At the level of an ideological taxonomy, we need to understand that "the Right" and "Conservatism" are VERY different entities.
"Liberalism" is the philosophy of government that asserts the importance of individual civil liberties, equality under the (rule of) law, and the positive liberties of participation in the political process. Lib…
At the level of an ideological taxonomy, we need to understand that "the Right" and "Conservatism" are VERY different entities.
"Liberalism" is the philosophy of government that asserts the importance of individual civil liberties, equality under the (rule of) law, and the positive liberties of participation in the political process. Liberalism emphasizes the importance of limited government, understood in terms of a State that is competent enough to uphold the rights of citizens, but always governed by the rule of law and so always accountable to the governed. Liberalism dates to the Age of Revolutions in the 19th century, and it is a very broad political philosophy, featuring a spectrum of views which range from "Left" (the left-side of the Liberal spectrum) to "Right" (the right-side of that political spectrum). Liberalism harbors a very strong creative tension within it, because the two cardinal values of Liberalism, liberty and equality, both depend upon one another but also are in a trade-off relationship with one another. The tension between these two values marks the difference between the left-side of the Liberal spectrum (which emphasizes equality) and the right-side (which emphasizes liberty). In the end, there can be no true zero-sum relationship between these values, nor any fundamental political divide between Right-Liberalism and Left-Liberalism.
Right and Left liberalism therefore are not fundamentally opposed. Instead, *both* are opposed to *Conservatism.* Conservatism has its roots in the throne-and-altar Ancien Regime of the Old World; Conservatism's cardinal value is *order,* understood in terms of the perpetuation (the conserving of) a system of institutional inequality and privilege (privilege = "private law") - which is of course the very opposite of the rule of law upon which universal political equality depends. At its root, Conservatism is a smash-and-grab political ethos; the institutionally entrenched nobility (with the royal house at the top of the hierarchy) is predicated ultimately upon force and nothing but. This was the Ancien Regime that the American and French Liberals of the 18th century toppled.
But the political impulses and instincts which animated Conservatism have deep roots; even today many people respond positively to the essentially Patriarchal values which uphold Conservatism (e.g., loyalty to a "sanctified" hierarchical authority, authority which is pitched above any possible legitimate criticism, and characterized by ideals of masculinity which are often quite toxic).
The true, fundamental, political divide of our post-Revolutionary Secular Age is between Liberalism, and the reconstructed Conservatism which survived the destruction of the original Ancien Regime. This Conservatism has a few salient features: 1) a near-obsession with the value of purity (as treated of in Jonathan Haidt's "Moral Matrix"), which lays heavy emphasis on in-group and out-group identity, and the polluting effects of the out-group on the in-group 2) a hypermasculine martial ethos which valorizes strength, particularly military power but also seen with heroic entrepreneurial figures who are able, by their own ingenuity, resourcefulness, cunning, and force of personality, to build business empires (this wealth often redounding directly to national military strength) 3) underscoring 1. and balancing 2., a populist ethos which makes Conservatism suitable for a post-Revolutionary Age, where attention must be paid to a certain kind of equality, viz. the equality of those in the in-group. This pure populism makes the ideological case for the equality of all those in the in-group, despite of and downplaying the often great divide in material fortunes amongst them. The conceit prevails that they are all in some fundamental sense "equal," particularly as contrasted with an out-group that threatens them collectively. Naturally this is a very ready means of putting a lid on any burgeoning class-resentments, or political opposition in general.
The Conservative regime par excellence was the Slaver's regime of the Old South. I would argue that the Fascist regimes of the 20th century are essentially Conservative. To begin they are intensely Anti-Liberal, contemptuous of both the values of liberty and equality, and the worst of them concocted ersatz forms of religious belief, setting a quasi-transcendental value on such things as racial identity or the logic of history, and moreover providing the means of sanctifying the regime, even making sacrosanct ("untouchable") the Leaders of these societies.
What's vital to keep before us is that Fascism is *popular;* it is not some aberration of Modern society but the naturally-occurring worldview opposing Liberalism in this, our post-Revolutionary era. It IS the Ancien Regime, after the altar has been smashed and the privileges revoked. *Every* Liberal society has to contend with a significant constituency which is prone to Fascism, just because the urge to dominate, the urge for La Gloire, (and the servile nature which complements this) is deep rooted in our primate-nature. In healthy Liberal societies, populist forces are often distributed amongst political parties engaged in fair, rule-bound political competition. But it can happen, at some time or other, that that one party can gather under its banner the overwhelming preponderance of populist forces; and when this happens, a canonically Fascist party comes into being that can use the levers of the democratic process to get access to power, and then from its perch of power pose an existential threat to the continued existence of the Liberal state in question. This is what happened with the antebellum Democratic party, which became identified with a Slaver's dominion.
