Comments on: Bats aren’t bugs, II: Goldberg Variation

By: roger

roger — Sun, 23 May 2004 23:39:14 +0000

Jeremiah, you make an excellent point. There’s an anti-theoretical strain in conservative thinking going back to Burke’s animadervisions on “theorists” in the Reflections. But here is the liberal/left critique—as soon as one announces this opposition to theory—to a tendency to derive political policy from an ideology, rather than the natural order, seen as that order that emerges in a culture over time and circumstances—one is, however discretely, announcing a theory. I find Burke’s reaction to the French Revolution exemplary in this regard—partly because Burke was so sensitive to the antithesis himself. It is hard to read the letters on the Regicidal Peace without hearing the strains of an ideology. In other words, to fight for an order, rather than to fight within an order, requires some reflection on the order. Hazlitt, I think, was the first to see this—although Wollenscraft also apparently did. No matter how hard the conservative disposition tries to substitute a sensibility for a dialectic, it keeps getting drawn into its logical contradictions—and its solutions to those contradictions.

By: Jeremiah J.

Jeremiah J. — Sun, 23 May 2004 22:15:49 +0000

I don’t think anyone on this thread has yet questioned the propriety not of the idea that conservatives do have philosophies or a philosophy, but that they indeed should. I’d say 80% of repsectable conservative thinkers, from Burke to Oakeshott to Kirk would have serious problems with the idea. Even Irving Kristol who is more of an ideologue that a philosopher or even a student of philosophy, asserts that conservativism and thus neo-conservatism is not a philosophy or ideology but a persuasion. Huntington calls conservatism a disposition rather than an ideology. This view of conservatism is true whether conservatives explicitly endorse it or not. They are constantly aping liberal symbols, strategies and ideas (e.g. “liberals are the elite—we are the common people!”). Libertarianism is simply an older more modest liberalism, this is obvious and boring. But the point is that conservatism learns to live with liberalism but seeks to slow it down is very consistent with conservatives eventually copying liberalism. So conservatism is a disposition (not without some good reasons to recommend it) to try to stop or slow social and political change rather than a set of ideas which competes with liberalism on an even field. This even applies to “intellectual” or philosophical conservatives, who are guided by this disposition without being self-conscious of it.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Sun, 23 May 2004 20:18:44 +0000

q, I think you’re exemplifying the problem with defining “liberal” in terms of some political theory and then scolding contemporary liberals for not conforming to it. And I’d say Roger is doing the exact same thing to “conservatives.” But I’d point out that this isn’t exclusivly the domain of political opponents: often enough, supporters of one side or the other will define themselves in terms of an attractive philosophy and then proceed to deviate from it when convenient. Liberals, as I mentioned above, love to cast themselves as lovers of tolerance, in opposition to bigoted conservatives. But as someone who looks and acts like an urbanite (but has substantial sympathies with rural residents, and even carries an NRA card), I can tell you that bigots are very well represented in the “tolerant” urban left. Conservatives do the same thing, for instance, in proposing fairly radical and untested rather than incrimental solutions to problems like Social Security and public education. My point being, the labels, and the philosophy they refer too, are only minimally related to the realities on the ground. That isn’t to say that there isn’t a overarching philosophy of liberalism or conservatism, just that it (surprise!) isn’t identical to the philosophy of 50 or 100 years ago.

By: Adam Kotsko

Adam Kotsko — Sun, 23 May 2004 18:46:58 +0000

There is definitely a breed of intellectually curious, impatient young men who, due to not being well-read in any real sense but already feeling themselves superior to others, latch onto conservative “philosophy” or whatever you want to call it—as a weapon to use against others. I know that I was seduced by the right-wing propaganda machine for a while in high school, just because I was in the mood to be opposed to the “liberal” stuff we were learning in high school (ironically enough, I now think I had a great high school education, all things considered, and regret feeling like I was superior to the ideas I was learning). As soon as I went away to college and there wasn’t as much pressure to try to start conversations with my dad based on Rush Limbaugh, I pretty much stopped caring about whether progressive taxation was like the Holocaust, then when Bush became the Republican nominee, I realized what a farce the whole thing was. (I come from a religious tradition that encourages personal testimonies, and Republicanism.)

By: q

Sun, 23 May 2004 18:19:56 +0000

Matt Weiner: To clarify, I was focussing on the taxes on earnings derived from labour, not taxes derived from wealth (capital).

By: roger

roger — Sun, 23 May 2004 17:42:47 +0000

Let’s get this straight. The supporters of the War are Burkians and Neo-Hayekians? Hmm. You centrally plan the absolute change of another State without any tacit knowledge—or even much overt knowledge—of the culture. You do it because you have a theory of politics you want to prove. Wow. I understand, though. Take Hayek’s Use of Knowledge in Society, or Burke’s speeches on the East India Bill, his Reflections on the French Revolution, or the speeches on Warren Hastings Impeachment. Sure, on the surface they seem to indicate that the Iraq war is the exact kind of thing radical ideologues, without any appreciation of the idea of self organization, would inflict, with maximal pain, on a historically evolved order. But that is just the surface, man! See, you go out and you buy Leo Strauss’s special lemon juice, and you rub that juice on the pages. And hey Presto! It turns out that Hayek and Burke, oh so prophetically, say the same things: FOLLOW PRESIDENT BUSH LIKE ROBOTS. Those conservative intellectuals. They get more impressive by the month.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Sun, 23 May 2004 17:14:01 +0000

