Posted on 04/27/2003 12:31:21 PM PDT by quidnunc
-snip-
The second major split within modern conservatism involves the Straussians in a rather different way. For over a decade, the clashes between Harry Jaffa and such partisans of the Confederate cause as Willmoore Kendall and M. E. Bradford have marked the forward lines of the North-South controversy. Jaffa has defended the hallowed ground of reason, equality (of natural rights), Abraham Lincoln, and the Union; Bradford has taken his stand on behalf of tradition, inequality, John C. Calhoun, and states' rights.
Recently, new armies have entered the field. The dispute between "paleo-conservatives" and "neo-conservatives" has generated not only smoke and noise but headlines, on account of Pastor Richard John Neuhaus's expulsion by the "paleo-con" Rockford Institute. Aside from that ungentlemanly action, the debate has centered around "global democracy," "secularism," immigration, and charges of envy and religious bigotry. These bitter disagreements occur in the context of two massive facts. One is that, in abstract terms, the paleo-cons and neo-cons agree on far more than they disagree on. Both sides agree that rationalism in politics leads quickly to Jacobinism; that universal truths of the sort expressed in the Declaration of Independence (or in twentieth-century liberalism: they tend to see the two as continuous) are ultimately destructive of authentic, historically rooted human communities; that history or experience is therefore a better guide than reason in political affairs.
Where paleo-cons and neo-cons disagree is over what is to be done. Strongly influenced by the Eastern Straussians (with whom they overlap), the neo-cons take a more or less Tocquevillian approach, reasoning that modern capitalist democracy is here to stay, that despite its anomie it has brought substantial benefits, that incremental improvement of our condition is possible and desirable. Their politics tends therefore to be utilitarian and meliorist but also strongly anti-utopian.
Both paleo- and neo-conservatives put a great deal of reliance on the idea of history (as their names, borrowed so to speak from the theory of evolution, attest). For the latter, it is liberal democracy's very success — the fact that, however uninspiring it may be, it has outlasted its foes — that proves its superiority; indeed, that makes it worthy and capable of propagation to the rest of the world. For the paleos, democracy's success, no matter how expansive, is hollow precisely because it cannot match the glories of traditional societies, especially that of the Old South. Thus the neo-con's cautious historicism shades over into a calculating utilitarianism, while the paleo-con's historicism rejects calculation in favor of a romantic appreciation of passion, the grandeur of the past, personal and national idiosyncrasy.
It is the peculiar nature of this dispute, the fact that the sides have so many premises in common, that helps to account for its second major characteristic: the allegations of nativism and anti-Semitism that color it. In the absence of a clear philosophical difference between the paleos and neos, the obvious ethnic and religious difference between them comes to the fore. That the neo-cons are mostly Jewish, and the paleo-cons emphatically not, is seized upon by both sides in weak moments as the secret explanation of the controversy. Of course, none of the policy questions that are being controverted here (immigration, "global democracy," etc.) can really be reduced to these terms. But the temptation to reduce them will be there so long as better arguments are not forthcoming.
This is particularly the case with the neo-conservatives, who have not responded as well as they should, I think, to the paleo-cons' criticisms. For the real issue is not whether there is room for Jews in a proper American conservatism, but whether, as the paleo-cons define it, there is room for America in conservatism. According to the traditional American understanding proclaimed in the Declaration, all men are created equal, and equally deserve to have their natural rights secured by a just government instituted and operating with the consent of the governed. The first purpose of conservatism would thus be to keep American government just, to make sure that it secures the common good and preserves the rights of its citizens. These rights, deriving from natural right, are based essentially on the citizens' humanity, and have no proper reference to their race, religion, ethnicity, class, or any other secondary or accidental characteristic.
This is not quite the America celebrated by the paleo-cons, who emphasize the regnant inequalities in American life as it has actually been lived. The older traditionalists like Willmoore Kendall were not at home with this America, either, but some of the new or second-generation traditionalists go even further in their rejection of all natural-right arguments. M. E. Bradford is perhaps the best known of these. Whereas most of the older traditionalists (e.g., Kendall, Russell Kirk) saw some harmony — however tenuous — between natural law and tradition or history, Bradford and his followers denounce any appeal to rational, transhistorical principles. To put the difference plainly: whereas Richard M. Weaver traced the decline of the West to William of Occam's attack on universals, Bradford blames our current degeneration on the prevalence of universals in politics and morals.
