Replies

I'm not aware of any contradiction. Buckley and Goldwater took resistance to New Dealish programs as the essence of conservatism. They never flirted with anarchism, though, and never challenged the necessity of government. They certainly supported plenty of government programs, mostly connected with defense. Rothbard went much further in the anarchist direction. I don't think Goldwater and Buckley went too far in their rhetoric in the context of their times. Whether it will look that way in a century, I have no way of knowing, but Rothbard certainly was extreme in his own day and will look that way in the future.

One problem is that "anti-statism" may mean opposition to the government as such or opposition to the expansion of state power. But at what point does the power of government become objectionable? Thus, a supporter might see Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater as "anti-statist" or "against statism" while a critic might deny them that label because of the degree of government they do support. This is hardly my confusion. It's one that many who have visited "anti-statist" websites experience. Some who long thought themselves "anti-statist" in Goldwater's sense, may have recoiled at what they were asked to accept under that label.

Similarly, the question of just what "conservatism" is in itself, separate from the conservatism of this or that epoch is a hard one to answer. I don't say that Buckley and Goldwater were wrong in thinking themselves conservative, just that their definitions didn't exhaust the meaning of the word or possible examples of its use. Under other circumstances their program would have been quite radical indeed.

What is conservatism in the absence of a considerable socialist or social democratic or communist movement? What was "conservative" before such left alternatives were developed, and what will be "conservative" if such ideologies lose their appeal? Or if such an appeal will never entirely die, what happens when one set of ideological landmarks vanishes over the horizon and we are confronted with a new landscape. I don't know the answers, but there's a kind of madness in understanding all of the past entirely in light of present conflicts. The conflicts that divide societies and the visions that political thinkers and actors pursue change over time.

In some quarters there's always a lot of enthusiasm for lost causes, vanquished rebellions, and vanished civilizations. The idea seems to be that if things went differently we would be freer or happier or better. But such nostalgia needs to be subjected to the same scrutiny as any form of utopianism or romanticism. Lost causes and their possible consequences shouldn't escape the skeptical analysis that "won causes" receive.

You might want to take a look at early 20th century conservative Irving Babbitt's remarks on Jefferson and Lincoln. His conclusions are the opposite of today's neoconfederates -- Jefferson is condemned for his utopianism, and Lincoln is praised for his support for law, union, and continuity. I don't say Babbitt was right, but his skepticism about Jefferson's Rousseauvianism was very definitely conservative, and he does seem to have made an attempt to see the consequences of both men's ideas.

I am certainly not a Hamiltonian. There's too much in Hamiltonianism that's reminiscent of early modern European centralist schemes and too much that reminds people of modern liberal projects and programs. But it would serve us well to remember the conservative aspects of Federalism, and the radical side of Jeffersonianism. No country or party can survive and prosper if it commits itself to being 100% Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian.

One problem is that "anti-statism" may mean opposition to the government as such or opposition to the expansion of state power. But at what point does the power of government become objectionable? .....Some who long thought themselves "anti-statist" in Goldwater's sense, may have recoiled at what they were asked to accept under that label.

The fundamental division is between Hobbesian enthusiasts of government power, who imagine that they will direct it, or that it will be directed by benign others for benign purposes, and people who do not regard government power -- because of Europe's long experience with it -- as benign or other than as a force of nature, like fire, that needs to be carefully watched and warded.

Citing differences of opinion among anti-statists of varying degree doesn't invalidate the recognition of the more fundamental division, or the appropriateness of the label "anti-statist".

What is conservatism in the absence of a considerable socialist or social democratic or communist movement? What was "conservative" before such left alternatives were developed, and what will be "conservative" if such ideologies lose their appeal? Or if such an appeal will never entirely die, what happens when one set of ideological landmarks vanishes over the horizon and we are confronted with a new landscape. I don't know the answers, but there's a kind of madness in understanding all of the past entirely in light of present conflicts.

The philosophy espoused by conservatives, or by 19th-century liberals if you will, is grounded on concrete concepts and isn't the kind of rubber suit that pseudophilosophies like "communitarianism" are. The problem with Left political ideas is that they are come-ons, false advertising that cynically and mutably serves the power drives of their manipulators: consider Lenin's sinuous policy-making course toward power, when he and his inner circle used emphasis shifts and changes in policy to peel away layers of designated "non-participants" from the original mass party, until nothing was left of the mass party but a diamond-hard, supremely willful cadre of vanguardists.

You might want to take a look at early 20th century conservative Irving Babbitt's remarks on Jefferson and Lincoln.

I did a search the other night for Babbitt's material and did'nt finish it yet. Still looking. Thanks for the reference.