<\/p>\n
Pharaohdux <\/p>\n I There The In All Conservatism<\/b><\/span> arose in reaction to So Left<\/b><\/span> and Right<\/b><\/span> arose during the French In In But the new US had no aristocrats and was founded on Because of our unique situation, initially American ‘conservatism’ was liberal. Our system, the system to Two The The The The Northern Enter The The The During After At So And Our most illuminating terms, the ones most accurate for American realities, are The Today’s So The <\/span>Now that Republicans are out of power they again talk incessantly about states’ rights and even But So I write with a bias: to preserve and respect the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Pharaohdux raised some important questions about how we think about politics. The issue is important because if we can no longer communicate reasonably clearly abut politics, about all we have left is either to yell at one another, or avoid the entire subject as a cess pool. I am inclined towards the latter, but believe…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-social-and-political-theory"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nraised some important questions about how we think about politics. <\/span>The issue is important because if we
\ncan no longer communicate reasonably clearly abut politics, about all we have
\nleft is either to yell at one another, or avoid the entire subject as a cess
\npool. <\/span>I am inclined towards the
\nlatter, but believe I have no choice but to be involved since we must live
\ntogether. <\/span>The <\/span>first reaction aids the very worst
\nelements in society in coming to power whereas the second does nothing to
\nprevent them from doing so.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nam writing only about Americans who use these ideas as a means to try and
\nsupport the values that motivate them.
\n<\/span>To appreciate the cynics and sociopaths we first need a vocabulary that makes
\nsense to us.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nare other labels that I do not discuss because this is a blog, not a magazine
\narticle or even a book – which would be needed to really give depth to our
\nunderstanding. <\/span>So
\n“Neoconservative” is not discussed.
\n<\/span>Neither is “Paleoconservative” or “libertarian” or “populist.” <\/span>All are important terms – but I believe
\nthe five I discuss are the most basic.
\n<\/span>When we cannot use these words reasonably intelligently, we are crippled
\nin our ability to reason with our fellow citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nwords are “Left-wing,” “Right-wing,” “Liberal,” “Conservative,” and “Progressive.” <\/b>The more these words become simply
\nsymbols for “good” and “bad” our ability to discuss issues intelligently
\nevaporates, so I hope to show that all these words can describe positions held
\nbe decent and intelligent people. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe Beginning<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n
\nthese words are products of the modern and increasingly democratic world. <\/span>John Locke is the man most identified
\nwith the initial <\/span>rise of Liberalism<\/b><\/span>, and the American Revolution
\nmarked the first time liberal ideas had come to define a transformative change
\nin human life. <\/span>What made it
\ndifferent from anything before was that all people were regarded as equal in
\ntheir rights, so that no one could be justly ruled over by another. <\/span>In other words, all individuals are
\nequally the fundamental moral unit of society. Our Declaration of Independence
\nis an explicit statement of these principles and our major Founders to a man
\nregarded these Lockean principles as foundational to our country.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nliberalism, particularly in reaction to the next liberal revolution, the
\nFrench, which turned out much less successfully than the American. <\/span>Its initial spokesperson was Edmund
\nBurke. <\/span>Burke emphasized that
\nsocieties were multi-generational affairs, where each generation was simply a
\npart. <\/span>Political change should
\nalways be within a specific social context, not some universal abstract
\nstandard that, by rejecting everything that could not be rationally justified,
\nwould unintentionally destroy the social glue that enabled people to live
\ntogether peacefully. <\/span>Interestingly,
\nBurke supported the American Revolution, but he did so not because of universal
\nhuman rights but because the Monarchy was rejecting traditional rights of
\nEnglishmen as applied to the colonists.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nfrom the beginning liberals believed we could deliberately change society for
\nthe better and conservatives believed change should be piecemeal, working
\nwithin established traditions, and always hesitant. <\/span>Interestingly, today this conservative insight is most often
\nencountered among environmentalists who urge caution in manipulating nature.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nRevolution as well. <\/span>In the French
\nParliament supporters of the Old Order, the monarchy and the aristocracy, sat
\non the right side, liberals and opponents of the aristocracy sat on the left. S<\/i><\/span>o from the very beginning
\nLiberal and Conservative referred to philosophical principles and Left and
\nRight referred to political alliances.
