Back to the Stone Age: a Primer for Palaeoconservatives 1
Chapter One: Some Basic Concepts, Part One
I have never been very good with dates, but it was some time in the mid 1980's. Paul Gottfried, who was teaching at Rockford College, had come to my office, and we were discussing, as was our wont, the sad state of conservatism. (I do not recall if it was before or after we began collaborating on The Conservative Movement).
My view was that Reagan's victory had insured the elimination of every argument or policy based on conservative principle. Out of power, conservatives had mounted an effective, albeit limited critique of the New Deal regime that had been in place since the 1930's, but once in power they had joined the ranks of the enemy. Their defection was in part an illustration of Stan Evans' Law, that whenever one of our guys gets into a position where he can do some good, he becomes one of theirs, though Stan's law implied some measure of principled resistance, whereas all Paul and I could see was a joyful surrender, on the part of Washington conservatives, to the least little temptation.
Paul's typical conversation gambit in those days was to begin every paragraph with, "I am more conservative than you are because…" I occasionally played along, though, in truth, I never cared much for the subject, partly because it was never clear to me what people meant when they used the word conservative. Back in the 1930's and 1940's, "Conservative" had been used as a term of abuse for people who supported the status quo, generally regarded as the rule of the wealthy and powerful. It was also used occasionally as an insulting synonym for the timid or over-cautious. Bill Buckley and his friends had cobbled together a pragmatic ideology they called "fusionism"—equal parts classical liberalism and respect for order and tradition--but I have run into very few people (Donald Devine, most prominently) who believed in it.
The main problem with fusionism was that it is based on a fundamental incoherence that reflects the disparate origins and sources of American (and English) conservatism. The adjective "conservative" implies an attachment to the existing status quo and an antipathy to change. That is why one could speak, in the Brezhnev years, of the conservative hard-liners in the Kremlin. Buckley and his friends were certainly conservative in this sense, opposing, as they certainly did, both revolutionary communism and democratic socialism. Buckley declared that the mission of his magazine was to stand "athwart history yelling stop." In every generation, then, conservatives have tried to slow the pace of revolutionary change without necessarily mounting a principled opposition to the Revolution itself.
In the late 18th and early 19th century, English Tories were primarily eager to stop the progress of the political and social movements spawned by the French Revolution. These movements were aimed at eliminating or at least emasculating monarchy, aristocracy, and the entrenched interests of established churches.
Liberals were progressive, almost by definition, and thus they had to be "modern." It is often forgotten that the word modern, derived from Latin modus, means basically fashionable. Liberals and leftists had always be rushing to keep in fashion, while a conservative, by contrast, was defined as a defender of the old regime. He was a lover of the feudal order and antiquated cultural traditions. He was the pillar of the old social order and of all that Edmund Burke referred to as "the unbought grace of life" and what T.S. Eliot meant, a hundred years later, when he celebrated "the permanent things."
In the course of the 19th century, however, another revolutionary movement, not unrelated to the French Revolution, did succeed, and that was Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberals were not necessarily opposed to monarchy, aristocracy, and the Church per se, but in their drive to liberate individuals they inevitably tended to undermine any institution that impeded an individual's progress.
By the dawning of the 20th century, the old liberalism had done its work all too well: Kings were impotent, aristocrats were marginalized, the Church was reduced to window dressing, and even the heads of families were losing some of their authority over wives and children. The big winners were the business classes, the bourgeoisie, the capitalists. The reaction of the working classes had been predicted from the beginning. Liberated from their attachment to the land, the king, and the church, they demanded political equality with the rich, whom they regarded as the new aristocracy. By the end of World War I, liberalism was in a shambles, in the process of being replaced by one or another form of socialism.
National Review's historical conservatism, then, was really a defense of the revolution that had transformed the world by breaking down the old order and clearing the way for socialist revolution, violent in the case of Russia, democratic and gradualist in most of Europe and the United States. By the end of World War II, socialism was so in vogue that it could now be called liberalism, which is why conservatives attack the leaders of the Democratic Party as "liberals" when they are in fact socialists. Buckley knew this very well, and many times in his career he declared that he and his friends were true liberals.