And I would argue that this is what has happened with the Republican party in the United States today.
At the level of an ideological taxonomy, we need to understand that "the Right" and "Conservatism" are VERY different entities.
"Liberalism" is the philosophy of government that asserts the importance of individual civil liberties, equality under the (rule of) law, and the positive liberties of participation in the political process. Liberalism emphasizes the importance of limited government, understood in terms of a State that is competent enough to uphold the rights of citizens, but always governed by the rule of law and so always accountable to the governed. Liberalism dates to the Age of Revolutions in the 19th century, and it is a very broad political philosophy, featuring a spectrum of views which range from "Left" (the left-side of the Liberal spectrum) to "Right" (the right-side of that political spectrum). Liberalism harbors a very strong creative tension within it, because the two cardinal values of Liberalism, liberty and equality, both depend upon one another but also are in a trade-off relationship with one another. The tension between these two values marks the difference between the left-side of the Liberal spectrum (which emphasizes equality) and the right-side (which emphasizes liberty). In the end, there can be no true zero-sum relationship between these values, nor any fundamental political divide between Right-Liberalism and Left-Liberalism.
Right and Left liberalism therefore are not fundamentally opposed. Instead, *both* are opposed to *Conservatism.* Conservatism has its roots in the throne-and-altar Ancien Regime of the Old World; Conservatism's cardinal value is *order,* understood in terms of the perpetuation (the conserving of) a system of institutional inequality and privilege (privilege = "private law") - which is of course the very opposite of the rule of law upon which universal political equality depends. At its root, Conservatism is a smash-and-grab political ethos; the institutionally entrenched nobility (with the royal house at the top of the hierarchy) is predicated ultimately upon force and nothing but. This was the Ancien Regime that the American and French Liberals of the 18th century toppled.
But the political impulses and instincts which animated Conservatism have deep roots; even today many people respond positively to the essentially Patriarchal values which uphold Conservatism (e.g., loyalty to a "sanctified" hierarchical authority, authority which is pitched above any possible legitimate criticism, and characterized by ideals of masculinity which are often quite toxic).
The true, fundamental, political divide of our post-Revolutionary Secular Age is between Liberalism, and the reconstructed Conservatism which survived the destruction of the original Ancien Regime. This Conservatism has a few salient features: 1) a near-obsession with the value of purity (as treated of in Jonathan Haidt's "Moral Matrix"), which lays heavy emphasis on in-group and out-group identity, and the polluting effects of the out-group on the in-group 2) a hypermasculine martial ethos which valorizes strength, particularly military power but also seen with heroic entrepreneurial figures who are able, by their own ingenuity, resourcefulness, cunning, and force of personality, to build business empires (this wealth often redounding directly to national military strength) 3) underscoring 1. and balancing 2., a populist ethos which makes Conservatism suitable for a post-Revolutionary Age, where attention must be paid to a certain kind of equality, viz. the equality of those in the in-group. This pure populism makes the ideological case for the equality of all those in the in-group, despite of and downplaying the often great divide in material fortunes amongst them. The conceit prevails that they are all in some fundamental sense "equal," particularly as contrasted with an out-group that threatens them collectively. Naturally this is a very ready means of putting a lid on any burgeoning class-resentments, or political opposition in general.
The Conservative regime par excellence was the Slaver's regime of the Old South. I would argue that the Fascist regimes of the 20th century are essentially Conservative. To begin they are intensely Anti-Liberal, contemptuous of both the values of liberty and equality, and the worst of them concocted ersatz forms of religious belief, setting a quasi-transcendental value on such things as racial identity or the logic of history, and moreover providing the means of sanctifying the regime, even making sacrosanct ("untouchable") the Leaders of these societies.
What's vital to keep before us is that Fascism is *popular;* it is not some aberration of Modern society but the naturally-occurring worldview opposing Liberalism in this, our post-Revolutionary era. It IS the Ancien Regime, after the altar has been smashed and the privileges revoked. *Every* Liberal society has to contend with a significant constituency which is prone to Fascism, just because the urge to dominate, the urge for La Gloire, (and the servile nature which complements this) is deep rooted in our primate-nature. In healthy Liberal societies, populist forces are often distributed amongst political parties engaged in fair, rule-bound political competition. But it can happen, at some time or other, that that one party can gather under its banner the overwhelming preponderance of populist forces; and when this happens, a canonically Fascist party comes into being that can use the levers of the democratic process to get access to power, and then from its perch of power pose an existential threat to the continued existence of the Liberal state in question. This is what happened with the antebellum Democratic party, which became identified with a Slaver's dominion.
And I would argue that this is what has happened with the Republican party in the United States today.
Good post
You wouldn't be, by chance the Delenda Est that used to post on Disqus would you? Sounds like it...lo
Thank you.