Other second-generation traditionalists take a different tack. Thomas Fleming, the editor of the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, understands the natural law not as a law of right reason (as Aquinas did), but as a "law of nature" in the modern scientific nor deterministic sense: he uses sociobiology and anthropology to prove that gender and class differences are natural. Attempting to combine traditional natural law with some version of the philosophy of history, Claes Ryn and Paul Gottfried try in different ways to find a philosophical basis for the role of reason within the historical process.
The real issue here is not whether particular paleo-cons are nativist or anti-Semitic, much less whether particular neo-cons are hypersensitive. Everyone involved in this debate agrees that anti-Semitism is wrong. It is a doctrine without defenders. But this consensus cannot endure if its grounds are allowed to be undermined. Paleo-cons as well as neo-cons have an interest in keeping this consensus and the conservative movement itself intact. The problem is that such vices as anti-Semitism and nativism are a constant temptation whenever virtue goes unexplained and unchampioned. When reason, equality, and natural rights (including the right of religious freedom) are contemned in the name of a monolithic and unrestrained "tradition," the ground for evil has been prepared.
As I say, the neo-conservatives in particular have not been very successful at articulating the larger questions at stake, partly because they have been unwilling to undertake the positive defense of American principles that is required. They need to say in broad daylight why nativism and anti-Semitism — errors with which they charge the paleo-conservative movement — are un-American, hence also unconservative. Such a declaration would invite a reconsideration of some of the principles they have shared half-heartedly with the paleo-cons. After all, the neo-cons have always stopped short of the paleo-cons' and the Old Right's open break with Lincoln and his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. Yet only Jaffa and the Western Straussians have vigorously contested this attack on Lincoln and the role of equality in the American political tradition. The neo-cons, like the Eastern Straussians with whom they have so much in common, have been content to keep their discontents private, and to hope for the best. But the logic of the debate carries it more and more clearly in the direction of the classic North-South struggle within conservatism. And the border states must eventually choose sides.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at claremont.org ...
I understand that you attempted to invoke the philosophies of ancient Greeks and Romans to argue that the paleo-con mindset is not antithetical to American principles.
There may be reasonable elements to their worldview, but taken all in all it is a noxious witch's brew of horribles which should athanama to all consciousness conservatives.
Read Eric Margolis' writings in the Toronto Sun.
Read Taki Theodoracopulos's column in Taliban Pat's magazine.
Tell me there's anything to admire there.
Can you elaborate on this?
I didn't mention "one particular person"; I mentioned Hobbes, Locke, the Enlightenment philosophes. Perhaps the most popular among the Founders was the Baron de Montesquieu.
I've always been a fan of inherently self-contradictory propositions, myself - one is left to wonder how we arrived at the conclusion that history is a better guide in political affairs than reason, if not through the application of reason itself. Divine inspiration? Those damned universal truths... ;)
History has its part to play as it illustrates what in the course of events worked and what didn't work.
Rex Stout's fictional detective Nero Wolfe's guiding principle was that of "intelligence guided by experience."
That doesn't seem to be such a bad prescription to me.
What cleared up the Ancient World's depravity was Christianity. (And incredibly hard times.) I can see nothing similar happening in the modern world for the foreseable future.
FreeRepublic entertains many old fashioned people, not terribly learned or articulate, bless them, and a small town, rather Nineteenth Century ethos. I like it. On the other hand, this will not be a successful defense against the "left" aspect of modernity. Take France and Germany as proof. Or Dalrymple's writing on English culture. Or the state of any big city USA. (And increasingly the small towns.)
So much for the big picture. On the near term new middle class jobs will be very rare. There is no reason to expect any real economic "recovery" until the excesses of the Bubble have been worked through. This could take a decade or more because of half measures applied to the problem. (The economic medicine applied will not be enough to cure but only prolong, as happened in the 30's. It will mostly be the wrong medicine as well.) There will be enough pain to shift a majority of voters to the left. Right now the situation is balanced, but another 10 or 20 million middle class jobs disappearing will change this.