Buckley was sincerely conservative in more conventional senses. He loved classical music and learned to play the music of Bach on the harpsichord. He respected, without necessarily obeying, the Catholic Church, and he often expressed his admiration of traditional literature, especially in its contemporary manifestations. He loved the novels of Evelyn Waugh, admired T.S. Eliot's social and cultural criticism, and promoted conservative novelists like James Gould Cozzens. Unfortunately, at the very center of Buckley's mind and National Review's editorial policy, the conflict raged between his conservative instincts and the revolutionary spirit of liberalism and individualism that now animates conservative talk radio.
Paul was more or less a fusionist and, strange to say, an admirer of Mr. Buckley, at least in his pre-1980's incarnation: He celebrated bourgeois liberalism but, as a Germanophile, he also thought a good deal of social stability and its foundations—authority, hierarchy, and tradition. There was nothing wrong in anything he admired, though I did rather feel it fell short of a coherent point of view.
I always enjoyed our chats about the failure of the conservative movement. Paul's bête noire—one he shared with our friend Peter Stanlis—was the perfidious neoconservatives. I shared his distaste for most of them, but my view came closer to contempt than hostility. Of the movement's two most prominent leaders, one was a bright man and clever operator, whose education was at best rudimentary and range of intellectual interests pedestrian if not primitive, while the other was a student of 20th century literature, a subject that is not exactly a solid intellectual formation. The lesser lights of the movement were, for the most part, not worth the effort it takes to hate someone.
There were, nonetheless, sound intellectuals and writers associated with or admired by the neocons. I came to know their hero Edward Shils, a deeply learned man of sound wisdom. His friend Joseph Epstein was and is one of the best essayists in America. Irving Louis Horowitz, who published my first book, was a widely read social and political analyst who did a great deal of good for traditional conservatives. So, "neoconservative," while useful as a term of abuse for the schemers who seduced the all-too seducible conservatives, is inappropriate as an ideological label. Ed Shils, though no ideologue, was deeply conservative in many of his instincts and more or less loathed the whole gang including his students. I know that because he told me so at dinner, in a series of scathing responses to my queries about this or that leading light of the movement.
To be continued
Entries(RSS)
Tom,
I appreciate you telling these stories so at least the kids who have taken over today will know it was not a relay baton from old conservatves they were given, rather an empty whiskey bottle thrown overboard by ancestors of the McGovern boat people in search of another landing.
Thanks for this. It is much needed. I wonder if anything in particular is prompting it. The American Conservative is having an extended conversation on what it means to be a conservative, but I find it less than satisfactory.
Our new director of development, Jim Easton, is trying to sort through what we stand for. He came to me two weeks ago and asked if I might do an essay or a book or organize a series of books that would serve as an executive summary of what we stand for. I thought it might work but a straight-out analytical approach would be a bit boring, so I plunged into a narrative. This little snippet is about an eighth of the first chapter. I should be finishing the second chapter, on conservatives and the free market, in less than a week. I don't know how frequently I should post these. Three times a week? Twice? Right now, if I keep it to this length, I have written enough for ten web pieces. Your thoughts will be much appreciated.
I should add that for years I have shied away from terms like palaeoconservative and even conservative because they are like the Jolly Roger, a flag under which many scoundrels are sailing, but if this is what people are going to call us, I may as well accept it and give some precision to the definition.
I find this very helpful. When asked if I'm a conservative I say "No" because there's nothing of the current way of the world, at least from a political/idelogical level, that I want to conserve. But I can't very well go around letting people think I'm some sort of anarchist. I'd heard the term paleoconservative before, and had no idea what it actually meant. I'm very much looking forward to this book.
"The American Conservative is having an extended conversation on what it means to be a conservative..."
Red,
I don't know about you but I think it would be pretty hard to give what you don't have,. . . money, fame, knowledge, memories, etc.. That is the chief reason I suspect the conversation over there to be extensive and interminable, like those voices one must hear in hell. Sanctus Sanctus,Sanctus is not something one can easily hear today. At least not where I live, work and breath.
If this series is intended to be a credo of sorts, that I wonder if you might caution rightists from getting entangled with nostalgia from one era, or even any era - be it the Middle Ages, the 19th century, or even the 1950s. At no point in history has a previous time been 'restored' but alot of rightists waste alot of breath on this. The mindset has a cousin, Ludditism, which was always one of my problems with Russel Kirk's ideology.
