A follow up on John’s comment, speaking for myself only I see this as being a place which is both very latitudinarian in religious and political opinion (within reasonable bounds of course!). One reason I saw a need for this sort of weblog is that many people equate conservatives who are not part of the Religious Right with libertarians; but this is not necessarily so. My own particular concern is that the modern Right seems to be turning into a religious sectarian movement, specifically an evangelical Protestant one, due to its demographic makeup. John is more worried about the influence of Roman Catholic thinkers, who provide much of the intellectual superstructure of American social conservatism. Ultimately, I think we are united by a methodological approach which privileges human reason and empirical data, in concert with a conservative disposition. Other Right-of-Center websites often take evangelical claims as presuppositions in the debate implicitly. As I said, this is due to simple demographics, but it does affect the character of discussion.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
I’m less concerned about the direction of the Right than the direction of the center. By and large, the Left will be the Left; that is their religion and they won’t be turned any more than the religious Right. The center, however, is a persuadable bunch, capable of being brought into that “broader church,” and in my experience the secular view secular view of conservatism is far more successful with non-conservatives than the religious flavor. A positive belief in the ability of the individual to direct his own destiny better than the state requires no call to deity. Bringing more people into the conservative fold, regardless of religious preference, can only help. It should be the conservatism that counts, not the religious beliefs.
We might all be better off if Catholics provided the intellectual foundation for religious conservatives. The problem is, most religious conservative are Protestant, and the Protestant faiths don’t exactly have a long intellectual tradition. At least the Catholics TRY to justify their beliefs within some kind of rational framework (regardless of whether or not you think it’s a valid one). Supporters of ID are overwhelmingly Protestant, opposition to stem cell research is driven mostly by Protestants, and there weren’t a lot of Catholics hanging around Terry Schaivo’s bed. Plus, Catholics vote Dem at a far greater rate than evangelicals, partially because of the social justice thing, and partially because of high union membership rates in non-Hispanic Catholic households.
That said, what exactly is the distinction between a non-religious conservative and a libertarian? Speaking only from my own (limited) experience, non-religious folk tend to develop an ethics that is essentially utilitarian, and it’s hard to defend a lot of social conservative positions from that perspective. Abortion, sure, tough on crime, sure, but things like school prayer, flag burning, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc…, what is there to ally a non-religious person with evangelicals on those issues?
Judeo-Christian values are neither sufficient nor even necessary components of Americanism. Conservatives with a mental blind spot to this reality often try to justify the institutionalization of Judeo-Christianity by deeming it to be the only absolute ideological shelter for freedom. Plato alone has spoken with more clarity and conviction about absolute transcendental values such as Justice and Goodness, than there can be found throughout the entire Bible. Natural Law has enjoyed a fertile tradition in Western Philosophy, originated by Protagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, carried out by the Stoics, and augmented by many great thinkers up to the present day.
Not only is the firm binding of natural law with religion not dictated by any philosophical necessity, it is also a strategically self-defeating position for Conservatives to take in the ongoing battle for hearts and minds. I cannot think of a more dangerous proposition for the future of American cultural institutions than the prospect that their desirability and justification depend on the dubious existence of Abraham’s God.
“One reason I saw a need for this sort of weblog is that many people equate conservatives who are not part of the Religious Right with libertarians”
And see Matt Schiros’s comment. I myself have been labeled a libertarian by my liberal friends because I’m an atheist conservative who rejects the current Republican party and they don’t know what else to call me. So how about clearly defining how a secular conservative differs from a libertarian?
Borrowing from the writings of Derbyshire and others I might suggest these tenets:
1) Human nature exists, as do innate human limitations on human ability. We are not going to legislate away greed and envy and hate, but no more are we going to educate our way to a nation where most people are equipped to be “knowledge workers”.
2) Tradition is good. Not unalterable, but worthy of respect. If something has been around for a long time, it might be for a reason.
3) America (and the idea of a country generally) is a good idea. If a policy makes the world on average somewhat better off but makes America significantly worse off, we’re against it.
4) American ideals (and Western civilization generally) are good and ought to be preserved, *particularly in America*. We should not import alien cultures in volumes larger than we can easily assimilate.
5) Government should be made as small as possible, but no smaller. Individual freedom is a core American value, but a secular conservative is nothing if not pragmatic. A true libertarian is an idealist; a true conservative is a realist.
This seems like as good a place as any to jump in; I expect I’ll be reading more than commenting. As either an agnostic or an atheist (depending on who I’m trying to annoy) and a conservative, it bothers me a bit to see conservatism linked with religion. I’ve never seen any reason why political conservatism would imply a belief in God.
I spend a fair amount of time on the Richard Dawkins forum, mostly discussing books. It’s interesting to see that even there, where the majority of posters are quite leftist, there are a few unbelievers with conservative political opinions.
Agree with all you wrote, but the above point is particularly important.
The differences in human ability, and thus achievable potential, are quite different, and, worse, strongly genetically influenced. That uncomfortable and regrettable truth ( but what are ‘ya gonna do?) must inform public policy, even if it not be mentioned, for the obvious reason.
In short, it is not a level playing field out there ( we KNOW that in sports, music, art, etc), so you cannot just remove barriers, provide opportunity for all, and then let the economic. and thus life-style, chips fall where they may – as libertarians would tend to do.
