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
So to that end . . .
Howdy! I'm TPartyType. I'm a college professor (of rhetoric) and a father of four. My wife and I have been married 25 years. I am more a cultural than a fiscal conservative, but I believe in limited government more than "compassionate conservatism." I'm more of a Reagan Republican than a neo-conservative, am interested more in the moral fabric of society than the bottom line, BUT I respect others who are different, and I expect to be able to hold reasoned dialogue with them about those differences on this [conservative] forum! (but that's another post . . .)
There's one party in Washington as far as I'm concerned. All it cares about is spending MY money to keep its power.
I am optimistic about the new house leadership, but get back with me after Nov 06. LOL
I'm a father of four myself.
FRegards.
ping
. . . and I agree with your tagline (as it applies to Islamofascist jihaddists)!
Anyone who quotes Sean Hannity for starters is hopelessly lost.
Wake up. We got a world wide war going on.
And you want to mince words over the technical nuances of what particular strain of conservative each imbecile you meet is?
The very essence of American "conservatism," IMO, is the freedom to disagree! I think you might actually be more concerned with civility.
Nice essay, though. I agree with some, if not all, of Weaver's points. But for a conservative who follows the traditions which I believe in, the only true common good is the one in which everyone has the freedom to choose their own personal common good.
Thanks for the reply.
Here's a link: A Reflection on Federalist #1
Yes I do. Words mean things.
Too pedantic for my tastes, professor.
bump for future reading/comment
Only if rules of conduct are not instituted. In other words, freedom has to be for everyone, it can not go so far as to allow one or a group of individuals to infringe the freedom of other groups or individuals. Violent crimes, and those against private property all fall into the category of actions that infringe freedom, and therefore can't be permitted.
My opinion is that the traditions that Weaver speaks of generally do effectively address such crime and ethical behavior.
PING~
Prometheus figuratively spitting into Zeus' face makes him my favorite character from Greek mythology. Seems somewhat improbable that Madisonian coolness can ever truly "take" with fiery people like me. :)
Well said! :o)
You start your, whatever it is, with something from Vanity. The bottom line -- should we all be, or not be, BushBots.
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.