Quote of the day: on the purpose of government

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

- Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), American founding father.

(Cross-posted at American Creation.)

The end of a common culture?

Megan McArdle discusses this by comparing the viewships of the series finales of MASH and Lost.  Interesting stuff.

Classical conservatism and American politics: a plea for renewal

Over at The American Culture blog there's an interest post on the cultural tension within American society:  Is There a Culture War or What?  The post posits that the cultural struggle within our society is between progressives (the heirs of Rousseau) and classical liberals.  I think that there is a good deal of merit in that categorization, but it is a little too neat.  While the Left is made up of progressives, and the Right is made up largely of classical liberals (of both conservative and libertarian stripes), there is a third political tradition in America that stands outside both traditions.

What is that third political tradition?  Is it populism?  No, populism in our country has tended to be a variant of either progressivism or classical liberalism.  Well, then, what is it?  It is classical conservatism, or what might be referred to as Kirkian Conservatism, after its strongest American proponent, Russell Kirk.

Where both progressivism and classical liberalism are both ideologies born of the struggle between collectivism and individualism in the 18th and 19th centuries, classical conservatism stretches back farther into the roots of western civilization.  It finds expression in a host of political theories,  movements, and statesmen, from the civic republicanism of the Italian city-states to the Whig statesman Edmund Burke to the American politician Senator Robert Taft of Ohio.

Classical conservatism is a political posture that values tradition, stability, order and social cohesion, while embracing prudential reform when necessary to preserve those values.  It is not ideological, and such conservatives can be found in a host of political parties and movements, although sadly in America today they are a rarity within the Democratic Party.  It was the bedrock of politics in the American mid-west in the 19th century, and gave rise to the strong Union sentiment there that was exemplified by that great Illinois politician and lawyer, Abraham Lincoln.  Classical conservatism places a high premium on balanced polity:

• Individual liberty and social solidarity;
• Limited government and vigorous government within its proper limits; 
• Promotion of business and promotion of a wide distribution of private property;
• Defense of freedom of conscience and defense of the mediating institutions that make the flowering of individual conscience possible. 

In the current political climate, it is all too easy for us to overlook the Kirkian Conservatism that has been part and parcel of America since the American founding.  This classical conservatism has been increasingly unwelcome in the current public square, as Democrats embrace a progressive statist agenda and Republicans move to the libertarian right in order to re-energize themselves after their demoralizing defeats in 2006 and 2008.  Yet, classical conservatism, with its emphasis on balanced polity and what Kirk referred to as "the Permanent Things," - for example, justice, duty, faith, charity - remains a critical component of the American political scene, under the radar perhaps at the moment, but there nonetheless.

The wisdom of classical conservatism, expounded by writers like Kirk, Richard M. Weaver, Roger Scruton, Heinrich Rommen, Alesandro d'Entreves, and Edmund Burke, is there waiting to be rediscovered by people who are tired of the shallow discourse that dominates cable t.v. and much of our public square.  The Permanent Things beckon, and it is in the renewal of classical conservatism that their defense can best be accomplished. 

Quote of the day: on the need for transparency in government

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

- Patrick Henry (1736-1799), American founding father.

Quotes of the day: the problems with modern politics

Some brief insights from a key conservative progressive thinker, the late historian and social critic Christopher Lasch (1932-1994):

• "Because it equates tradition with prejudice, the left finds itself increasingly unable to converse with ordinary people in their common language."

• "The intellectual debility of contemporary conservatism is indicated by its silence on all important matters."

• "Liberals subscribe to the new flexible, pluralist definition of the family; their defense of families carries no conviction."

• "The left sees nothing but bigotry and superstition in the popular defense of the family or in popular attitudes regarding abortion, crime, busing, and the school curriculum."

• "Conservatives unwittingly side with the social forces that contribute to the destruction of traditional values."

• "In an individualistic culture, the narcissist is God's gift to the world. In a collectivist society, the narcissist is God's gift to the collective."

• "Today Americans are overcome not by the sense of endless possibility but by the banality of the social order they have erected against it."

A model for a renewed conservatism

Writing over at The American Conservative, Melvin Schut recommends William Gladstone.  Read all about it here.  As Schut writes about Gladstone:

Early on, he seemed a near reactionary, but he embarked on the rarest of political odysseys, moving from right to left as he aged. The Tory became leader of a new Liberal Party that coalesced around him; he went from being a self-described “out-and-out inequalitarian” to a backer of “the masses against the classes.” His policies over four terms as prime minister and four as chancellor of the Exchequer—roughly analogous to secretary of the Treasury—were called liberal in his time, but appear conservative in ours: he was largely successful in limiting government, imposing fiscal discipline, keeping taxes low, devolving power, and expanding political and religious liberties. Friends and opponents alike admired his integrity, yet he was also loathed for his forthright Christian piety. After meeting him, Henry James noted, “Gladstone is very fascinating—his urbanity extreme—his eye that of a man of genius—and his apparent self-surrender to what he is talking of, without a flaw.”

Gladstone's career and principles remind us that modern conservatism has a strong strain of small-l liberalism in it.  With a commitment to limited government and individual liberty, conservative principles have a strong overlap with the classical liberalism of the 19th century.