\n<\/span>Initially these terms broadly overlapped in terms of practical politics in Europe, but were never the same.<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nAmerica<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n
\nEurope conservatism’s defense of the Old Order from radical criticism supported
\nthe aristocracy and monarchy and therefore a society based on fundamental legal
\ninequalities between people, because what most distinguished aristocrats from
\ncommoners was not a title, but different standing under the law. <\/span>The titles simply affirmed that
\nsuperior privileged status. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe principle of legal equality as a fundamental ideal. <\/span>(The first place women ever voted in world history was in
\nsome Northern states right after the Revolution. So also did Blacks. New Jersey
\nwas the most liberal in this regard.) Most everyone knew slavery was a
\ncontradiction to these principles, and in a majority of states it was
\nabolished, but it remained in the South because it was economically so
\nimportant that no one could find a practical way to eliminate it. Attitudes towards Indians also usually did not fit well with these principles, though men like Washington hoped in time they would be fairly treated.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nbe conserved, was based on liberal principles. Originally we also did not think of
\npolitics in terms of right and left.<\/i><\/span> <\/b>We had a different vocabulary. <\/span>Conservative American liberals simply had more
\nrespect and regard for the elites who had arisen within American society and
\ndistrust for liberals who wanted to reduce the influence of those elites.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ndevelopments disrupted this fairly harmonious political worldview among EuroAmericans.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nfirst<\/b><\/span> was
\nslavery’s revitalization as cotton became immensely profitable. <\/span>The South loved its new wealth far more
\nthan its founding principles, and by Andrew Jackson’s time major Southern
\nleaders, such as John C. Calhoun, were redefining our principles to eliminate
\ntheir liberal justification. <\/span>This
\ncontinued up to the Civil war, when Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s Vice President, explicitly
\narguing the Founders were wrong and the Confederacy was founded<\/i><\/span> on the principle of human
\ninequality and the goodness of slavery.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSouth became our first and far the most radical “counter-culture.” <\/span>Southern conservatism then departed
\nfrom northern conservatism, endorsing inequality so long as the right elite
\nruled. <\/span>It’s intellectual elites became very suspicious
\nof Northern culture with its commercial and egalitarian bent. <\/span>Seeking a moral and philosophical
\njustification for an institution our Founders had universally detested, most
\nSouthern thinkers found it in a literalistic reading of the Bible, with its
\napparent endorsement of slavery.
\n<\/span>It was at this point that Southern Christianity began distinguishing
\nitself from Northern Christianity, a distinction that has lasted to this day.
\nThe South also increasingly rejected the Enlightenment, out of which Liberalism
\nhad grown. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nsecond<\/b><\/span>
\ndisruption of our original relative unity was liberalism’s success in the
\nnorth. <\/span>It led not only to massive
\nincreases in the number who could vote, it also generated an industrial
\nrevolution, made the north a magnet for immigration, created huge cities (for
\nthe time), and sparked massive technological change. <\/span>These developments led to new problems unforeseen by our
\nFounders, who lived during a pre-industrial era. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nnew problems were basically three: the relations between wage workers and
\nbusiness elites, the rise of mass democracy in cities as well as nationally,
\nand the inequality of wealth, that increased with industrialization.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nliberals split over how to address the problems these developments
\ngenerated. <\/span>With some exceptions,
\nthey tended to fall into three groups, depending on which modern development
\nthey most relied on to address these issues. <\/span>Classical liberals<\/b><\/span> believed that over time the market would gradually
\nlift everyone up to prosperity, and that government should not get in the way
\nof economic development. Managerial liberals<\/b><\/span> believed that government was under popular control, unlike the old aristocracies
\nand monarchies, could safely be used to smooth out the problems caused by big
\nbusiness, regulate their excesses, especially the railroads, and occasionally
\ntake over certain industries on which everyone depended. <\/span>This usually meant the utilities and sometimes the railroads. <\/span>Finally, Egalitarian liberals<\/b><\/span> believed the best cure to our problems was
\nmore democracy, and so inequalities in influence should be moderated and popular influence increased. <\/span>They supported the initiative,
\nreferendum, recall, and political primaries. <\/span>All were and remain liberals.<\/b><\/span> All supported the original
\nliberal insight that all people should be equal under the law.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nFrom the Left and Right<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n
\nterms Left and Right were mostly imported to this country
\nin the last half of the 19th<\/sup> century.
