Posted on 02/06/2006 6:13:50 AM PST by TPartyType
Men have been much more disposed to vex and oppress one another than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."—James Madison, Federalist Papers
Can we be honest, FRiends? Hannity has a point; many FReepers do pride themselves on chewing up and spitting out others. We do "eat our own." Couldn't we all profit from applying more often Stephen Covey's aphorism: "first understand, then seek to be understood"? We conservatives need to build a coalition, not fragment into factions. Free Republic can be really fractious. We cannot even agree on what a conservative is!
So, maybe if we agree on a general conception of Conservatism we'd recall more often what we have in common, which would, in turn, provide a basis for unity. I propose that Richard M. Weaver's various reflections on the conservative mindset may do the trick. (And I certainly invite others to post here their favorite reflections on the conservative temperament/mindset/character. I know Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk wrote some interesting things along this line, but I'm trying to keep this brief.)
In the collection of essays entitled Life Without Prejudice, one will read Weaver's riveting personal account of his coming "Up From Liberalism." Weaver was attracted by the qualities of the Southern Agrarians, and his contrast between them and the socialists with whom he had earlier aligned himself is instructive. Of the Agrarians, Weaver wrote,
I found that although I disagreed with these men on matters of social and political doctrine, I liked them all as persons. They seemed to me more humane, more generous, and considerably less dogmatic than those with whom I had been associated under the opposing banner. . . . the intellectual maturity and personal charm of the Agrarians were very unsettling to my then-professed allegiance." . . . I had felt a powerful pull in the direction of the Agrarian ideal of the individual in contact with the rhythms of nature, of the small-property holding, and of the society of pluralistic organization. . . . [and] I feel that my conversion to the poetic and ethical vision of life dates from this contact with its sterile opposite (133--all quotations are from Life Without Prejudice and will be cited by page number only).
Weaver views the conservative as one who holds a poetic and ethical vision of life, values tradition (not for its own sake, but because the image of man inherent to the traditional, ethical, poetic viewpoint promotes a social order based on freedom, dignity, and a balance between the individual and common good.) This vision presupposes a system of education and social institutions that bring to bear the best of Western tradition on the human condition. Conservatives are conservators of that tradition because we believe that, to lose it is to lose the wellsprings of much of the glory and achievement of the West these past thousand years. As Weaver says later, "The conservative wants to conserve the great structural reality that has been given us and which is on the whole beneficent" (159).
If I may be permitted one brief question as an aside, I think it will get to the heart of the matter and provide a timely example of why it is important to agree, in general terms, on what constitutes a conservative: Are militants conservatives? (BTW, I'm also slipping this in here because a DC FReeper kindly recommended that I address this question in a thread of my own, rather than on one of their protest threads . . . :o) I say, "no," because, as Weaver points out, there is a fundamental difference between the radical and the conservative, and that conservatives should be suspicious of "impassioned altruism," because
Something like this becomes thus an obsession, almost to the point—or maybe to the point—of irrationality. Not that I regard all desire to reform the world as a sign of being crazy. . . . [but] There is a difference between trying to reform your fellow beings by the normal processes of logical demonstration, appeal and moral sausion—there is a difference between that and passing over to the use of force or constraint. The former is something all of us engage in every day. The latter is what makes the modern radical dangerous and perhaps in a sense demented" (161).Again, of militant liberals, Weaver writes,
Not only do they propose through their reforms to reconstruct and regiment us, they also propose to keep us from hearing the other side. . . . they have no intention of giving the conservative alternative a chance to compete with their doctrines for popular acceptance. If by some accident they are compelled physically to listen, it is with indifference or contempt because they really consider the matter a closed question-that is, no longer on the agenda of discussable things (164).
By the same token conservatives should not themselves act as though some questions are no longer open to discussion (at the very least, from those who identify themselves as FRiends). Weaver continues:
The conservative, on the other hand, is tolerant because he has something to tolerate from, because he has in a sense squared himself with the structure of reality. Since his position does not depend upon fiat and wish fulfillness, he does not have to be nervously defensive about it. A new idea or an opposing idea is not going to topple his. He is accordingly a much fairer man and I think a much more humane man than his opposite . . . He doesn't feel that terrible need to exterminate the enemy which seems to inflame so many radicals of both the past and the present" (164, 5).
Now, see I buy into Weaver's distinction and the ethic implied therein. I think it would serve us well to heed Weaver's insight. Weaver concludes with the following distinction between George Washington's temperament and that of the leaders of the French Revolution. (One must bear in mind that Washington was himself a revolutionary, which refutes "any notion that a conservative must be distinguished by timidity and apathy.") Washington's being the leader of a revolution aside,
The difference is that he does not have the inflamed zeal of his counterpart, the radical revolutionist, who thinks that he must cut off the heads of his opponents because he cannot be objective about his own frustrations. . . . I maintain that the conservative in his proper character and role is a defender of liberty. . . . He is prepared to tolerate diversity of life and opinion because he knows that not all things are of his making and that it is right within reason to let each follow the law of his own being" (165-66).
