Behind the Sharon Statement

If you’ve been around organized conservatism for long, you’ve almost certainly heard of the 1960 Sharon Statement, long cited as a declaration of principles around which the then-burgeoning conservative movement could rally, much as the Port Huron Statement later served such a function for the New Left. At his blog QuickSilber, after discussing the somewhat varied religious viewpoints held by early National Review editors, Ken Silber writes:

But a better indicator, it seems to me, is the Sharon Statement, drafted by [M. Stanton] Evans and adopted by young conservatives in 1960 at William F. Buckley’s Connecticut estate. It was only by a close vote (44-40) that these conservatives decided to put the word “God” in the statement, and when they did it was to say: “That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force.” The manifesto was, as Glenn Reynolds might put it, religious but not too much.

And then in comments he adds:

Whether the slim majority in the Sharon group was correct or not, I think the closeness of the vote, and the paucity in their manifesto of what are now known as “social issues,” suggests that religion was present in conservatism in 1960 but less than dominant.

In retrospect, the statement’s choice of language can also be seen as a deft stroke of compromise: the religious conservatives got one definite tip of the hat toward their views, if only of a Sunday-politeness sort, while the large secular contingent (who then, as now, would have tended to skew toward individual-liberty-based versions of conservatism) were in effect assured that to the extent the movement drew on religious sentiment, it would be for the purpose of asserting the individual’s “right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force”. That foreshadowed what Grover Norquist was later to call the “leave us alone” coalition that was to hold together for a good long time as a political matter, even if battered almost beyond recognition now.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Learning what we already knew

Forbes has a piece up, America’s Healthiest And Unhealthiest States. But you could predict the list from Albion’s Seed. Sometimes things never change….

Posted in culture, data | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Learning what we already knew

Darwinian & Postmodern Conservatism

At Culture11 Ivan Kenneally asks, Is Darwinian Conservatism Postmodern?:

Larry Arnhart is surely the best proponent of Darwinian Conservatism, and not just because he has a blog with the same name. In his view, an evolutionary biological account of nature properly captures our intellectual and moral capacities, the emergence of consciousness itself, and grounds a political and cultural conservatism by demonstrating our natural limits as political and social beings. Does this count as a species of postmodern conservatism? It might fail as appropriately conservative since nature is made all too dynamic–if our current human condition is nothing other than the latest stage in a train of evolutionary developments then on what basis can we privilage this one as the final one? Does Darwinian conservatism require an End of History, some kind of final eschatology? Also, does evolutionary biology do justice to the real human person as we experience ourselves or is there something about our characteristic resistance to nature and eros for transcendence that eludes Darwinian categories of explanation? If the heart of postmodern conservatism is an experiential realism that rescues the real human person from modern abstraction, Darwinian conservatism might fail by identifying human nature too closely with our bodily selves, with nature as such. So is Darwinian Conservatism insufficiently postmodern and insufficiently conservative?

Nature is dynamic, but very fast evolution works on the order of tens of generations. I perceive political orders as the possibilities of the present. What is conservative in one age varies from what is conservative in another age. Why demand of Darwinian Conservatism what one does not demand of conservatism writ large? Darwinian Conservatism does not do justice to the human individual, but it is much more serviceable in addressing human populations, what we might term societies. The true interlocutor which Ivan is looking for is “Psychological” or “Cognitive” Conservatism, which might focus on individuals as natural phenomenon which develop over a lifetime.

Posted in culture, philosophy, politics | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Using the General Social Survey interface

My post, Who prays more, Democrats or Republicans?, has gotten a little link love. First at Daily Dish, and later at Kevin Drum. That’s great; in fact, a fair number of my GSS based charts get picked up around the blogosphere. But alas, the practice of looking to the GSS to test some intuition or CW hasn’t spread like wildfire. The prayer post took me all of 10 minutes. I’ve posted a link to Berkeley’s GSS interface before, http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss06, but that doesn’t seem to prod people much, so I thought perhaps this is some behavioral economic conundrum where pictures might induce more interest & initiative.