" The American Conservative is having an extended conversation on what it means to be a conservative, but I find it less than satisfactory."
Well yeah, the magazine is run by an immigration enthusiast whos only non-negotiable is that you must be anti-war in all cases, ever.
The American Conservative is having an extended conversation on what it means to be a conservative, but I find it less than satisfactory.
I was going to suggest that The American Conservative ought to have an extended conversation with itself about whether it really thinks it's worthwhile to continue situating itself on the right of the political spectrum, but Daniel Maxwell beat me to it. Not having the time or the inclination to check out the conversation for myself, I can only speculate that it must be an amusing case study in why the blind cannot lead the blind, lest both fall into a ditch.
If this series is intended to be a credo of sorts, that I wonder if you might caution rightists from getting entangled with nostalgia from one era, or even any era - be it the Middle Ages, the 19th century, or even the 1950s. At no point in history has a previous time been 'restored' but alot of rightists waste alot of breath on this. The mindset has a cousin, Ludditism, which was always one of my problems with Russel Kirk's ideology.
I know Mgr Williamson is a cuss word in some quarters, but I have to say I still love his thoughts on "Fiftiesism" and his letter on "Unreal Movies & Real Catholicism":
... even most Catholics seem to think (or wish) themselves to be still living in the world of "The Sound of Music"! That world is gone, gone forever, as it deserved!
... the mighty suction of Fiftiesism, that glossy version of Catholicism without the Cross, all the outer trappings of Tradition, but with none of the substance (cf. II Timothy Ill, 5)
I know Mgr Williamson is a cuss word in some quarters
That was quite a crude way of putting it. I apologize. I hope I can be indulged. Perhaps, "I know Mgr Williamson and anything he has to say have become pariah in some quarters" would have been fitting.
Daniel,
The word nostalgia has an intellectual as well as emotional meaning. In the best works of most culture studied, it is also related to heaven -- to heading home. In the Odyssey, for instance, Odysseus is a nostalgic type yearning for home or as he put it, "to see smoke rising from my own chimney and after that, to die." This of course is only a mild dissent from everythng else you have said about restoration but it is such a significant and useful word,nostalgia, I hate to see Chronicle readers use it to signify simply an emotional state or a whimpering for "days gone by" as do secularists,modernists and all american political types .It is as related to the prodigal son who grew nostalgic for his father's home, as it is for those emotional crackpots speaking at the Democratic National Convention nostalgic for "four more years" or for those at the GOP convention nostalgic for more " job creation" , in both cases people were simply emoting whereas, heading home or yearning for home is something lovely, timeless and intelligent.
I wasnt just saying that about the 1950s, but any era at all. Trad Catholics are bad about this issue of course, but I think many (most?) rightists are. Ultimately its a dead end.
I dont mean it like they mean it. Of course there is value in the past. I just dont like to see rightists wasting their time thinking they can bring about a mythical restoration.
Over the years I have written a fair amount on the uses and dangers of nostalgia, and I have a few words in the next installment on the degree to which different kinds of conservatives define themselves by historical periods. Generally speaking, many people are nostalgic for the world of their youth, whose beauties they can recall and whose vices and deficiencies they forget too easily. On the other hand, we need external criteria by which to judge our own times and those can only be properly found in other times and places. As I used to tell friends who were 50's enthusiasts, the least helpful nostalgia was the illusion that we could restore our childhood. We are more likely to learn something valuable from ancient Greeks or the Anglo-Saxons or the Byzantine Empire than we are from the Eisenhower years. "Big wheel keep on turnin'," as the song says, and we are past the point where we can restore the 1950's or even the 1980's. Restorations are almost always revolutions.
Daniel,
I quite agree with you and did not mean at all to lecture you on the subject. I am a nobody to lecture anybody. Thomas Hardy was a stone mason and a great writer for those who believe in the very projects you and Dr. Fleming warn against. He trained in London with an architect who specialized in restoring old churches. Far From the Madding Crowd released him from such notions as it also helped release me from those Reagan types at the time who thought they were going to "restore our Constitution."