\n<\/span>In Europe there was a genuine right, supporting the old order of
\nestablished families, titles, and privilege. <\/span>They saw liberals as their enemy. <\/span>Increasingly there was also a Left that also saw liberals as
\ntheir enemy because they believed that the most exploited class, the
\nproletariat, should take over businesses and so abolish property rights, which
\nliberals believed were a necessary defense against “the State.” In Europe you had a anti-liberal right, liberals, and an anti-liberal left. In modern terms think Fascism, Liberalism, and Communism. The modern left and right developed in opposition to European liberalism.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nEuropean Left came to this country during the time of mass immigration, and brought with it a hostility to private ownership of business and to wage labor. <\/span>It took two broad forms, anarchist
\nand state socialist. <\/span>The latter
\nbelieved a strong state controlled by ‘the people’ or ‘the workers’ could solve
\nthe problems of wage exploitation.
\n<\/span>Combined with home grown organizers who by comparison were simply reformist in their
\nviews, these folks helped start our labor unions.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nEuropean right never really established itself here on a mass basis, but the
\nSouth provided a natural home for similar attitudes.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe first half of the 20th<\/sup> century different kinds of liberals and
\nthe anti-capitalist Left all sought to influence government, and entered into
\nvarious alliances to do so. <\/span>Ideologically
\nspeaking, the Progressive Movement that Glenn Beck and some other right-wingers
\nsee as the beginning of our fall was an alliance of Managerial and Egalitarian
\nliberals against Classical liberals.
\n<\/span>The anti-capitalist Left allied itself with Progressives some of the
\ntime but were always minor and often distrusted partners.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe Russian Revolution massive struggles took place in the American labor
\nmovement as the Communist element was gradually eliminated from leadership
\npositions almost everywhere. Unions often became an alliance of egalitarian and managerial liberals combined with simple interest group politics.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nthe same time Classical liberals, many Southerners, and many business leaders
\ngradually came together against “the Left” into which they lumped all these
\nforces. <\/span>Battling “the Left” and
\nwith a strong Southern element that distrusted liberalism, they came to think
\nof themselves as “the Right.”<\/span><\/p>\n
\nAmerican liberals, having divided over issues arising within liberalism, and
\nall arguing they were the ‘true” liberals, at times allied themselves
\nwith illiberal partners who identified with the illiberal Left and the
\nilliberal Right.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n
\nToday<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n
\nconservatives, classical liberals, managerial liberals, and egalitarian
\nliberals, with the last two often allied as “Progressives<\/b>” and the first two
\nallied as “Conservatives.<\/b>“ Then there is the Southern anti-liberal culture that, when it entered national politics, sought to transform it based on Southern models, and so became radical. So, <\/span>within
\n“Conservatives” there were two central tensions<\/i>: Northern conservatism based on
\na particular understanding of the Founders differed at its core from Southern
\nconservatism, rooted in an explicit repudiation of the Founders. <\/span>In addition, classical liberals
\nemphasize liberal values with a pro-market emphasis, which stand in a strong
\ntension with a conservative acceptance of strong elites that grew up within a liberal context in the North or in an illiberal one in the South.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ncorresponding tension within <\/i>Progressivism<\/i><\/span> is between Managerial liberals <\/span>who support enlightened
\nbureaucracies serving the public and Egalitarian liberals<\/span> who want to strengthen the
\ninfluence of voters against elites, and so want changes that make bureaucratic
\nmanagement more difficult.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nculture war arose powerfully when Republican leaders became convinced they
\ncould not win against Democrats on the basis of competing economic
\nvisions. <\/span>At the same time
\nDemocrats were losing Southern support because Northern liberals, Egalitarian
\nand Managerial and some Republicans with Classical sympathies had ended
\nsegregation by law. <\/span>Similar
\nliberal values were clashing with the anti-liberal Christianity of the Southern
\nBaptists and allied groups, mostly in the south, but also particularly among
\nMormons. <\/span>So, beginning with Nixon
\nand paying off big time beginning with Reagan, Republicans began emphasizing
\n“values” to de-emphasize economic issues where they were sure to lose, and try
\nand pry away “blue collar Democrats.”