Continue reading

Posted in data | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Secular Right feed on Twitter

If you’re on Twitter, you can now follow an automated feed of Secular Right posts, complete with David Hume icon. (You can also follow me or feeds of my sites Overlawyered and Point of Law if you’re so inclined, though the talk there’ll be about subjects mostly unrelated to this site.)

Posted in Administration | Tagged | Comments Off on Secular Right feed on Twitter

Heliocentrism Dethroned!

Given that their church is fairly sensible on evolution, I guess Catholics have to compensate somehow.

Posted in Science & Faith | 20 Comments

Great American history book recommendations

This is a thread for suggestions.  I’m looking here for works which focus on social & economic changes, as opposed to personal biography and diplomatic history.  The latter was important, but my personal impression is that they’re easy to bone up on via simple web resources.  But when it comes to topics which are less likely to move copies in airport terminals the seamless narrative of a scholar still has a strong comparative advantage.  Here’s a few:

Posted in culture, history, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 14 Comments

The fall of the first republic?

I’m reading Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy. I’m only about 1/4 of the way through, so on page 200 or so. I’m not surprised by the narrative so far, the rise of mass democratic populism and the fading away of the partisans of the original oligarchic republic vision as the Age of Jackson dawns.  But there are a few details which are striking in a contemporary context.  New England was the last redoubt of the Federalist vision of hierarchical conservatism, from limited  white male suffrage to established churches.  Additionally, the rise to the fore of what during the Enlightenment would be termed “Enthusiasm” is notable, as democratic politics turns into a quadrennial performance.  In religious terms there was  an alliance at both ends of the theological spectrum; Free Thinkers & Deists in Philadelphia made common cause with Baptist “Back Country” farmers and nominally Episcopalian “Low Country” planters against the urbane Congregationalist ascendancy of New England.  The historical reality of the rise of democratic populism, and something of an amnesia about the nature of the republic during its early years (when democracy was something of a term of insult), leads to the peculiarities of the American Right, which is in many measures a descendant of classical liberalism.

Posted in history | Tagged , , | 16 Comments

“Is it literally true, the Bible?” “You know, probably not.”

Do you think the self-imagined Republican “base” would mobilize against a candidate who talked that way? (via Althouse). (And, yes, I wish the reporter had pinned him down with “inerrantly” rather than “literally”. But still.)

Posted in politics | Tagged , | 92 Comments

Presidential Metaphysics

Does Barack Obama believe in God? Does he, in fact, have a single religious bone in his body?  Steve Sailer, in his terrific new book about the President-elect, is dubious:

Obama believes, more or less, in nothing. He is, asserts [British essayist Jonathan] Raban, a “scrupulous agnostic.” Myself, I have no idea what Obama truly believes about the faith he publicly professes, but certainly there is little in Dreams to suggest that Raban is wrong. Indeed, while Obama’s supposed conversion at Trinity, which the book suggests took place in February 1988, is dramatically described on pp. 291-295 of Dreams, I can’t find any Christian references coming up again in the last 147 pages of his autobiography … Overall, the only reference in Dreams I could find to Obama sincerely engaging in anything like prayer is his fondling his memories of old PBS Black History Month documentaries about the Civil Rights era:  “Such images became a form of prayer for me, bolstering my spirits, channeling my emotions in a way words never could.”

Steve, who has read everything Obama ever wrote or said, thinks that:  “Obama’s celebrated acceptance of Christianity turns out to have been an affirmation of African-American psychic separatism.”

Personally I’m fine with the “ceremonial deism” that is expected of our presidents; and that aside, would be happier with an irreligious president than a religious one, other things being equal (which, to be sure, they rarely are). I don’t actually think presidential metaphysics matters much. Still I can’t help but wonder about this guy’s character. All those years attending church?

I recall an interview with George H.W. Bush prior to the 1988 election, where the interviewer asked him if he considered himself born again.  Certainly, said Poppy. But Poppy, bless him, was a terrible liar. You could practically see the thought scrolling across his forehead:  Holy cow, the things I have to say to get elected!    Be interesting to see Obama respond to some similar question.

Posted in politics | Tagged , | 16 Comments