Monday, April 09, 2007
Cella on Conservatism
Another great post by Paul Cella, this one at RedState. It is worth reading in its entirety.
Two points really jumped out at me. First, his argument that conservatives cannot, for prudential reasons, reflexively demand smaller government in all cases. While smaller may be generally preferable, the expansion of the state's influence over the past few centuries has become so irreversible that to completely undo it would be to invite chaos in certain circumstances:
The second point that really grabbed me was his artful description of "progressives." It struck a deep chord in me. It cut through the layers of accumulated disappointment that have dulled my senses to liberal shenanigans. I so expect them now that I hardly see them at all. Cella really pinpointed what, as a teenager, alarmed me so, and sent me down a path of questioning liberalism and the secular activism that I saw all around me. It is the blindness of the liberal to the real goods in the world, the simple things that every man is capable of enjoying. The liberal, by contrast, seems incapable of enjoying his or her life: instead they want to drag you down into the same misery of perceived injury (usually assumed to be orchestrated) in which they wallow daily. And the only solution to the "orchestrated misery" is division, strife, and ultimately, for those who are candid enough to admit it, revolution.
Please read the whole article. You won't be sorry.
Two points really jumped out at me. First, his argument that conservatives cannot, for prudential reasons, reflexively demand smaller government in all cases. While smaller may be generally preferable, the expansion of the state's influence over the past few centuries has become so irreversible that to completely undo it would be to invite chaos in certain circumstances:
It is true, of course, that long experience has taught the Conservative a deep distrust of the modern State. But the Conservative, knowing his history, also knows that the modern unitary State, with its tendrils reaching into almost everything, is a consequence of a revolution made in human politics: a leveling of the older social order, with its rich tapestry of authority, distinction, and variety, and its independent sources of power. The power available to the modern State, which rushed in to fill this vacuum produced by this revolution, is beyond anything ever conceived by the most ambitious despots of the older tradition; and thus the despotisms of the modern age, as wise men like Burke foresaw, have exceeded anything ever before seen. To borrow a phrase from Evelyn Waugh, what Burke saw in Revolutionary France was the modern age in arms, a proto-totalitarian state where politics is all there is.
So the Conservative’s view of the State is ambiguous and skeptical — skeptical not only of the claims of statists, but even of the claims of anti-statists. The modern State is available for manipulation, and it is an instrument of terrible power. But it is not always in the interest of sheltering what is dear to him to effect a weakening the State. To sweep aside all laws against indecency, obscenity, or blasphemy, for instance, may indeed momentarily diminish the power of the State; and concomitantly diminish the capacity for ordered liberty. Here the Conservative may, upon examination, find that he is grateful for the mild application of legal sanction against the obscene or indecent, which would pollute the public life of his community and poison the minds of his own children. It is not true, always and everywhere, that to reduce the role or size of the State is to enlarge liberty. For off at the end, the obliteration of all those apparently trivial or even petty laws against vice may issue in a vicious people; and a vicious people, ruled by mere whim and appetite, will either be governed by a firm despot or not governed at all. Anarchy or despotism will be the lot of such a people; or worse, both at once. It does not require a great insight into the nature of things to see that men who will not govern their own appetites, and who throw up elaborate legal sophistries to protect their license, are unlikely make for a free, as in self-governing, people.
The second point that really grabbed me was his artful description of "progressives." It struck a deep chord in me. It cut through the layers of accumulated disappointment that have dulled my senses to liberal shenanigans. I so expect them now that I hardly see them at all. Cella really pinpointed what, as a teenager, alarmed me so, and sent me down a path of questioning liberalism and the secular activism that I saw all around me. It is the blindness of the liberal to the real goods in the world, the simple things that every man is capable of enjoying. The liberal, by contrast, seems incapable of enjoying his or her life: instead they want to drag you down into the same misery of perceived injury (usually assumed to be orchestrated) in which they wallow daily. And the only solution to the "orchestrated misery" is division, strife, and ultimately, for those who are candid enough to admit it, revolution.
