Being Oblonsky

There is this wonderful passage (what passage isn't really?) in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, which describes Oblonsky's political views, leanings, and habits. 

"Oblonsky subscribed to and read a Liberal paper--not an extreme Liberal paper but one that expressed the opinions of the majority.  And although neither science, art, nor politics specially interested him, he firmly held to the opinions of the majority and of his paper on those subjects, changing his views when the majority changed theirs,--or rather, not changing them--they changed imperceptibly of their own accord. Oblonsky's tendency and opinions were not his by deliberate choice: they came of themselves...he was obliged to hold views, just as he was obliged to have a hat...if he had a reason for preferring Liberalism to the Conservatism of many in his set, it was not that he considered Liberalism more reasonable, but because it suited his manner of life better...thus Liberalism became habitual to Oblonsky, and he loved his paper as he loved his after-dinner cigar, for the slight mistiness it produced in his brain..." (Anna Karenina, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970, p. 6).

I could not help but think of American politics, that is, current American popular politics--the stuff we see every day, the stuff we are exposed to whether we want to see it or not.  Let us perhaps even forget whether we are dealing with Liberalism or Conservatism, and what this meant for Tolstoy's time.  I think the passage transcends temporal concerns.

How much of our views, especially political views, are based on whether it suits us at that particular moment?  A solid philosophical principle should always challenge us, make us think, and make us extend our being into the world that is beyond comfort.  Both Liberal and Conservative politics (that is, what they have devolved into) are about comfort.  We may claim that they are not, we may claim that we are fighting for something, but in most instances, we want to preserve what we already have.  

So, for instance--a Liberal view which reflects the following: a right to have an abortion.  Usually, this is associated with the Liberal view, although I would say, libertarians argue for it as well from the perspective of freedom and liberty.  So, let us agree that one has a "right" to get an abortion, if one chooses.  Let us agree that there should be clinics, which provide such a service.  The issue is not that one should have the freedom to do such a thing; the issue is that a person, who subscribes to such a view wants to make an abortion a virtue.  It is good to have an abortion.  A person, who holds such a view applies virtuous actions of courage and bravery to the woman's ontological make up--a woman is brave for having an abortion.  Well, it's not that easy.  There are consequences for this "brave" act--regret, the looming cloud of "what if?"  If this indeed was a brave act, a good act, a person would not be experiencing, later in life, regret and sadness.  

Another instance--a Conservative view which reflects the following: capitalism is the greatest economic system.  Yes, free market must exist, but just like socialism, which is overtly tyrannical and dictatorial, capitalism can become a silent tyranny, where only one company dominates the market.  Nothing free about that.  A person, who holds such a view usually has a lot of money, spends it on "stuff" which distracts from the spiritual growth of their personhood.  If left unchecked, the person who holds such a view will develop the love of money and I think everyone will agree that love of money is not a good path of life.  And again, my issue is not with the free market or with individual need to consume, consume, consume.  My issue is that this is made into a virtue.  Recall Irving Kristol's book, Two Cheers for Capitalism, which asserts the importance of economic freedom and the improvement of people's living conditions (a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of needs).  But Kristol also says that it creates great spiritual malaise, a condition which does not allow for an evaluation of existential human needs--in other words, the center of human desires and passions.

So, what would that mean then, if both Person L and Person C (let us call them that) that I have described above stopped viewing such actions as virtue?  They would be forced to look into their hearts and contemplate what is really important in life.  Indeed, how much of our Liberal or Conservative claims rest purely on heuristics, on something we are used to, and much worse--on something, which suits our vices?  Of course, this is not true in every instance, and I shouldn't have to even qualify such a statement.  But you get the point.

Both views, in this case, want to preserve, conserve.  A current trend in Liberalism may say that they want change, but I am not so sure about that.  Preservation of atheistic hedonism (I think I am borrowing a phrase from Leo Strauss' commentary on Hobbes) is the main tenet of Liberalism, and the Liberal ideology is caught in a self-denying paradox, since it is using a principle of Conservatism in order to promote a Liberal ideology.

I sense a need to escape.  What are we to escape?  Certainly not reality.  We must clearly see what is in front of us, without a shred of sentimentality.  In order to do that, we must reject and escape the tyranny of slogans, be they Liberal or Conservative.  Forget the strength in numbers.  One has to be willing to stand alone, and be willing to be incredibly rejected, maybe even laughed at.  But what do you have to lose?  What are you living for?  How do you really want to spend your time on Earth since you've been given this glorious gift of life?