I don't know Chronicler, I think you are agreeing with me! In each political era you describe, the conservatives, be they monarchists, Jeffersonian agrarianists, robber barons or social conservatives, they all are resistant to change. I don't see what other thread could tie these disparate groups all together. A couple groups you mention that deserve special comment:
Neo-conservatives: you are right that they are the very opposite of conservative--they are revolutionaries, neo-jacobins. BUT, the means they use to sell their revolution to the American masses are very conservative in that they trick people into believing that their policies will help prevent scary changes. They play off fears of muslim hordes invading a christian nation. They play off traditional gender roles to portray democrats as the "mommy party" and republicans as the masculine daddy party. Bill Kristol is the king of this strategy.
social conservatives: yes, in a narrow sense they do want to change the current laws on guns and abortion. But its more accurate to say that they never accepted those laws and want to turn back the clock and pretend they never existed. As Joe Biden would say, thats not change, thats more of the same! The same is true of the Ron Paul revolution. Its not a revolution, its a regression.
To respond more broadly to your reading of conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism through history: I think my main difference is that I see the main forces in history as coming less from the idea-makers, the philosophers and thinkers, and more from the geographic and cultural evolutions of history. Most accurately, history is created through a Hegelian interplay between the world of ideas that filter down and the geographical and cultural situation which filter up.
Thus, to me the French Revolution is not primarily caused by a group of evil Jacobins who were then the model for other intellectuals who caused the Russian revolution. Rather the ground for these revolutions was sown by the unique culture and geography of Europe and Russia, respectively: the growing recognition of nation-states based around a shared culture, the history of failed monarchs who were increasingly out of touch with the times, etc, etc. This is why Communist leaders came to resemble czars much more than Russia came to resemble a communist ideal: the culture is a stronger force than the ideas. Thus , it can be difficult to tie these disparate movements to one another through easy lines of causation. Each had unique causes and unique outcomes, with varying degrees of good and bad tied to each which would take a long time to discuss. Probably book length. This is not to suggest moral relativism, only that I believe the good and bad of it all is more complicated than often presented.
By the same token, yes, America was extremely fortunate to have been influenced by great thinkers such as Locke and Jefferson and Madison, but the form of American government was also heavily influenced by our geographical and cultural situation. Given the geographic isolation of most American citizens and cultural variety of our young country, would a stronger form of central government even had a chance to prevail? From the bottom-up, Americans were and are a rebellious people. I think that it is more accurate to say that the Constitution was as much responding to an already existing situation as it was a "choice" made by the Founding Fathers (though no doubt that it was an exuisitely elegant structure of government). Remember that the Constitution was a more statist version of the Articles of Confederation; so the founders were trying to move a reluctant America towards a stronger central government.
Still even an American government based on noble principles still took part in what can only be called radicalism in the form of westward imperialism and the importation of millions of black slaves, and has at times been heavily influenced by a radical christian fundamentalist theology that seeks to remake the world and society in its own image. I guess my main point is that radicalism is present in every society, and it is often hard to predict what will allow it to run rampant.
1 comment:
Caretaker, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my posts. Here are some further thoughts of mine.
My original point was to try and show that political conservatism is (and has been) much more than simply resistance to change. But I guess that I agree to some extent that the forces of the status quo often appropriate the word conservative for themselves. So that the King of France would have seen himself as the conservative vis-a-vis the liberals who wanted to change late 18th century France in a more open and democratic direction. (The radical Jacobins hijacked this late in the Revolution and then turned it into the Terror).
However, when you reach a status quo such as we had during New Deal liberalism, from 1932-1980, then to fight against it in order to change it into something else (perhaps even regression to something previous)has been self-defined as conservative, and which at that point is no longer simple resistance to change, but its opposite, a desire to change in some direction (more laissez-faire, less unions, etc.).
So I think a proper analysis of American political conservatism needs to see it (in its various guises) in terms of what it wants to accomplish, rather than just resistance to change.
I resist the labels of conservatism and liberalism, because I think they are mushy and ambiguous, and too 'loaded', and have also changed so much over the centuries. I prefer to discuss politics with someone on the basis of what it is they want to achieve and the means for doing. In other words, what is your vision of America---politically, economically, and culturally; and what policies do you want the government to institute to achieve this vision? I suppose another question would be, how should America relate to other nations?
If there is agreement that 'liberal' means someone who in foreign policy wants to cooperate with other nations rather than dominate them militarily, then I clearly am liberal. If 'liberal' means to structure a capitalist economy, using an activist government, such that it benefits the average person and creates a large middle class, (which is what liberal came to mean during and after the New Deal), than I am liberal.
Again, 'liberal' did not necessariy mean this in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it has become this now.
Conservativism has come to mean today someone who agrees with Fox and Rush Limbaugh in arguing (1) for politicies that lead to American global dominance, (2) to economic policies that lead the rich and huge corporations dominating the economy, and (3)cultural policies that will reverse Roe V. Wade and maintain strict law and order.
It turns out that libertarians disagree with all three of these conservative goals, and therefore don't call themselves conservatives any longer, so as to separate themselves from things they really find abhorrent.
Post a Comment