So, Weaver's distinction between the radical and conservative temperament exemplifies why it matters that one hold a correct view of what constitutes a conservative. But all the above, of course, begs another question: Are all DC Chapter members and Protest Warriors militants, therefore, not to be considered true conservatives?
Of course not. But I DO think it is good to ponder, on occasion, while out on the street corner, week after week, one's motivation and whether or not one is slipping into a militant mindset. If, upon reflection, one discovers that he is developing an addiction to street protests, I would recommend caution. Why? It is sometimes necessary, for those who would revive a tradition, to insulate oneself "from the surrounding forces of sentimentality [or passion] and vulgarity" (31). In all fairness to those who interpret my various postings to question one's motives for "street FReeping" and to beware not to get addicted to street militancy, I have to point out that Weaver further states that it is natural for a conservator of traditional values to sometimes defend tradition in ways intended to offend, because he sometimes shows "defiance and contempt toward those who would deny his level of seriousness" (31). Still, I think the key is to exercise restraint, check one's motives, and use such tactics sparingly; under certain circumstances.
I have to admit I kind of like Martin Luther King's sentiment that ". . . we must not let our creative protests degenerate into physical violence. We must never satisfy our thirst for freedom and justice by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." Even if the opposition deserves to be hated, despised and humiliated! I think these values are in keeping with the conservative temperament. But I digress . . .
There is much room for variety of opinion within so broad a view (so please don't read me as proposing, in arrogance, some lock-step, litmus test for what I, personally, consider a conservative). And a broad view allows for consensus. That broad view naturally values religion, for example, but which religion should predominate is almost beside the point (if one's aim is to unify a movement.) That's why people who hold that our country is founded on a common tradition often call it the Judeo/Christian tradition. I do not personally hold to the tenets of "Judeo/Christianity" (whatever that might be!) But, in the cultural arena, I certainly subscribe to that heritage. Again, questions of degree will always arise (e.g., "How much moderation renders one a liberal? Hence, a RINO?") But still, a consensus underlies such questions . . . and discussions of them. Sure, we hold family disagreements, but at the end of the day that consensus ought to be guarded, maintained, protected.
FRegards,
TPartyType
Here's another Burkian quote for you to ponder.
All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.There's a whole lot of nothing going on out there...but not where the DC Chapter is concerned.
Tagline, TParty.
I have the heart of a liberal...
...in a jar of formaldehyde on my desk.
#23. . . :o)
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."Not saying Martin Luther or St. Thomas More were conservatives or anything. Just wondering what you think of the quotes.
--Martin Luther"The devil...the prowde spirit...cannot endure to be mocked."
--St. Thomas More
"Yes I do. Words mean things"
So does the old saying: "Picking fly specks out of pepper" mean things.
Have a nice life.
Easier to find ping to self.
Yours is an interesting and thought-provoking post. As I distill your essay, it seems you are asking for a consensus on the definition of a conservative and you are positing that conservatism and activism apparently opposites.
Let's take the matter of consensus. Why is it important to define a person as a conservative or not? It seems to me to be as productive as trying to define a beautiful woman. There are beautiful features on a woman but does a woman have to have all the "right" features to be beautiful? By the same token, there are conservative positions on a variety of issues but does one have to hold all the "right" positions in order to be a conservative? In the real world, one-size-fits-all will fit a very few people nicely and be varying degrees of discomfort for everyone else.
I believe the search for the basic definition is divisive and counter-productive. In fact, I believe this is one of the serious challenges for the liberals because they have tried to define who is and is not a liberal based on holding certain positions on abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, and other issues ad infinitum. The attempt to draw the definition alienates people who agree on some issues but not on others. It reminds me of the short verse (sorry, I don't have the author's name): "He drew a circle that shut me out--heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had wit to win, we drew a circle that took him in." Why not approach converatism on an issue-by-issue basis and accept your friends as you find them? I believe in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
As to whether activism and conservatism mix, I think they do if kept within proper limits. Activism for conservative causes should be designed to reflect the conservative respect for law and the use of legal means to accomplish one's purposes. Deep down, many conservatives are motivated not by traditions as such but by the bedrock values underlying those traditions. When conservatives see those bedrock values not just disregarded by others but actually threatened or undermined, the conservative has an obligation to stand up for the value, within the limits of legal activism.
Protest warriors and such who act within the law are fully living conservative values. (So, for that matter, are liberal activists who stay within the law.) In the academic world, rhetoric and debate carry a lot of weight. In much of the rest of society, they tend to be devalued or ignored. When was the last time the local news people came to film one of your no doubt cogent lectures? In order to attract attention to an issue, protest warriors are more or less forced to take actions which would attract news coverage. I believe there is no shame in this so long as the protests are legal.
Does my definition mean anarchy? I think it means a more flexible approach to issues, taking allies as they present themselves and not demanding certain litmus tests to qualify as "one of us".