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nlong as they kept the allegiance of Northern conservatives and added to them
\ntheir new <\/span>allies, they could
\nwin. <\/span>But in time moderate Northern
\nrepublicans began being turned off by the genuinely anti-liberal Southern conservatives,
\nand drifted away. <\/span>If Americans can
\nthink clearly about politics, the Republicans will become a regional party of
\nilliberal right-wingers centered in the South and in Mormon areas – both
\nregions with strong theocratic tendencies. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nissue of states’ rights is very illustrative here<\/i>. <\/span>Southern conservatives talked about states’ rights but not
\n<\/i><\/span>because they
\nbelieved in them. <\/span>They supported
\nstates’ rights because they ruled<\/i><\/span> in Southern states. <\/span>When they finally took over the Republican Party and that
\nParty won national control under Bush II, they launched a sustained attack<\/i><\/span> on states rights in favor of
\nnational power. <\/span>For them the issue
\nhad always been power. <\/span>Northern Republican conservatives, particularly secular ones, began drifting to the Democrats. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nsecession. <\/span>But the real issue here is
\nno longer different interpretations of a constitution’s setting limits on
\ngovernment, a constitution both sides support. <\/span>Since the Constitution is a liberal document, and so limits
\npower, Southern based Republican leaders seek to subvert it, rewriting its meaning. This is most obvious concerning the
\nseparation of church and state as well as civil liberties.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nfor an illiberal Republican leadership to succeed, they need to eliminate
\nAmerican identification with broadly liberal principles most Americans support. So they focus on those edgier principles which divide us. <\/span>This requires that liberalism become a dirty word, depriving
\nus of our common heritage in the American Revolution and divide us into two feuding factions. <\/span>It requires that uniting icons like Thomas Jefferson be
\ndemoted and if possible eliminated – hence what happened in Texas. (Also attacked here – obliquely – is our Declaration of Independence, principally authored by Jefferson and explicitly invoking liberal and Enlightenment values.) <\/span>It requires that those liberal elements
\nthat became Progressives be identified with the European Left in its worst
\nforms, hence Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg crusade to equate them with Nazis and Communists.
\n<\/span>It requires that as a people we be degraded into two groups of monkeys hurling feces
\nand epithets at one another, making the assumption that, as Pat Buchanan wrote,
\nthey would have the “bigger half.”<\/span><\/p>\n
\ndifferences that will always characterize a free society. <\/span>Secularly speaking, my personal bias
\nhas shifted from classical liberal with a egalitarian sympathy to a egalitaran
\nliberal with a classical sympathy. But I believe that genuine American conservatism and other traditions in harmony with our Declaration of Independence have important insights that are neglected at our peril. On the other hand, those positions that are not in harmony with our Declaration of Independence are subversive to all that is best about our country.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/font><\/p>\n