But the Conservative discovers, often to his acute regret, that his opponents are usually malcontents of some variety — “energumens,” in a term favored by Russell Kirk: men possessed. What so exercises them against the settled things of their society will always remain something of a mystery to him. But that this agitation issues in a habit of mind inimical to what the Preamble of the Constitution refers to as “domestic tranquility” is not so mysterious. The language of discontent positively permeates our politics. Senators sound more like generals when they talk of the necessity that Supreme Court nominees be prepared to “fight for women’s rights.” Our leaders conceive of new “wars” on social blights every other year. We hear talk of our country rent into “two Americas”; of the great and unending “struggle” against discrimination and prejudice; and so on. In this idiom there seems little to enjoy in the world, little to be grateful for, and much to be incensed about. Oakeshott again:To some people, “government” appears as a vast reservoir of power which inspires them to dream of what use might be made of it. They have favourite projects, of various dimensions, which they sincerely believe are for the benefit of mankind, and to capture this source of power, if necessary to increase it, and to use it for imposing their favourite projects upon their fellows is what they understand as the adventure of governing men. They are, thus, disposed to recognize government as an instrument of passion; the art of politics is to inflame and direct desire.
This sort of politics — politics as “an instrument of passion” — fills the Conservative with alarm. It begins in some vaunted dream of a better world; it ends in cataclysm.
It is not that the Conservative is inclined to dismiss the long train of abuses, crimes, usurpations, perfidies, frauds, deceits, pillages, despoliations and betrayals that characterize so much of human history. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But the Conservative is certainly inclined to dismiss the malcontent’s delusion that only these things constitute reality, while the good things of life are mere chimeras.
Please read the whole article. You won't be sorry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(477)
-
▼
April
(34)
- Romney (Re)Defines the Enemy
- Congrats, D.C.!
- Hey Linderman...
- Carbon emissions: actually the fault of Indonesia?
- Wedding Dress
- alec baldwin
- "You are useless, Arec Bawdwin"
- Ted Nugent
- Poll #s
- Rudy flipping around on PBA
- Today's Image
- Partial birth abortions...
- For the sake of his sorrowful passion,
- 2008 Power Rankings
- Rudy's story keeps changing
- Obama flaunting success
- Chew on this...
- Mitt is frustrating me
- As if Peggy Noonan wasn't already the best
- Forbes endorses Rudy
- NBC and CBS Want Sick Children To Die
- The NBA should be dissolved
- Carlos Slim Helu overtakes Buffett
- Global warming
- Maggie G is disgusted with Rudy
- Get your anthropogenic global warming before it's ...
- Cella on Conservatism
- Thought for the Day
- Pelosi...
- Where is Our John Howard?
- Pelosi, part deux
- Fundraising
- The Fred Thompson Buzz
- 1Q Fundraising
-
▼
April
(34)
3 comments:
I agree that Cella's second point is particularly salient. I am thankful that there are people who take up causes to help the less fortunate, even with passion. The biggest problem with the liberal approach to these problems is, IMHO, a fundamentally flawed assumption. They assume that all, hunger, poverty, illness, etc., can be eliminated. There are many problems with this premise. Firstly, this assumes unlimited resources. Secondly, this assumes no participation is required from those whom you are trying to help. This second flaw leads to well-meaning but totally ineffective policy such as welfare (before the reforms of the 90s). You can't help people who don't want to help themselves. And those who work hard (including those who benefit from their parents and grandparents hard work) should not be forced to carry the entire burden of all who do not have as much. It is simply unfair and un-American. We need to have some government programs as a safety net, to help those who suffer from misfortune get back on their feet, but these programs should be temporary assistance. A member of my wife's family fell on hard times and signed up for Medicaid. She really needed the help as she couldn't get credit, didn't have a job or assets to speak of. She soon got a job and after some hard work got back on her feet. The most amazing part of the story is how difficult it was for her to get the government to stop the benefit. It took a couple of months, many phones calls and several letters saying she didn't need the help anymore before they took her off the program.
A recent email I received provided a decent analogy to taxes paying for non-temporary assistance:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like
so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an
evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking
how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, How is your friend Audrey
doing?
She replied, Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is
so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always
invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.
Her wise father asked his daughter, Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea. How would that be fair? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Nice try, but the young woman's success is only due to institutional advantages that she is benefitting from and that others don't have access to. Audrey is doing the best she can under the circumstances. It's not her fault that she has the deep-seated psychological need to be at the center of attention, and often needs to drown her sorrows in booze. Probably the result of a loveless childhood.
This good student is a selfish witch. She should share the GPA! It's not like it costs her anything. The state will take care of her if her diminished resume prevents her from getting a job.
Sorry. My bad.