In the spirit of full disclosure, I consider myself holding conservative views on most issues, though by no means all (as other so-called "conservatives" define them). I have a juris doctorate degree, practice law, been married for over twenty years and have three children. I take my religion seriously and consider this nation grounded in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Not to worry, though, I have no problem accepting non-religious conservative allies. ;o)
Took awhile but got comfortable with the truth.. the denial wore off.. And am presently waiting for an invitation to be the FREE REPUBLIC Rep. as a token HANGMAN on a gang gallows on the White House lawn..
**Note: Phone number available with the proper credentials..
Good analogy. My concern is more akin to a woman who got too many plastic surgeries. Isn't there a point at which she becomes no longer beautiful? In the same manner, a conservative who employs certain radical strategies may end up crossing over from conservative to militant. My concern, precisely, is that conservatives avoid using such tactics without considering the consequences of doing so too often.
I agree that "one-size-fits-all" categories are overly confining. That's why I was attempting to identify a broad "image" or conception of conservatism, so there would be lots of room for agreement. An overly precise, narrow definition would not do . . . absolutely.
I honestly believe we are in agreement regarding the enemy of my enemy is my friend. You won't find one specific issue mentioned in my post, because I was trying to identify some core, general values, around which we can gather (because I think there does have to be something, after all, binding together a movement.) BUT, having said that, and I think I'm pretty explicit about this, later in the post, the application of so general a principle ("the enemy of my enemy . . .") will not do either. I don't care if anyone "subscribes" to a set of beliefs, in any silly, direct sense. It's just that there have to be some things that are considered central to the heart of conservatism (like limited government, respect for law, individualism, personal responsibility, and so on). Don't we identify with these basic propositions? Don't they help define us? If not, can there be any "we" or "us"? I don't think so . . .
"Limited/principled activism"--Amen! I'm with ya, bro.
forced to take actions which would attract news coverage. I believe there is no shame in this so long as the protests are legal.
I agree with you 100%. The only point I've ever tried to make about such activity is that, if a person becomes addicted to grabbing the headlines (and gets increasingly outlandish to accomplish that objective) then they ought to be careful. Conservatives ought not use street militant tactics like 60s radicals. A person's actions eventually effect his or her views and can eventually contribute to a loss of perspective and balance.
In much of the rest of society, they tend to be devalued or ignored.
And why is that, do you suppose? Isn't it because our culture is coming unhinged? That's exactly why I teach my students the way I do. (Not just to debate issues, in an academic, irrelevant sense, but to be at home in the realm of ideas, to be quick-witted and tough-minded, so they can make a difference in the real world.) That is the vision of the conservative professor of rhetoric I learned from Weaver!
I expressly rejected the idea of a litmus test toward the close of my post. I have to say (in the spirit of debate, not criticism) that I find a little ambhiboly in your reply: I'd consider militancy antithetical to conservatism, not activism, and, second, as I said earlier, I never proposed adopting a "basic definition" which would certainly lead to litmus tests, BUT for "an image" or a general conception of conservatism (one that would allow for "variations on the theme" as it were).
Hey, thanks for the spirited, intelligent exchange! And thanks for the "full disclosure." I take my religion very seriously as well. I'm guessing you're into apologetics along the lines taught by John Warwick Montgomery? Have you read The Defense Never Rests by Craig Parton? (I'm taking a van load of college kids to hear him speak at Laramie, Wyoming in April.)
FRegards!
Call me ambhiboly, eh? ;) I've a mind to get amphibole on you, just to get back.
I think we're basically on the same page. I just have some doubt as to whether you can find a set of traits that fit all conservatives. I come from a tradition that accepts and follows Christ and yet many so-called Christians will state I am no Christian. The result is that the division causes them to lose my church as an ally in many, many common causes. That's probably why I am skittish about drawing a line in the sand as far as conservatism is concerned.
I do agree that one can become addicted to militancy as a lifestyle. I have a neighbor who sees the world as us against them and tends to treat every person with an aggression that is totally unwarranted. It is as if she believes if she doesn't hit you first, you are surely going to hit her. So militancy can breed its own justification. I just believe that the values which underlie conservatism are being threatened more and more and it will be harder and harder to maintain our rights to express our values unless we take definitive, sometimes militant, actions to preserve those rights.
Were I to describe a conservative core, I would probably begin with a respect for proven values that have withstood the test of time and circumstances. Add to that respect for authority but contingent on the virtue of that authority. Add to that, tolerance but not tolerance of evil doings. You see how complicated it becomes as soon as we try to define ourselves, the exceptions abound. I frankly am unable to perceive why we need to set up guidelines of who is a conservative and who is not, and isn't that what you are requesting?
I appreciate your discussion and enjoy these topics. I listen occasionally to Christian radio stations when they have discussions on the Bible but I have no idea who John Warwick Montgomery is. I enjoy reading the likes of C.S. Lewis and church history.
I wish you good luck in your travel in Wyoming. You drive carefully now. I grew up in Idaho and know the power of winter there.
So what's your take on the federal government attempting to regulate public morality while claiming to be regulating commerce?
(BTW, I initially had Reagan's 11th Commandment right under the Madison quote, but decided the post was getting too long and pulled it.)
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for bumping by!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.