Comments on: Goose and Gander

By: abstractart

abstractart — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:49:25 +0000

conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order. …. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata.

Except that that’s not, as an empirical statement about how the term “conservative” is used in this country, true.

Unless Christian evangelicals (who are *hardly* a group lacking in dogma or ideology) no longer count as “conservative”, for instance.

By: back40

back40 — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:40:14 +0000

Bryan Appleyard's review is longer and, I think, more insightful.

By: withywindle

withywindle — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:46:48 +0000

Addendum: when you say “opposition to desegregation,” are you limiting yourself to Bull Conner et al and the formal legal system of segregation, or did you (as I assumed) also mean South Boston, and informal segregation? I took you to mean the looser definition.

Also, I’m off for a few days–beg pardon if I can’t continue on the conversation. If it’s still going when I return, I’ll post something more.

By: withywindle

withywindle — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:17:11 +0000

You are off–although sufficiently general as to preclude specific critique. In general, here as elsewhere, you try to turn conservative (and other) principles into harsh, universalizing ideologies, where any failure to live up to any one of them at all times and in all circumstances exposes you to the charge of hypocrisy. This is of minimal utility when describing any non-ideological system of belief–and to describe all beliefs as ideologies is to steal a few bases–but particularly unsuited for a description of conservatism. Note Russell Kirk:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. …. conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order. …. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata.

To oppose government-imposed schemes aimed at racial desegregation, and to favor government intervention in some other circumstance, in and of itself tells us nothing about racism (or any other of the liberal decalogue of sins), nothing about putative conservative hypocrisy, nothing about conservativism in any way, shape, or form. It tells us only that circumstances varied, and so too did proposed conservative solutions. Perhaps the variation does reveal racism, hypocrisy, etc.–but this requires sustained argument to prove, far beyond the mere statement of varied application of the several conservative principles. (Consider, incidentally, that one could oppose forced busing without remotely being a racist; you are making some unpleasant and unwarranted assumptions.)

For all your praise of particularism, your inability to conceive of principle in unideological terms reveals a generalizing frame of mind.

By: SamChevre

SamChevre — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:08:33 +0000

I think you are missing social pressure as a fundamental force. Red Family, Blue Family is a helpful frame.

In a small-government society (say, Victorian England), you need your family/church/peers (hereafter, tribe) to help you survive. They are your social safety net, and you have to care what they think; being an outcast has real, tangible costs.

In a big-government society, there is a social safety net; you don’t have to care what your tribe thinks.

The government (intentionally and accidentally) has followed a “starve and strangle” strategy wrt tribes over the last century. Starve them of needs to fill, and strangle their ability to provide benefits. The net result is that it is very very hard to make the neighbors care what you think today relative to the past.

Thus, to maintain the traditional level of bourgousie values REQUIRES much more reliance on law than it did.