conservatism

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[was: Re: [PEN-L:5738] Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)]

David Shemano wrote:
> >I am not sure what your question is, so I will answer as follows.  First, I
> >am conservative, so I don't believe in perfection and am willing to defend
> >and conserve imperfection -- I am not going to throw the baby out with the
> >bathwater.

Tom Walker wrote:
> In this sense I am also a conservative.

George Sabine defines "self-conscious political conservatism" as seen in
Edmund Burke's writings: "an appreciation of the complexity of the social
system and of the massiveness of its customary arrangements, a respect for
the wisdom of established institutions, especially religion and property, a
strong sense of continuity in its historical changes and a belief in the
relative impotence of individual will and reason to deflect it from its
course, and a keen moral satisfaction in the loyalty that attaches its
members to their stations in its various ranks" (A HISTORY OF POLITICAL
THEORY, 1937: 617).

In this sense, there are at least two kinds of "conservatives." The two
main ones exist uneasily in coalitions such as the US Republican party.

(1) the "economic conservatives" are also called "neoliberals" and
(sometimes) "libertarians." These emphasize the "wisdom" of only one
established institution, that of property. In the US, this doesn't include
the landed property of Burke's time, but instead includes only private
ownership of society's productive resources and consumption goods.

(2) the "social conservatives" or traditionalists value established
institutions such as white male dominance of society. They oppose abortion
rights, homosexuals, drugs, anti-militarism, and secularism (including
Darwinism). They put a big emphasis on traditional community ties,
including the role of churches, and the traditional male-dominated family.

There are some obvious overlaps here, as  when "private property in guns"
coincides with a traditionalism emphasis on the need to have an armed
populace. Traditional institutions help maintain respect for the power of
big property owners. Further, both kinds of conservatives make sweeping
generalizations about the nature of human nature and assert that "it" can't
be changed.

The problem is that the "libs" and the "trads" often conflict. The former
(the economic conservatives) follow Locke to favor the endless accumulation
of power in the form of property, whereas the latter (social conservatives)
see how the dynamics of accumulation encourage the disruption of
traditional ways of living and traditional institutions. Chaotic
urbanization, industrialization, and capital mobility -- which are all
important aspects of capital accumulation -- disrupt the traditional
institutions that help shore up the system, encouraging conflict. Some --
like my cousin who favors Pat Buchanan -- way that capitalism should be
restrained to preserve the social order, an opinion that leans heavily
toward fascism. But progressive change is also possible.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine