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
What a terrific post! Thanks for sharing your insights.
Interesting post. Weaver was a smart man.
Goldwater Republican here who now identifies more closely with the limited government principles of the libertarians and Constitutionalists. The "Republicans" and so-called "conservatives" of today make me ill.
Professor, you've spent way too much time in "Why can't we all just get along" academe. The big-tent mentality is precisely why the party is fractured. Without SOME minimal common core values, we're doomed to fall into faction. Here are a few of my "must-haves":
The Founders were brilliant and presceint men. The Constitution is a foundational document that is meant to be rock solid for the ages. It provides an amendment process. Learn it, love it, use it. It is not a living, breathing document intended shift and twist in the political winds of the day. Activist courts are the single biggest threat to our Republic.
I can't and won't tolerate "compassionate conservatism". It's my money and I'll decide who is deserving of largess.
I can't and won't tolerate any form of "gun control". The right of self-defense in unalienable.
I can't and won't tolerate any attempt to remove the pro-life plank from the party. The right of life preceeds the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness in the DOI. That isn't an accident.
I can't and won't abide "conservatives" whose words and deeds are incongruent. Ricky Santorum is a prime example.
Fundamental Tax Reform is long overdue. As is Social Security restructuring. The party has their thumbs up, well...nevermind. These crises are looming and the impotent pubbies haven't accomplished a thing.
Time to hold the party accountable for broken promises.
* This encompasses conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, and libertarians.
You do have a sharper focus on policies and "party planks" than my post, but, on the other hand you clearly shy away from the more contentious libertarian positions (which, I take it you do for the sake of finding common ground--"minimal common core values" as you put it.) Thanks!
BTW, Weaver has a dandy little discussion of the common ground between conservatives and libertarians in the final essay of Life Without Prejudice . . . check it out!
FRegards,
TPT
Well said. Thanks so much. . . . for everything.
BTTT
Bush is defending our country against terrorists in the best way he knows how. But what Bush, CBart95 and many other American don't recognize is that the enemies that pose the greatest danger to our Republic are the socialists that have been in charge of it for the past 70 years. The terrorists are a distraction.
Social Security needs to be voluntarily privatized and all other socialistic programs abandoned completely over the next decade or the United States is going to end up on the Ash-heap of history right beside the Soviet Union. The Gokhale-Smetters report is the ticking time bomb that is counting off the remaining seconds of our Republic.
Have I got a deal for you!
The link that follows is an index (archive) of previously posted articles that are part of a series that detail how We the people can take our country back by restoring the Constitution. Please click here to start reading the series and then ping me if you would like to be added to our ping list.
Thanks.
Thank you Sir. And I have found your present post to thought provoking. Debate for the sake of debate and definition forces us to come to terms not only with others, but also with ourselves. And it does allow for some "ahh ha" moments with new realizations. But in a time of war, it can be a distraction rather than a goal oriented effort to win the war. The war that I am referencing here is not the war on terror, but rather the war that Democrats and other socialists are waging against the Constitution and against the United States itself.
I have no doubt in my own mind that I have found the winning strategy that can actually restore the Constitution. I invite you to join the discussion on how to implement a plan to restore the Constitution. We issued this challenge to anyone that doubts that our strategy can or will work.
Please see our prior post that contains a link to the series index. And please consider this as your personal invitation to take The Pledge and join us in this effort.
But I fear that it flys in the face of "the solution" the founders suggested by the 2nd amendment.. You know, revolution.. It could be that "you" are the smarter than the founders.. or merely afraid.. But I will read your link and go on from there.. d;-!
Thanks for the invitation.
"We" who? When you say "our" to whom do you refer?
ping
(I'm not quite ready to let this thread die, so, if you could give 'er a little bumperoonie? If not, I'll just let "nature take its course" . . .)
Thanks!
TPT
Ping to a FReeper who, by the looks of the philosophy threads, (not to mention his tagline) is intellectually engaged!
I agree with you.
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.