Posted by
Mytheos Holt on Sunday, September 16, 2007 2:02:06 PM
In
the past, I have made a great point of the fact that conservatism is
intimately tied with tradition. It is no surprise, then, that many
frustrated liberals turn to me in shock and inquire, with the dissonant
notes of derision and disbelief permeating their voices, how a
conservative can, properly speaking, stand against traditions which are
liberal, such as the New Deal, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil
Rights act, and so on, and so on.
This question, despite its
obvious malice, raises a serious problem with the term "conservative",
and its associated denotation - that one wishes to "conserve"
something. Obviously, when it comes to traditions which ought not to
have existed, conservatives do not mindlessly spring to the defense of
such institutions, and nor should they, lest they become as mindlessly
in favor of tradition as liberals are against it. And supposing all the
traditions of a particular institution (such as Wesleyan University)
are liberal, or have been for a great while? How can the conservative
justify interrupting these traditions in the name of abstract ideals,
if he distrusts abstractions and abhors the destruction of tradition?
The
answer is that the term "conservative" is slightly misleading. I accept
that the term has become a fixture of current political dialogue, and
that the sense of "conservative" described by said dialogue is
meaningful when applied to contemporary American "conservatives".
However, I also believe that the term has become amorphous and
blasphemed, to the point that we now make distinctions between
"paleoconservatives", "neoconservatives", "libertarian conservatives"
and "traditionalist conservatives", and all variety of other
theoretical "conservatives" for whom the general label of the species
will not suffice. This problem of nomenclature, trivial as it may seem,
actually points to a problem with referring to oneself as a
conservative - one can never be really sure what one means, or whether
the label is actually fitting.
In this matter of definition,
Rush Limbaugh has suggested that "anything which is not conservative is
by definition liberal", but this definition is an invitation to Hell,
since the term "conservative" is so disputed that nearly any idea could
be considered liberal simply because a single spokesman of conservatism
has disowned it. Moreover, the question of libertarianism has troubled
many conservatives, with some claiming that it is merely a "chirping
sect" which has nothing in common with conservatism, and some claiming
that it is the essence of conservatism, at least in the American sense.
These questions are nearly impossible to answer when the term
"conservative" is so nebulously defined.
Of course, one could
turn to the old idea of fusionism, but the current Presidency has so
devastated that concept that it seems impossible to recover. For this
reason, I intend to take the plunge of proposing a new label for
"conservatives" such as myself, who use the term for convenience, but
who feel that its meaning is so obscured that it has become nothing but
a term of convenience. Speaking for myself, I am not sure what sort of
conservative I am, but I am certain of one thing - I am a
counter-revolutionary.
What, you ask, is a
counter-revolutionary, and how may we know him? Who does he count as
his brothers and sisters? What principles beat inexorably in his heart?
What policy prescriptions linger in his mind? Is he merely a creature
of the brain, or does the soul draw his attention as well? To what
extent does tradition inform his thought?
To answer these
questions, I intend to set out a few basic principles which guide the
counter-revolutionary mind. It should be fairly obvious how they relate
to the realm of the concrete. They are as follows:
1. The
counter-revolutionary is a man of the Right, in the sense that his name
implies - he stands to restore the greatness of what has gone before,
though not by ignoring the lessons of what is. His soul makes its home
in the stately old mansion of the past, and though he tirelessly seeks
to repair the flaws of his spiritual home, he will always stand as a
human shield in the face of the voracious wrecking ball that is
revolution. The solution to past injustices is not to tear down the
institutions that created them, but to reform those institutions
organically.
2. The counter-revolutionary believes in the
sovereignty of the individual soul, but not in its moral autonomy. He
views the human animal as fundamentally flawed, and as capable of
corruption and cruelty as it is of virtue and justice. He trusts the
Laws of God, but not the Laws of the State, for one is born of immortal
perfection, and the other is born of mortal fallibility. The
counter-revolutionary believes that man must be convinced to be
virtuous of his own free will, and that society may use all the forces
it wishes to convince him, with the exception of force, which turns
fear of God into fear of the jailhouse.
3. The
counter-revolutionary defies centralized despotism in all its forms,
and prefers that men who understand him be his masters, rather than the
impersonal, abstract tentacles of a Leviathan state.
4. The
counter-revolutionary believes that when equality is viewed as a
political aim, it is a euphemism for conformity and mediocrity and that
equality only exists in the eyes of God. He is an elitist, and believes
in a natural hierarchy of humanity which reveals itself spontaneously,
rather than through the determinations of central authorities. He
believes that the division of wealth and virtue are self-fulfilling
prophecies, but that the division of power is corrupted when
democratized. He distrusts the barbarous multitude.
5. The
counter-revolutionary believes that when efficiency is viewed as a
political aim, it is a euphemism for brutality and indifference, as
well as incorrectly used. He believes that men are most efficient when
allowed to interpret their interests for themselves, or with the help
of their voluntarily chosen communities.
6. The
counter-revolutionary understands that all Law is based on a conception
of morality, but he is also vigilant against Democratically-imposed
Satanic visions and utopian delusions, which almost inevitably lead to
immorality. He is eternally vigilant for perversions of the letter of
the Law, and understands that legality is not equal with moral
sanction. He trusts the Law to safeguard rights, and Godly communities
to safeguard morality. He believes that the existence of vice is
necessary to the existence of virtue, but also understands that all
liberty must be ordered, lest it descend into anarchy and barbarism. As
such, he believes that all choices are not morally equivalent, and that
vice ought to be forcefully punished for the sake of maintaining order.
7.
The counter-revolutionary believes in capitalism insofar as it leads to
productivity and virtue. He sternly condemns those who make their
living on licentiousness and frivolity, but is loath to stop them using
the force of a Democratic state, for to do so is to invite them to
oppress him if they ever hold power. He believes that capitalism is the
least imperfect way to allow members of the natural aristocracy to gain
ascendance.
8. The counter-revolutionary believes that man is
gifted with the right to judge and exclude, and rejects any attempt to
force the existence of associations. He believes that wisdom in
choosing one's friends will ultimately lead to greater rewards than
believing one has the wisdom to choose others' friends. He respects the
right of communities to restrict their membership.
9. The
counter-revolutionary believes that war is the health of the State, and
that fighting needless battles saps the strength of the virtuous. He is
loath to give up fights, but is also loath to enter them.
10.
The counter-revolutionary believes that society is permeated with
"noble lies", and is loath to expose them, lest their destruction lead
to barbarism. He believes that pure reason is dangerous in the extreme,
and that the regress is a logical black hole. He frowns upon all forms
of indiscriminate "liberation", and does not believe that "social
constructs" are inherently arbitrary and dangerous. Rather, he views
them as the incomplete genius of providence, towards which new ideas
can be added, but which ought never to be completely demolished.