What is conservative these days? For that matter, what is liberal? In the next few paragraphs, I will mainly
concern myself with what do we mean when we say “conservative.” This might
prove to be a difficult task but it’s worth a go—at least, I can get some ideas
and questions onto the paper, testing them, re-testing, hopefully leading us to
some conclusions.
I am very much interested in politics. But politics and political philosophy are
quite different from one another. I
used to be a confused wanderer through the current trends in political
discussion, fervently (and paradoxically, weakly) trying to find meaning in
today’s media discussions. Instead (and
I am not stating anything new here), I was nauseated by shouting, lack of
intellectual rigor, lack of carefully composed thought, and poor and illogical
conclusions to already poor and illogical arguments. So, I realized, one must distinguish between
a political party conservatism and political philosophy conservatism. I do not know whether this distinction has
always been on the horizon in American public political sphere (I do not want
to be one of those people who claims that “we live in such strange times”—we have
always faced something “strange” and most likely, always will). Nevertheless, I find—as someone who lives
today, as someone who is faced with today’s issues, today’s political assaults
of the external world—a need to make a distinction between party politics
(almost always intertwined with any choice of media) and political philosophy.
In his essay, On Being
Conservative (1956), Michael Oakeshott defined conservatism as a disposition. He writes: “My theme is not a creed or a
doctrine, but a disposition. To be
conservative is to be disposed to think and behave in certain manners; it is to
prefer certain kinds of conduct and certain conditions of human circumstances
to others; it is to be disposed to make certain kinds of choices.”
Oakeshott bases his idea of conservatism (although, I am not
too sure he would write –ism, for, surely, that is the point of his essay) on
what reality is. He continues: “To be conservative, then, is
to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact
to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to
the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the
perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”
I must admit that after I read this, I immediately chose not
to be conservative. What kind of behavior is this, I
thought? This is far too constricting,
suffocating, and I heartily refuse it!
Isn’t change a good thing? After
all, we are constantly growing as human beings, that is, if our minds are open
to it. Ideally, we are not stuck on the
same ideas, which eventually turn into repetitive slogans. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to come up with
new, better ways of thought, of life? A
conservative man sounds static, someone unwilling to be adventurous and
free. A conservative man is someone who
is terrified of change.
But one aspect of Oakeshott’s essay that stuck out was this
notion of familiar and the unfamiliar. What does this mean? Do these notions imply a national
isolationism, or even an isolationism within one’s own country (the east coast
folks cannot understand the west coast folks, and vice versa type of
mentality)? If so, I thought, then I
cannot call myself a conservative. I
have faced so many unfamiliar situations
in my life—from war to being a refugee to coming to America
to…
Oakeshott continues on the exploration of familiarity: “Familiarity is the essence
of tool using; and in so far as man is a tool using animal he is disposed to be
conservative.” There is something
implicitly Aristotelian about this, fact based.
I found myself even more affirming the Platonist within me!
It sounded as if Oakeshott was against innovation and
improvement. My main disagreement was
this: in order for something to have become familiar
(and traditional) to us today, it had to have been started in a new form.
In other words, it would appear that change was necessary in order for
this new form to emerge. How does this
explain the conservative rejection of change, which is the primary impetus for
a “liberal” or a so-called “progressive?”
What if Oakeshott meant something entirely different when he
wrote familiarity and unfamiliarity? If his definition of being conservative is
based on a disposition, then the reading of his theory has to drastically
change. Oakeshott’s view of conservatism
has a metaphysical grounding. This is why
he calls it a “disposition” rather than a set of rules.
His view depends upon a definition of reality. In other words, one cannot have political
philosophy (let alone politics!) without reality. Our, human reality, is composed of external
world, which we are part of. The
external world, something outside of us, has always been there. And so, even when we create something, that something has been created out of another something. God is the only one who creates out of
nothing. I believe that this is what
Oakeshott means when he writes familiarity. We are faced with familiarity whether we like
it or not; we are faced with the external world.
Conservatism today is in utter shambles. Lots of dialectical games, which are not even
sophisticated or avant-garde enough to be called by such a name. The way the conservatism exists today is not
working and is utterly failing. It is
rapidly closing in on itself, pushing itself closer and closer to the edge of
the abyss precisely because it has lost grasp on philosophy, namely
metaphysics. And so, I am not at all
surprised that the only conservatism in existence right now is “party
conservatism.”
Is there a way to get out of it? I am not about to propose anything, nor do I
wish to. Being a conservative has, at
once a universal appeal but within that appeal, it also carries a certain level
of paradox. I see this in the tension
between today’s embodiments of American conservatism and liberalism. This tension will always exist. A “good liberal” is always in a search of
something better, never satisfied, and it breeds an attitude of nothing ever
being good enough. A “good liberal” is
also almost always interested in a continuing struggle. And because of this push, a liberal or a
so-called progressive, will always have the need to organize. In fact,
liberalism finds its meaning in organizing.
By contrast, conservatism’s existence relies precisely on
the fact that is does not participate
in organizing. If conservatism is based
on a metaphysical reality, on a disposition, on the notion that man always
creates something out of another
something, then conservatism is not a movement. And I would also add that the instant
conservatism becomes a movement, it ceases to be conservatism. That is part of the problem with today’s sad
state of conservatism.
So, what can a conservative do if he wishes to fight the forces of liberalism? As William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote: “Up where
from liberalism? There is no
conservative political manifesto which, as we make our faltering way, we can
consult, confident that it will point a sure finger in the direction of the
good society. Indeed, sometimes the
conservative needle appears to be jumping about as on a disoriented compass. My professional life is lived in an office
battered by every pressure of contemporary conservatism.” In so many words, this is what I have said
above: that conservatism cannot become a movement, or a rule book, or else it
will become something else. And so, a
conservative must be in order to do.
I do not wish to “hearken back” on the great times of
WFB. As much as I love the man (and all
my friends can attest to that), Buckley has lived in another time, faced
different battles in society, and had his own dispositions, and let us also
remember, he was finite. And, no, let us
also not go into the whole “who is the new Buckley” business. There is no heir to WFB because there was no
predecessor. But the very fact that
people are even asking such a question implies that they thirst for something,
which elevates the human spirit. Not a
thing, which causes joylessness and oppression.
And a desire for a “new Buckley” in our public arena means that people
want creativity, verve, and a sense of humor.
I have said elsewhere that although we are finite, we also
have the capacity to move towards the Infinite.
This is inherent in our dignity and freedom. As WFB writes: “Conservatism must insist that
while the will of man is limited in what it can do, it can do enough to make
over the face of the world; and that the question that must always be before us
is, What shape should the world take, given
modern realities [my italics]?”
The primary thing, which has attracted me to America
was the notion of freedom. When I read
those words, “Life, Liberty , and
the Pursuit of Happiness,” I was overjoyed.
How can you not be, frankly? Now,
American politics are in a terrible and immediate need for restoration. Restoration means that we are using “forms”
which are already in place. But even
this restoration should be done in small steps.
A structure is not built on a few weak pieces, a few ideas that bring
about over-night change. It needs time.
No comments:
Post a Comment