservative because they actually want certain policies to be followed, and certain others to be overturned. And in particular, distaste for those people who are conservative because of religious values.
The article was all attitude, and little substance. Very unimpressive.
And who cares what Edmund Burke would think?
Yes, there is a place for conservatism of the old school. We should indeed be suspicious of change for its own sake. But mostly, it's because it shows so little respect for what we've already achieved, and little appreciation for how fragile it is.
But change is itself value-free, and so is opposition to it. Opposing change is simply a good reflexive response because society is such a complex algorithm, and we simply don't know, going in, what all the ramifications of a particular change will be.
But sometimes, change is for the good. Wilberforce opposed slavery and fought for its abolition, and good conservatives lined up against the change for the same prudential concerns. Wilberforce was successful, and things worked out just fine. Jim Crow was abolished in the South, and things worked out just fine. Sometimes, the liberals are right. Not very often, but sometimes.
If there is an institution that needs to come down, call a liberal. They're happy to bring their wrecking ball. Sorry, but politics is about morals. It's about values. Liberals say it isn't, but they're just trying to crowd the religious folks out of the argument so *liberal* values will win.
And this is actually rich:
> "For his part, Matthew Arnold in Culture and Anarchy proposed a dramatic solution for low church Protestantism’s culturally schismatic tendencies—establish the Presbyterian and Congregational churches alongside the Church of England."
So the author hints that "low-church conservatives" are as schismatic toward the so-called conservative movement as the more fundamentalist Christian denominations have been toward the Church.
Which is quite an interesting posture for someone who spends an entire article drawing distinctions between "high church" (i.e., true-believing) conservatives and "low church" conservatives (i.e., the canaille).
I mean, *those* people are schismatic, whereas "we" high-minded conservatives don't approve of those *those* people. Or at least, Edmund Burke wouldn't, and that's good enough for us.
Let me provide a much simpler explanation for the collapse of conservatism:
1. Political conservatism doesn't really exist, not as an "ism". All it is, is opposition to liberalism, which is an "ism". Liberalism is here defined as hostility to most or perhaps all of society's institutions. There is no movement for defending all of society's institutions, only a loose, quarreling coalition of defenders of particular institutions.
2. Philosophical conservatism such as Burke and Russell Kirk espoused is less a philosophy than an attitude. I think it's a good attitude, but it is just an attitude, and follows from the fact that man is a fallen race: it can be summarized as, "First, do no harm."
3. The problem with this brand of conservatism is that, once liberalism has become the status quo, they're happy defending that, too. They acquiesce in the dissolution of society's institutions so long as it is a slow, deliberate process and they get positions of power for the duration. "Easy does it" is essentially a defeatist posture. Don't fight the popular culture. Don't offend people with your demands that we stop aborting babies. This article oozes condescension towards the people who actually vote conservative and man the phones.
4. So-called "low church" conservatives are tired of dutifully showing up to vote for those who don't embrace their causes and refuse to fight for them. "Conservatism" is a coalition, and coalitions must be maintained. And those lousy low conservatives actually want policy as a form of payback. How low minded of them!
Lee,
What's amazing to me is that he could write an entire article about conservatives and what they need to do to retrieve political power, namely go back to the "high church" approach, without once proposing any policy whatever.I think this is one important respect in which neoconservatives do not understand traditionalist conservatism--because they think conservatism is a set of policies rather than a deeper attitude toward culture and life. In this respect neoconservatism is just another ideology rather than a philosophy of life.
Lee,
As best as I could tell, the purpose of the article was to express distaste for people who are conservative because they actually want certain policies to be followed, and certain others to be overturned. And in particular, distaste for those people who are conservative because of religious values.I don't know where you are seeing this. He even uses an ecclesiastic metaphor for what he is talking about. He is not criticizing conservatives for taking certain political positions, but for thinking their salvation lies in politics.
>> As best as I could tell, the purpose of the article was to express distaste for people who are conservative because they actually want certain policies to be followed, and certain others to be overturned.
> I don't know where you are seeing this.
It's a tone, sustained here and there by a word, a pejorative, a rhetorical flourish. E.g.,
> "Edmund Burke might not like what American conservatism has become."
> "Low church conservatism, more familiar, is readily described. It has five common characteristics. First, it values faith over works—what counts is the character of a politician and the intentions behind his actions, not the outcome of his policies."
Translation: those foolish low-church conservatives.
McCarthy does not explain why GWB lost so much support among conservatives. I would explain that phenomenon as an absence of works -- in fact, working for the other team. Faith without works is dead, or so I'm told.
> "No man, of course, can read another’s soul, thus in practice the low church conservative places great value on professions of ideological purity. Sinning politicians like Newt Gingrich and David Vitter may be forgiven, so long as they say the right things."
I think somebody is misreading the current conservative mood, or is spending too much time listening to Republicans talk about the rubes.
> "Disastrous policies—wars gone awry, for example—may be pardoned on account of righteous aims. Conversely, good works count for naught without profession of the right political faith."
His prose certainly isn't rife with examples, is it?
Speaking as a low-church conservative (but not *for* low-church conservatives), I would express myself as wanting to see some sign from an ostensibly conservative politician that, if we're retreating or regrouping or compromising with liberals, that there is some sort of grand scheme or design or strategy being followed, and that we're not just compromising for its own sake. If that's what McCarthy means when he talks about the focus on "ideological purity." Again, speaking for myself, I'm not looking for ideological purity, but for ideological loyalty and principled conviction. That's from years of being sold down the river by high-church Republicans. And at this point, I need to see evidence.
> "To be right requires no special learning, only acceptance of a basic creed."
Translation: those unlearned low-church conservatives.
The truth, of course, in matters of both church and state, is that special learning is something you hire when you need it. Give me a man of Christian and conservative principles and good character over someone with special knowledge any day. Paul showed very little deference to the learning of the Greeks; he could, in fact, hold his own against them in debate, but understood that debate was not going to save anyone.
> "Fourth is a belief that the eschaton is imminent (if not immanent). Every political battle is a clash of titanic principle, a skirmish in the final conflict between light and darkness. Every bellicose dwarf in command of a developing nation is a potential Antichrist, or the geostrategic equivalent, a Hitler. No Saddam or Chavez is merely a tin-pot dictator."
As opposed to the high-church guys, who wouldn't see a principle if it were to dangle in front of their eyes and snatch a fly. Some struggles are between light and darkness.
> Fifth, and most important, right makes might. Moral truth is easily known, and nothing should stand in the way of its application in policy. The goal of politics is to enact what is right and true. When a Bush administration official told Ron Suskind, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality..."
Hogwash. The question is whether you would rather be wrong and win, or right and lose. At some point, Republicans began to despair of winning the arguments and sought to preempt liberal initiatives with Liberal Lite -- the same tasteless brew, only less. If making common cause with the liberals is what it takes to win, it's time to lose a few until you can remember what you were fighting for in the first place.
> He even uses an ecclesiastic metaphor for what he is talking about. He is not criticizing conservatives for taking certain political positions, but for thinking their salvation lies in politics.
I would concur that out salvation does not rely on politics; our salvation is a fact, already given by the Lord's sacrifice and the imputation of His blamelessness on his undeserving people.
Post a Comment