Mingy point: That’s Charles Peirce the pragmatic philosopher, not Eric Alterman’s buddy Charles Pierce.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Sun, 23 May 2004 17:10:42 +0000

q, I think you’re exemplifying the problem with defining “liberal” in terms of some political theory and then scolding contemporary liberals for not conforming to it. Of course, if liberalism really is economic libertarianism (and Cromwell wasn’t big on religious liberty IIRC) then contemporary liberals don’t do a good job of measuring up to it. But if liberalism involves some sort of concern for the fate of the poorest in society, a la Rawls, high taxes on the wealthy are perfectly liberal. And they’re only authoritarian if you think that the right to contract without taxes trumps all others, which maybe is a view you might get from Locke or Smith—but as Matthew Yglesias has elegantly argued, Locke and Smith were responding to a particular set of circumstances with doctrines that approved on that set, and there’s no reason to take those doctrines as setting the template for liberalism for all time. Liberalism is pretty pragmatic.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sun, 23 May 2004 15:17:43 +0000

After some overnight thought, I think y’all need to help Jonah out by informing him that he will never understand modern pragmatic liberalism without a comprehensive study of the complete works of Charles Pierce.

By: not lyman

not lyman — Sun, 23 May 2004 13:37:18 +0000

Speaking of tools and liberals, especially French ones: Posted 9:43 AM by W Call Amnesty International: Monsterous barbarians torture writer in prison Faut mettre Amnesty International sur le coup: Des barbares monstrueux torturent un écrivain en prison ‘It starts off by being stripped naked in front of 10 police officers including two women, gratutious humiliation is used to break you down.’ ‘… worst jail that you can possibly imagine.’ ‘Not even a hole to go to the bathroom. You have to piss against a wall and you sleep in piss on the concrete floor.’ The torture victim demands ‘the immediate shutdown of this secret underground prison’. It’s not at Abu Ghraib, it’s in Marseille, France.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Sun, 23 May 2004 13:26:28 +0000

Drapeto’s explication is the first and so far the only one that has led me to think that Lorde might actually make some sense. audre lorde has a pretty precise understanding of what the master's tools consist of. in the context of the essay, she is telling white women that they can't expect to bring down patriarchy (master's house) without divesting themselves of racism (master's tools). Which, I suppose, might be taken as evidence that liberals aren’t as familiar with their intellectual history as they ought to be. For those who are so inclined. bravo. i hear the problem of the 21st c is the problem of the color line.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Sun, 23 May 2004 12:17:32 +0000

it would be pretty crazy for anyone, especially a person of color, to think of intellectuality as the “master’s tool”. Well, I’ve met a number of “people of color” who think this way. In fact, everyone I’ve heard this quote from in the past has used it in some similarly bone-headed way, in a variety of contexts (e.g. don’t get involved in politics because that’s just selling out, don’t fight back against rapists, because that’s just promoting the “cycle of violence” etc). I won’t claim it’s a large-scale movement, but Lorde’s quote, it seems to me, has been widely misunderstood and misused. Drapeto’s explication is the first and so far the only one that has led me to think that Lorde might actually make some sense. Which, I suppose, might be taken as evidence that liberals aren’t as familiar with their intellectual history as they ought to be. For those who are so inclined.

By: Kip Manley

Kip Manley — Sun, 23 May 2004 08:36:29 +0000

“Typical. So typical. Savage life forms never follow even their own rules.”
—[uppercase] Q, “Encounter at Farpoint”

By: liberal japonicus

liberal japonicus — Sun, 23 May 2004 07:57:58 +0000

For the twenty yr old engineer or programmer who shoots Klingons and wants to feel tough, this might appeal. I just was remembering that Goldberg tried that goatee look a while back, and it reminded me of the ST episode with Spock from the parallel universe with the evil Kirk. Maybe this is where he’s trying to position himself. I bet he’s in front of the mirror now practicing how to arch one eyebrow…

By: q

Sun, 23 May 2004 07:53:34 +0000

JH: I do think Robert Lyman has a point on the use of the word “liberals”. Though CT is a good place to start defining what is a liberal, which I would say has historically been about the development of a system of government based on individual rights. Conservatism can simply be defined as the promotion of the rights of the wealthy. Liberalism is something that started way back with people like Oliver Cromwell opposing the right of inherited wealth to coerce others. Many supposed liberals today simply play mind games with principles in order to selfishly promote their own particular lobby group. This has less to do with liberalism and more to do with Machiavelli. Of course, liberalism will always have an oppositionist strand by the very fact that it attracts the downtrodden and oppressed. For example, I am not so sure about what is so “liberal” about high income taxes on earnings, seems more authoritarian to me. A “liberal” would also be campaigning for the rights of ordinary citizens to not be terrified of crime. Liberalism for me entails some measure of responsibility, which parts of the left seems to be happy to ignore. Yet there are liberal elements that appear to focus on the rights of murderers. In addition, problems of liberalist debate today come from the collapse of intellectual development since the 1940s. The development of fascism and racialism left many people doubting the wisdom of relying on scientific intellectual ideas and a laissez-faire approach to anything. So a good test would be to ask someone: Are you a Machiavellian, a liberal or rich? I suspect that you will find a good deal of modern day “liberals” are Machiavellian, and a fair number of “conservatives” are liberal.