The series would be undoubtedly be educational for those of us who are younger and a good complement to the "Credo for Conservatives" series.
Another useful bit of info might be on what you see as the right's failures, which you touch upon above.
I agree with what youve said - that slowly we accepted their premise. But I think its more complicated than that; I think the left actually used conservative traits against us. Namely, our respect of authority and much later and less commented on - our politeness. The latter has been used against us for decades; first, during the 'Civil Rights' movement and the immigration waves, and currently, to mute any opposition to homo rights on anything other than pragmatic grounds.
Mr. Fleming,
Has the label "conservative" lost all meaning now that there is nothing left to conserve? Should we instead be "counter-revolutionaries"?
I think twice a week would be about right. That would give enough time for discussion of one article before the next one appears. I look forward to the book.
I agree with Red Phillips twice per week is good (or maybe even three times).
I could google who said this but it would take 15 seconds and it's needless since you all probably know anyway.
If it is not necessary to change, it's necessary not to change.
So if that is the living, breathing criterior for being a conservative. Then in plowing forward from within the reality of the present we could just apply that maxim. I.e. case by case: is this necesssary to change, is it possible? If yes, change it. If it's all on autopilot anyway and today's fate is also destiny then we can have some fun trying even if to no avail. Else what's an intellectual for?
Thus that's why I'm in favor of your narratives also being lyrical. E.g. when Joyce was lyrical he was probably a great writer. When he got too serious, oh boy!
Yes J. Wilhelm, the 'label' of whatever has no meaning. Instead, words have the shifting exemplar assigned by the wise. Or, it's a term only the wise can properly employ. Example: Luddite. Conservative. Yankee. Grits. Pay attention and learn how words are supposed to be used. But, for God's sake, don't be serious. Sorry about using the G word ... I always mess things up.
If it is not necessary to change, it's necessary not to change.
I'll go ahead and attribute it, since the author's provenance is very telling about this essential credo: it was Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount Falkland, KIA at the First Battle of Newry on the Cavalier side in the English Civil War: read, in what history would prove to be the first full-blown conflict between what we would call Left (Roundhead) and Right (Cavalier). To understand the problem, go to the source.
E.g. when Joyce was lyrical he was probably a great writer.
"Probably" might be a bit of a stretch, but all I know is I've never been able to take more than three minutes of Joyce without dozing off.
Example: Luddite. Conservative. Yankee. Grits.
It is hard to find any of these words even mentioned today except in the South or else about the South. Ludditism was a failed resistance to the deadly sins of avarice, gluttony and the peculiar one which cries to heaven at night for vengeance --- defrauding the poor!!! Yankee refers to a type of person who supports all of the above. Grits are simply something all real conservatives enjoy with their Virginia ham and fresh eggs in the mornings. I hoped that helped a little. Good to see you back at it. W.C..
I dislike the use of irrelevant historical examples to make ideological points. Falkland was many things, man, gentleman, scholar (in the old-fashioned sense), and patriot. He was one of the leaders in the Parliamentary resistance to Charles I, but when the resistance became radicalized beyond an affirmation of tradition, he (and his close friend the future Earl of Clarendon) accepted the King's offer to join him. He was an unhappy royalist, and the night before he died, he seemed too reflective. His reckless ride into the arms of the enemy strikes some as a quasi-suicide. A man of his dimensions cannot be reduced to the standards of our own time or of a struggle that really only erupted much later. Even Cromwell, villain that he was, has little in common with the Jacobins. Clarendon's history is a long and often tedious read, but it will help you understand the period a bit better.
We're running a bit ahead of the material I have posted. For that reason, I am going to violate Dr. Red's excellent proposal of a schedule and post the next few pages which begin to take up more serious questions.
Grits are simply something all real conservatives enjoy with their Virginia ham and fresh eggs in the mornings.
We can't get Virginia ham in this part of the world!! Does that mean I can't be a real conservative?
Nick,
In your country I believe conservatives are allowed the dispensation of substituting Virginia ham for saussiche,fromage with hard bread and wine to break fast. But I am no judge.
No more Joyce.
Palaeoconservatives, a bit like renegades. Remnds one of white Russians after 1917, clinging to hope, till they get hung by the rope.