tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post5323279019224754730..comments2023-08-08T10:25:47.529+01:00Comments on McCabism: ConservatismGordon McCabehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151162643523937086noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-47890616312278805872009-03-02T16:30:00.000+00:002009-03-02T16:30:00.000+00:00...liberal democracy would never have arisen in th...<I>...liberal democracy would never have arisen in the first place if conservatism had had its way...</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed. This is only a problem if you think that liberal democracy is a good thing. An honest conservative would have to admit that he really prefers some form of monarchy or federation of aristocrats.<BR/><BR/>I find many things to dislike about democracy. I also find Churchill's description of democracy - "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - a bit trite.<BR/><BR/>It is not at all clear to me that democracy is necessarily better than all other forms of government. But I mention this only to confirm that there is indeed a tension between conservatism and democracy.<BR/><BR/>The amusing irony (in an Alanis Morissette sort of way) is that a restoration of the monarchy in the 21st century would require a revolution, which is rather unconservative.<BR/><BR/>My political allegiance tends to vary with my blood-sugar level: when I'm well fed and happy, I'm quite liberal and progressive, when I'm tired and grouchy, I become a cantankerous reactionary.<BR/><BR/>If forced to be sensible, I would have to side with Feynman: the key thing is to make sure that we stay uncertain. It all goes wrong when people are certain that they already have the answer.<BR/><BR/>I tend to identify conservatism with Feynman's virtue of doubt. It has no ideal - it does not think it already knows the solution to every problem - but rather attempts to react sensibly to situations as they arise. In contrast, ideologues always have a ready answer for everything, whether they are Marxists or Libertarians.<BR/><BR/>The combination of this association between conservatism and my preferred method for solving problems and my aesthetic preference for older times makes me call myself a conservative. Maybe it shouldn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-70307746720996565942009-02-28T17:58:00.000+00:002009-02-28T17:58:00.000+00:00Let us accept the distinction between decay and a ...Let us accept the distinction between decay and a descent into chaos. A fundamental problem still arises with conservatism.<BR/><BR/>By general consent, the modern tradition of progressive reform in the Western world can be said to have begun with John Locke, circa 1689. We can characterise what followed as the erosion of feudalism and the emergence of liberal democracy. In the current day, this tradition continues to seek individual freedom, (constrained by toleration), and equality of opportunity in society.<BR/><BR/>Would you say that society has been in decay since Locke, or only for the 'last couple of hundred years'? It's a question which highlights one of the conceptual problems with conservatism, namely that liberal democracy would never have arisen in the first place if conservatism had had its way...Gordon McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151162643523937086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-71815747515746359112009-02-28T15:48:00.000+00:002009-02-28T15:48:00.000+00:00Actually, it occurs to me that we are both talking...Actually, it occurs to me that we are both talking about "stability" without clearly specifying the subject of this stability.<BR/><BR/>When I talk about stability, I generally mean the secure existence of civilisation. I do not simply mean the continued existence of any form of society, I have a fairly specific moral and aesthetic concept in mind.<BR/><BR/>For example, my local newspaper's current headline is "Blind man freezes to death in street". That is not civilisation.<BR/><BR/>(Quite how a blind man freezing to death is the fault of progressive reformers I don't know, but I'm sure I can blame it on liberal multiculturalists somehow...)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, my point is that civilisations must navigate a precarious path, which is why a conservative attitude to government might be prudent. But it is possible to fall from this path without dramatic catastrophe. One might have a "stable society" that nevertheless lacks the virtues of "high civilisation".<BR/><BR/>I suspect, but I may be wrong, that you interpret Quinton's "walking a girder high above the ground" to imply that deviation from the correct path necessarily causes catastrophic societal collapse, rather than merely a slide into uncivilised barbarism.<BR/><BR/>Come to think of it, maybe such an interpretation of Quinton is accurate - I'd never heard of him or his writings before I read your blog post - but if so then I disagree with him, on account of the fact that the West has endured progressive governments for some time now and my neighbour still hasn't tried to eat me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-70672930152269757182009-02-26T14:06:00.000+00:002009-02-26T14:06:00.000+00:00The idea of a tradition of progressive reform is o...The idea of a tradition of progressive reform is one of the reasons why I don't really like the term 'traditionalism'. It is self-contradictory. To me, the suffix 'ism' suggests an ideology and 'tradition' suggests the absence of ideology.<BR/><BR/>Progressive reform implies the existence of an ideal (i.e. not yet manifest) society towards which we wish to reform our current society. This is an ideological concept. It posits the existence of abstract principles to which society should be made to conform. This positing is sometimes tacit but usually quite open - see universal human rights for example.<BR/><BR/>However, when a conservative talks about tradition, he usually means the attitude and system of government that Quinton calls 'traditionalism'. That is to say, there are no abstract ideals as such, just a collection of inherited wisdom and "the way we do things".<BR/><BR/>I suppose the contrast between ideology and conservatism might be illustrated by contrasting the constitutions of the USA and Britain. One is clearly ideological, the other unwritten and traditional.<BR/><BR/>Thus I would say that it is not possible for a society to have a tradition of progressive reform. Such a tradition would only be a tradition in the colloquial sense that the society has a history of progressively reforming itself. That's a perfectly acceptable use of the word 'tradition' but it isn't what conservatives mean when they contrast tradition with ideology.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Once it's established that progressive reform is consistent with stability...</I><BR/><BR/>Once that has been done, then Quinton's argument is indeed defeated. However, my understanding of the last couple of hundred years of history, the twentieth century in particular, along with my own experiences since I've been old enough to pay attention to such things convince me that progressive reform is not at all consistent with stability.<BR/><BR/>We haven't all killed each other or starved to death yet, as happened to many people unfortunate enough to be involved in a revolution, but we are gradually sliding into decay. It's that old cliché about boiling frogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-41931877837285678042009-02-18T19:48:00.000+00:002009-02-18T19:48:00.000+00:00Some excellent points there again.However, what if...Some excellent points there again.<BR/><BR/>However, what if there's a tradition of progressive reform in a society, and if a stable political state has been created and maintained as a result of this progressive reform? Conservatism, <EM>a la</EM> Quinton, then suggests the preservation of this <EM>modus operandi</EM>. One might argue that there is just such a tradition of progressive reform in modern Western societies.<BR/><BR/>Once it's established that progressive reform is consistent with stability, then Quinton's conservatism becomes consistent with progressive reform, and thereby becomes self-defeating.Gordon McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151162643523937086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-52613911743261325242009-02-18T09:47:00.000+00:002009-02-18T09:47:00.000+00:00Most of those in the modern Western world who subs...<I>Most of those in the modern Western world who subscribe to progressive reform ... do not harbour utopias...</I><BR/><BR/>Having demanded empirical proof from the conservatives to support their claims, you leave yourself open to a similar demand here.<BR/><BR/>It would be impossible to identify those who "subscribe to progressive reform". For example, on the face of it, I would say that I do not. But maybe once I'd heard your definition of "progressive reform" I would change my mind; and I very much doubt that large numbers of people can be found who all agree precisely on such a definition.<BR/><BR/>However, I suspect that many "progressives" do indeed harbour utopias. Perhaps they do so only subconsciously or indirectly - it is only the avowed ideologues of revolution that proclaim utopias openly - but I have little doubt that the ministers of our current government have utopian ideals in the back of their minds.<BR/><BR/>I think the principle difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives are, in a literal sense, reactionary, whereas progressives are active.<BR/><BR/>Conservatives believe that society should be modified to cope with changes in circumstance, whereas progressives believe society should be modified towards some deliberate goal.<BR/><BR/>Revolution is the most extreme example of attempting to modify a society to make it conform to an ideal. However, even gradual progressive reform is undertaken with the same sort of goal in sight. It is merely a more sensible, pragmatic method of achieving the same end.<BR/><BR/>A conservative does not wish to modify society in accordance with any particular ideal, unless you count Quinton's "traditionalism" as an ideal. I think "traditionalism" is rather oxymoronic, since tradition is the antithesis of ideology, but I suppose it depends on how you wish to categorise things.<BR/><BR/>None of the above provides any empirical proof for the claims of conservatism. But perhaps it partially elucidates the conservative position regarding gradual progressivism. (By 'conservative' I here mean 'my').<BR/><BR/>There was an interesting discussion about the term 'progressive' on the <A HREF="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1154" REL="nofollow">Language Log recently</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com