Critique of conservative principles, part 3
More conservative principles and my reactions:
I also disagree that all attempts to make people more equal are doomed to failure. If you look at the history of the Anglo-American political tradition, it seems like a lot of people have been made "more equal" over the past few hundred years. Merchants were made equal to nobles, then non-property owners were made equal to property owners, then slaves were made equal, women were made equal, etc. And I don't think all this equalizing has lead to social stagnation. Indeed, the "stagnating" societies of the world seem to be the ones that haven't gotten around to the necessary work of equalizing. Of course, it may be the equalization is a by-product, not a cause, of advancement. But certainly increasing equality cannot
Indeed, a blanket statement like "all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation" really presumes super-human knowledge about social conditions. Are conservatives so wise that they know what the result of every single possible attempt to increase equality must be? Isn't this statement symptomatic of a radical form of exceptionalism? To believe this, one must either deny that any levellings that took place in the past were good ("Things were so much better before the Magna Carta!"), or that these levellings were not the result of efforts to change society ("Wow! My right to vote just fell out of the sky!"), or that the current moment is a unique and unprecedented historical circumstance because although past levellings might have been good and the result of human effort, no future levelling attempts will produce anything better than stagnation, because for some reason things are radically different now and now further equalizing via human effort is possible.
Of course, equality before a court of law is important. That's why conservatives are such staunch advocates of ensuring that accused criminals have equally good defense lawyers, regardless of their financial circumstances. Not.
Here we may be getting into "conservatism as outlined in principle" vs. "conservatism as it actually exists America". I'll give the "principled conservative" folks the benefit of the doubt, but don't think that because I support some of these "principles" that I will ever support the American conservative movement in its current incarnation.
4. Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. ... Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.I certainly agree that we should act with prudence. Anyone who acts without regard to long-term consequences is mere foolish, not lacking in conservatism. Certainly conservatives are right to emphasize prudence. But I'm not willing to concede "prudence" as a conservative value. I think both liberals and conservatives value it.
5. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.OK, I don't believe in the Last Judgment, and I don't even think one should assume that a conservative does. There are a lot more roads to conservatism than through Christian eschatology.
I also disagree that all attempts to make people more equal are doomed to failure. If you look at the history of the Anglo-American political tradition, it seems like a lot of people have been made "more equal" over the past few hundred years. Merchants were made equal to nobles, then non-property owners were made equal to property owners, then slaves were made equal, women were made equal, etc. And I don't think all this equalizing has lead to social stagnation. Indeed, the "stagnating" societies of the world seem to be the ones that haven't gotten around to the necessary work of equalizing. Of course, it may be the equalization is a by-product, not a cause, of advancement. But certainly increasing equality cannot
Indeed, a blanket statement like "all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation" really presumes super-human knowledge about social conditions. Are conservatives so wise that they know what the result of every single possible attempt to increase equality must be? Isn't this statement symptomatic of a radical form of exceptionalism? To believe this, one must either deny that any levellings that took place in the past were good ("Things were so much better before the Magna Carta!"), or that these levellings were not the result of efforts to change society ("Wow! My right to vote just fell out of the sky!"), or that the current moment is a unique and unprecedented historical circumstance because although past levellings might have been good and the result of human effort, no future levelling attempts will produce anything better than stagnation, because for some reason things are radically different now and now further equalizing via human effort is possible.
Of course, equality before a court of law is important. That's why conservatives are such staunch advocates of ensuring that accused criminals have equally good defense lawyers, regardless of their financial circumstances. Not.
Here we may be getting into "conservatism as outlined in principle" vs. "conservatism as it actually exists America". I'll give the "principled conservative" folks the benefit of the doubt, but don't think that because I support some of these "principles" that I will ever support the American conservative movement in its current incarnation.
Comments