Conservatism, however, is not classical liberalism or its modern descendant, libertarianism.  The conservative mind embraces another principle that libertarianism has never seemed able to comprehend:  social solidarity.  That idea of social solidarity is what led Gladstone to embrace an agenda that increased political and economic equality while grounding his agenda in a traditionalist understanding of society.  Critically, unlike classical liberals and modern libertarians, Gladstone never abandoned a belief in the necessity of authority in a decent society:

Yet liberty for him never meant freedom from hierarchy and authority sustained by Christian virtue, and he never abandoned an organic conception of society. Throughout his life he praised Dante, Augustine, Aristotle, and Butler as the “four Doctors” who guided him, appending Burke to the list as well, while rejecting Bentham and both Mills. His friend and official biographer, John Morley, relates that during a friendly chat in his eighties, Gladstone claimed to be “of the same mind, and perhaps for the same sort of reason, as Joseph de Maistre, that contempt for Locke is the beginning of knowledge.” Much like another friend, Lord Acton, Gladstone believed in natural and divine law, duties and obligations, and historically-grown liberties—all while being dubious about abstract rights.

As conservatism looks around trying to find a to bring its historical principles to bear on current problems in the modern political environment, it could do far worse than look to William Gladstone as an example of a politician of conservative temperament and conviction working out his principles in the public square.  

How great a writer was P.G. Wodehouse?

Stuart Reid over at The American Conservative looks at Wodehouse's reputation as a writer and finds him over-rated.  As he puts it when discussing Wodehouse's use of humor:

But funny is all it is. The only point of his jokes was to make people laugh. There was no malice in the man. There was in Evelyn Waugh, but Waugh not only defended Wodehouse, he worshipped him, deferred to him. He was so extravagant in his praise that you sometimes wonder whether he was making a cruel joke against Wodehouse. But no, he meant it when he declared, “One has to regard a man as a Master who can produce on average three uniquely brilliant and entirely original similes to every page.” It seems to have bewildered Plum, and it certainly bewilders me. Waugh is the master, the genius. Wodehouse was undoubtedly a fine craftsman, but he was too busy writing books—96 in all—to be a genius.

Some of Reid's inability to appreciate Wodehouse is, of course, a matter of preference.  De gustabus non disputandum est and all that.  There are plenty of fine and cultured people who can't stand Shakespeare, for example, or Hawthorne.  Personally, I like Wodehouse and I appreciate this use of language for what it is:  a vehicle for wittily telling a story, painting a picture of a time long ago in a place far away.  Wodehouse is to be enjoyed because his writing is enjoyable, playful and a pleasure to read.  Again, this is purely personal preference here, but it is a preference widely shared and therefore, I would say, not unfounded or irrational.

And don't forget, Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster stories were made into a delightful t.v. series back in the early 90's, starring Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie.  Those shows are definitely worth watching!

Quote of the day: force is not enough for government

"The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for the moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered."

- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), British statesman and the grandfather of modern conservatism.

Book review: The Intellectual Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy

I've posted a review of historian Douglass Adair's landmark book The Intellectual Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy over at the American Creation blog. Adair's book has been an influence on a veritable "who's who" of American historians. If interested, please give my review a read: Book review: The Intellectual Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy. And by all means, get a copy of Adair's book and give it a read for yourself!

Conservatism is not an ideology

That was one of Russell Kirk's great insights about conservatism.  It is also a key point that I took away from this thoughtful post over at The American Conservative:  What Can We Learn From Britain's Red Tories.  I particularly liked the mention of Christopher Lasch, a conservative progressive who understood quite well the dangers of concentrations of power in both the public and private sectors.

Quote of the day: "the only freedom that can last"

" The only freedom which can last is a freedom embodied somewhere, rooted in a history, located in space, sanctioned by genealogy, and blessed by a religious establishment. The only equality which abstract rights, insisted upon outside the context of politics, are likely to provide is the equality of universal slavery. It is a lesson which Western man is only now beginning to learn." 

- Mel Bradford (1934-1993), American author and professor of literature. (Hat tip to Eunomia.)

British political advice from Peter Hitchens

British commentator and conservative writer Peter Hitchens (the younger and wiser brother of Christopher Hitchens) is advising his readers not to vote for the Conservative Party (also known as the Tory Party) in the upcoming British parliamentary election.  Here's his reasons why:  The Charge Sheet against the Tories.  Some reflections:

• You know, a lot of his reasons for voting against the Tories would apply equally well here in the States when deciding whether to vote for certain types of Republican.

• The Conservative Party in the UK is not necessarily the only vehicle for conservative politics there.  Edmund Burke, the intellectual grandfather of modern conservative thought, was not a Tory but a Whig.  Conservatism as a political position transcends -- or at least it should transcend -- partisan labels.  While in this country conservatives have for a variety of reasons gravitated almost exclusively to the Republican Party, conservatives in the UK may well have other options than the Tories. 

• There is a tendency  on the part of professional politicians on the Right to assume that conservatives will always vote for them because conservatives don't have other options in the political arena.  This leads to a definite "big government" drift among many professional Right politicians, as well as a general hesitation on the part of those professional politicians to directly address the cultural and social issues that so many conservatives (relatively untainted by libertarian's confusion of liberty for license) care deeply about.  One has seen this time and time again with the Republicans and Hitchens points out that this problem isn't a solely American one.  

• The problem for the professional politicians is that eventually people get fed up with voting for "me too" liberalism, and either stay home (Hitchens' option) or gravitate to other political parties.  Or, here in the U.S., as Utah politician and U.S. Senator Bob Bennett is figuring out, they stage a primary revolt.  All of those options are unhelpful for a political party because they sap strength away from the main electoral fight.  The solution:  conservative political parties should be conservative!

Book review: The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin

I've got a short book review of historian Gordon Wood's one-volume study of Benjamin Franklin posted over at the American Creation blog.  If interested, feel free to check it out.