In my view, a just society is going to have to include some form of “to each according to his need”. I wish it were not so, but I’m afraid it is. It’s the realist in me, I guess.
Ivan, that’s an interesting point. Although I don’t hear the implications you mention discussed in conservative circles much more than in libertarian ones, I do basically agree. Probably conservatives don’t think that the “to each” should be race based, or that we should import massive numbers of needy people into this country, but conservatives should recognize that America does have an obligation to provide some sort of support for its less able citizens. Conservatives would also probably turn fewer potential voters off if they did so. (I’m frequently fighting the impression among my liberal friends that conservatives are stingy heartless bastards).
Not all libertarians are non-religious; there are theist conservatives who take the position that many moral matters are between God and man, and shouldn’t be the subject of criminal law. If libertarianism is loosely defined as, “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”, that is a concept of freedom that theists and atheists can both agree upon.
On the flip side, there are statists of both the theistic and atheistic variety who think the role of government is to impose their views upon society.
Only according to your definition of just. It’s not mine, under any conception of conservative thought. To the degree that a person’s need is properly that person’s responsibility–health, retirement, etc.–it’s not just to force by threat of government action another person to provide for it. We may end up doing some of that anyway, simply because society demands it, but I don’t consider it just.
“Not all libertarians are non-religious;”
I think the idea that libertarians are non-religious probably comes from Ayn Rand. In fact, most libertarian authors that I read are religious, with the RC heavily represented. Browse through the list of writers on Lewrockwell.com and you’ll see what I mean.
That’s just the problem, though. It wouldn’t be race based, but it could appear to be, if just one thing turns out to be (tragically) true: that the races of Man do have statistically significant, and genetics-based, differing mean IQs, and that IQ, further, be a predictor and determiner of ultimate economic success in modern economies, like ours.
If the IQ stuff be true, then if all we create is a level playing field and equal access and opportunity, when the end results are measured and aggregated, it will appear as if some form of prejudice must be to blame. And this will then engender the types of ineffective remedies and recriminations that we in fact see today.
This is a vitally important question to get answered, because if true, then what constitutes a “just” society, and how do we move towards it? Clint Hayes posts that he is repelled by the force implied in the “to each according to his need”, but I’m sure he does so thinking that those in need had their chance on a level playing field, and must live with the consequences, or hope for charity.
I see that view ( again, if the IQ disparity is true ) as highly un-just, and not worthy of an enlightened society.
This is why I bring up this unpopular and dangerous subject. It has to be brought up, it seems to me, because the ramifications are enormous.
If I believed in God, I would now say that I pray that it is NOT true. Not being a believer, though, actually helps me look at the evidence more objectively, since, unlike the believers, I have no little voice in me saying “It can’t be true. God would not have done that to some of his children”.
Ivan,
If a policy is not race based but “appears to be” in the sense of disproportionately benefiting one race (like, say, the earned income tax credit), then I don’t think a conservative would necessarily object (I certainly don’t in this instance). However, if singling out a group for harm or “help” based on race is always a bad idea (and I think it is), it does not follow that opening up the same program to other races is a good idea. “Class-based” affirmative action is a bad idea for many of the same reasons that race-based AA is.
Rather, if a conservative want to help “less able” citizens (and he should, as long as they play by the rules), he should avoid doing so through means which are morally hazardous to the recipient and financially destructive to the country- like AA and welfare. Better to create employment opportunities for low-skilled labor, for instance, or to support trade schools in place of a pointless college education- or even in place of the last two years of high school.
No, I do so knowing full well that the playing field isn’t level. But doing something that’s unjust to fix an unjust thing doesn’t make much sense to me. (Often my first superficial attack on affirmative action.) The fact is that we do have mandatory entitlements that eat up 56% of our federal revenues, and we do have an unlevel playing field across the board, though obviously far worse in many urban areas. Neither is just, neither should be acceptable, and both should be addressed, from the conservative point of view.
To me, a just society would as closely as possible follow a form of government that ensures the maximum possible ability of an individual to live up to his responsibilities. That requires not having the encumbrance of having also to live up to someone else’s responsibilities. Considering the hundreds to thousands of dollars a year an individual could retain by not having that encumbrance, it would leave a great deal more for him to acquire the health coverage, the retirement funds, the education, that he needs to make himself self-sufficient. And as any conservative ought to know, the consequent self-worth and interest in charity that almost always comes along for the ride. A sure way to increase charity is to remove the resentments inevitably fostered by entitlements, which can be done by removing the entitlements that are an immense drain on personal income and the overall economy.
So no, the playing field isn’t level, but that doesn’t make entitlements any less just, and trading one unjust thing for another (much less doubling them up) gets us nowhere closer to a just society. There is a way there, but it will only come with a positive, ringing pitch for the conservative alternative to the entitlement mentality. Conservatism hasn’t been sold well, certainly not nationally, on anything resembling its best and finest merits since Reagan. There’s no value to be had in quarter- or half-measures, with an incremental “get what we can” approach, and frankly I think it’s the secular conservatives who are best positioned to make the sale, since we can show how base elements of both sides are–and aren’t–necessary.
Federal spending, that is.