The problem with American Conservatism

Any claim that a widely acknowledged ideology, cherished by millions of people, is ‘intellectually dead’ should not be taken lightly even by a very fierce critic. Anyone who makes such an argument rightly opens himself or herself up to criticism and even ridicule as intolerant or totalitarian. Indeed, in the case of many ideologies with which I disagree (such as libertarianism, liberalism, Marxism and the more moderate form of ‘Conservatism’ which I outline below, among others) I would feel very presumptuous in making the claim. For reasons which I shall outline below, however, I believe that the argument can at least be made that a certain form of Conservatism is at least vulnerable to such an accusation.

Let me be very clear as to what I mean when I say Conservatism. I do not mean Conservatism in the more vague, more socially progressive, moderate and European sense; which I shall call Christian Democracy to avoid confusion. This is the ideology adopted by elements of the CDU-CSU in Germany and Gaullists in France. It is also held instinctively by many ordinary people. This perspective is not particularly intellectually clear and contains many laudable values; such as individual responsibility and the dangers of excessively rapid change. It also offers a welcome relief to some of the blind spots in liberalism, with which it overlaps significantly (Edmund Burke, after all, was a Whig). In particular, where liberalism tends to become obsessed with the abstract and unreal conceptions of progress and individual freedom; Christian Democracy reminds of the virtues of social. Socialism does this as well, but Christian Democracy avoids Socialism’s unrealistic dismissals of hierarchy and the fixation on ‘progress’ which it shares with liberalism.

But a new form of Conservatism, which has scandalously adopted the term as its own, has been on the rise. In many respects we may say that it is synonymous with ‘neo-Conservatism’ ,but many who dismiss the ill-reputed ‘neo-‘ share essentially the same ideology. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is a despicable and utterly facile ideology. It takes the worst in human instinct and turns it into a doctrine; it emphasises the faults in Christian Democratic conservatism and chooses the worst in the liberal ideology which Christian Democrats have traditionally resisted. It takes the hierarchical and oppressive aspects of the social and discards all the sympathy and fellowship which it also offers. It takes the brutality of individualism while disregarding the freedom one should gain compensation.

Modern Conservatism in this sense has developed its heartland in American Republicanism, with disastrous consequences, but it is worryingly encroaching upon Europe. In many respects it fits better the sentiment from which Conservative feeling arises. Conservatism is an instinct which we all have; a suspicion of change mixed with a selfish wariness of , disregard for and sense of superiority over others. These emotions are an inevitable part of the human character. What is remarkable, however, is that rather than simply failing to discourage these rather unwelcome emotions, an intellectual discipline has been developed to justify it.

In recent times, intellectuals such as Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb and Allan Bloom have rowed in to provide theoretical arguments for what, in essence, is simply ignorance and bad behaviour. The arguments which they bring in, as outlined below, are essentially fallacies built from truisms. The respect which they are accorded is a testament to the self-serving manner in which an intellectual establishment may be directed.

The first argument which intellectual conservatives make is that Plato and Aristotle were rather clever; hence we should base our moral principles on what they said and dismiss the charlatans who have come in their wake in the last, oh I don’t know, two thousand years. Leaving aside the fact that Plato and Aristotle have been considerably overemphasised in Greek philosophy due to the survival of their works (at the expense equally interesting and to some extent more attractive thinkers like Democritus), no one disputes the first part of this argument. When I say I disagree with Plato I am not saying that I am smarter than him; I am simply saying that we have are a lot of other clever thinkers and quite a lot of post-Platonic experience of the world to work from. Intellectual Conservatives genuinely seem to have failed to appreciate this, even building an entire form of education in philosophy at the University of Chicago on the grounds that ‘Plato was clever, so there!’

Secondly; that values other than liberty and progress are important; hence arguments based on liberty and progress are wrong. Himmelfarb genuinely uses this argument in her critique of J.S. Mill’s On Liberty. ‘What about all the other things in life, like justice and tradition?’ she asks at one point. Well its not an either/or situation; Mill was simply saying that liberty was essential in society; not that it is all that’s needed. When I say ‘Chocolate ice cream is very nice’ the correct refutation of that is not ‘But vanilla tastes pretty good, why are you degrading vanilla’ as i have said nothing about vanilla. If you want to refute me you need to show me why I am misguided in liking chocolate.

Thirdly; that change can have bad consequences; hence we should protect the status quo. You may seem a pattern emerging here; take what is obvious to absolutely everyone, act like it is a remarkable revelation and use it to argue for something which does not follow at all. Of course change can be dangerous, that is why we should be careful about what we change, but that does not say anything in it favour of the way things are now. And yes, perhaps as Burke says, change can be gradual and organic; but that does not mean we cannot do some good by encouraging it, while being mindful of its bad side-effects.

Fourthly; that people are responsible for their own actions, hence that we should not help them. Well, yes, even the most ardent socialist would admit to individual responsibility. But just because people’s actions have consequences for them as individuals does not mean we should turn that into a doctrine for how we behave towards people. If actions have consequence that will be faced, but when someone falls into a frozen lake from walking on thin ice I personally would take it as imperative to get them out as quickly as possible; not to wait a minute or two to make sure they have learnt their lesson.

Fifthly; that values which have been held for a long time were held for a reason, hence we should keep them. Well, no kidding! Of course there was a reason, no one does anything without a reason. We’re simply saying that we might have better reasons now for doing things differently.

Sixthly; that religion has served a function in society; so we should believe in God. This is a particularly ridiculous subset of number five. I happen to believe that might have something to do with God’s existence, and then when we have come across evidence that we are doing something wrong we should not keep doing it for fear that it has worked for us up to now. Leo Strauss, however, knows better.

Finally, it uses grotesque historical oversimplifications. Their are many of these; for example their selective use and interpretation of various revolutions. Another is the interpretation of the Weimar republic provided by thinkers such as Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom. Hitler came to power, the argument goes, because of the liberal decadence of Weimar culture which ushered it in. The problem with this is that Hitler came to power through the support of the rural Conservative German heartland and that decadent Berlin was the last bastion against him.

It will be argued that the above presentation of Conservative ideas in itself an oversimplification. Of course it is! My argument in many senses has been crude and unfair. But this is done partly deliberately in order to make a point., since much as what Conservatism uses to protect itself are pretentious over-elaborations of the absurdly crude ideas whose basic skeleton is outlined above. I think we may conclude from this analysis that Conservatism, at least in its American sense, is a set of emotions that builds from much of what is bad in us rather than something presenting a coherent rational ideology.