If you want more brass tacks, look at the Democratic Party's behavior during this administration. They have many very smart, very ambitious people. They are acting according to a plan based on a view of the future not disimilar to mine. They will fight to the death to stop any tax cutting, regulatory reform, judicial reform, or legal reform that would in fact lead to recovery. They will blame without pause the Republicans for the increasingly dismal situation. When they gain power they will do whatever they believe it takes to insure that they cannot ever be dislodged. Political opposition will be suppressed.
There you go, plain as day.
So, in short, you are advocating a return to "fundamentalist" Judeo-Christian morality, circa...when exactly? And should the morality be codified in law? Has all progress since the Enlightenment, since the Renaissance even, been "nihilistic"?
FreeRepublic entertains many old fashioned people, not terribly learned or articulate, bless them, and a small town, rather Nineteenth Century ethos. I like it. On the other hand, this will not be a successful defense against the "left" aspect of modernity. Take France and Germany as proof. Or Dalrymple's writing on English culture. Or the state of any big city USA. (And increasingly the small towns.)
You lost me a little here. What does "this" refer to? FR as a tool of communication to advocate such a return to J-C values? How do France and Germany constitute proof as to is uselessness? And why exclude Scandinavia, Japan, South America, the whole industrialized world, in fact? Or is there something special about France and Germany?
On the near term new middle class jobs will be very rare.
Haven't "information careers" become the new "middle class jobs"? Are they really in jeopardy of disappearing in the new technological world?
There is no reason to expect any real economic "recovery" until the excesses of the Bubble have been worked through.
What exactly is the "Bubble"? Its excesses?
They will fight to the death to stop any tax cutting, regulatory reform, judicial reform, or legal reform that would in fact lead to recovery.
For argument's sake, what kinds of reform would you advocate?
When they gain power they will do whatever they believe it takes to insure that they cannot ever be dislodged. Political opposition will be suppressed.
"1984"? Is the future really that dim to you?
Sorry to barrage you with questions, but you've really stoked my grey matter, here.
On the contrary, it's extremely helpful to gain a background understanding of the different schools of conservatism in order to understand which school of thought is propelling which conservative public figure. Ex: David Horowitz = neocon; Pat Buchanan = paleo. Very different guys.
Hmmmm. i probably did not express it well. what I was trying to say was that regardless of the "neo" or "paleo" tag, we cannot be at one another's throats at this stage. As teh other poster said, Hitlery is still our there.....
Tia
One is also left to wonder what exactly your point is. Regardless of how that conclusion has been arrived at, it can be (and probably is) nonetheless a valid conclusion. If you can "reason" that there are limits to human reason, does that mean that reason is still king? Or does it mean that it's merely a useful stepping stone along the way?
Put another way, does it not mean that reason itself is an "inherently self-contradictory proposition"?
You said: So, in short, you are advocating a return to "fundamentalist" Judeo-Christian morality, circa...when exactly? And should the morality be codified in law? Has all progress since the Enlightenment, since the Renaissance even, been "nihilistic"?
My reply: I said nothing of the sort. I said, "This trend is "left". It is the major cultural trend in the West since the "Renaissance"." I am talking about a cultural trend. You are talking about "progress". Also, I advocate very little except that one be willing to distinguish between truth and lies.
You said: Has all progress since the Enlightenment, since the Renaissance even, been "nihilistic"? My Question: What do you mean by "progress"? Do not conflate the accidents of changing technology and the efforts people have made to come to terms to these technologies, nor increased populations, transportation, industrialization, access to media, etc. that are a result of changing technology. Otherwise you won't be able to distinguish between technological change and "progress". That is, you will be forced into the position of saying "progress = technological change." Technological change is morally neutral, I think we both can agree, and therefore has nothing to do with "nihilism", etc.
How do you know it's a valid conclusion? Applying reason? Watch out for that Jacobinism bugbear.
If you can "reason" that there are limits to human reason, does that mean that reason is still king? Or does it mean that it's merely a useful stepping stone along the way?
It means you probably shouldn't make universal pronouncements about the inapplicability of rationalism to the political sphere... ;)
Both sides agree that....universal truths of the sort expressed in the Declaration of Independence (or in twentieth-century liberalism: they tend to see the two as continuous) are ultimately destructive of authentic, historically rooted human communities;
How are the universal truths in the Declaration of Independence destructive?
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.