Several months ago, TCS developed a
point-counterpoint format, which enables writers to respond to an article
previously published on the site. Using this format, I now respond to Keith
Burgess-Jackson's recent article "My
Journey to Conservatism." My comments are in red, while
Burgess-Jackson's text appears in the original black.
"A young person who's conservative has no heart; an old person who's
liberal has no brain." Have you heard this saying? Yes. It's often attributed to Winston Churchill, although it appears he
never actually said it. There are two ways it can be interpreted: as a
statement of fact (about people's actual political trajectory) and as a
judgment of value (about which trajectory is good). I read it as both.
It says that as a matter of (natural) fact, there is a progression from
liberalism to conservatism; and it adds (quickly) that this is good. The saying
is both descriptive and prescriptive, like "S is lazy" and "T is
a coward." It commends young liberals and old conservatives. It condemns
young conservatives and old liberals.
In current political parlance, I am, roughly
speaking, a conservative. However, it would be more accurate to say I'm a soft
libertarian with neoconservative inclinations in foreign policy. A similar
statement could have been made about my views 20 years ago, when I was 18. But
enough about me. Conservatism itself has changed considerably over the past two
decades, often not for the better, and many conservative arguments today strike
me as dubious or fallacious. As I shall discuss, I think your essay, although
interesting, reveals some of the weaknesses and contradictions of current
conservative thought.
I used to be liberal. When I was, I thought conservatives were uncaring,
unintelligent, irrational, and obstructionist. They seemed to resist every
attempt to make the world a better place -- by my standards. They seemed stuck
in the past, oblivious to changes that were taking place in technology, demographics,
and world affairs. Didn't they see the threat to the environment posed by
global warming? Didn't they see that their cramped understandings of marriage
and family were doing real harm to people? Didn't they see that their
opposition to redistributive taxation was perpetuating -- indeed, exacerbating
-- poverty, sickness, and illiteracy? Didn't they see that in affairs of state,
no less than in personal relationships, force never solves anything but only
makes things worse?
Plotting My Trajectory
I know I held these views because I dutifully recorded them in my journal
from the time I was twenty-one years old. My journal is a record of my
intellectual and moral development (which is another reason for every young
person to keep one). For more than five years (since
Reading my journal of twenty years ago is amusing as well as instructive,
because I invariably hold the opposite of each view I held then. You "invariably" hold the opposite view? That's
interesting. Could it be that you've traded in one rigid ideology for another?
I was adamantly opposed to capital punishment, for example. Now, like John
Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, I support it. I took the moral permissibility of
abortion for granted, thinking that only a misogynist could oppose it. Now I am
convinced of its immorality, having been persuaded by Don Marquis's brilliant
essay, "Why Abortion Is Immoral," The Journal of Philosophy 86
(April 1989): 183-202. (Please write to me if you want a copy.) A full-blown discussion of abortion would be too lengthy in
this context. But if you're asserting that any and all abortions, whatever the
circumstances, are immoral, then I respectfully disagree. To quote your own
statement made in a different context a few paragraphs hence: "There are
cases, and there are cases."
I thought Ronald Reagan was a national embarrassment: a smiling,
well-coiffed dolt. Now I consider him one of our greatest presidents and thank
goodness for his strength, leadership, and vision. I defended redistributive
taxation. Now I oppose anything more than a Nozickian minimal state. Wait a minute. Do conservatives today "oppose anything
more than a Nozickian minimal state"? It's certainly not reflected in
either the words or deeds of President George W. Bush or most congressional
Republicans. Reagan was no Nozickian either. I happen to oppose a minimal state
as too extreme (if it means absolutely no government social programs, for
instance). But many conservatives today seem to have abandoned any interest in
limiting government. Does that worry you? I shared the feminist belief
that women are oppressed by men. Now I think men are just as oppressed as
women, albeit in different ways. I also think that feminism has done real
damage to women, despite its protestations to the contrary.
What changed? How did I go from left to right on the political spectrum? My
critics (including several former friends from whom I've grown apart -- in some
cases because of political differences) will say that I became meaner. I got
mine, they will say, and closed the door behind me. I lost my compassion, my
decency, my sense of fairness, my very humanity. I became a misanthrope. I
smile at these insults, because I know I didn't get meaner. I got wiser. I grew
up. They didn't. Maybe they will -- I hope they will -- but they haven't yet.
The good news is that as long as one lives, one can be saved into conservatism.
It is never too late to let the heart be ruled by the brain.
"Saved into conservatism"? Perhaps you're
just trying to needle your non-conservative readers, but the phrase grates on
me. I thought one of the virtues of conservatism is that it doesn't seek to
"save" people through politics; that it avoids overblown promises and
recognizes that politics is not the entirety of life.
Growing Wiser
What is wisdom, anyway, and why does it come with age? Wisdom is
understanding and judgment rooted in experience. A wise person examines all
aspects of a problem, not just one or some of them, before rendering a
judgment. A wise person asks what effect welfare has on its recipients (besides
providing for their material needs). Does it undermine their self-respect? Does
it decrease their self-sufficiency? Does it destroy incentive? Does it, in the
end, undermine or erode their personhood? A wise person thinks through the
implications of a solution before offering or adopting it. For example, what
effect will homosexual marriage have on childrearing and child development?
What effect does living with homosexual parents have on one's character,
sexuality, self-image, and values? These are not idle questions. They're real
questions with real answers, even if the answers are (currently) unknown. And
they're important questions, questions that bear on our communal life.
Wise people are discriminating. They appreciate that the moral life is
complex and that details matter. To paraphrase Judith Jarvis Thomson,
"There are cases and there are cases." A seemingly small difference
between two cases can make a large moral difference; and, conversely, large
differences sometimes make no moral difference at all. Wise people concern
themselves with the unintended and unforeseen consequences of action as well as
with those that are intended and foreseen. They attend to the realities of a
situation and not just to ideals. They are oriented to particulars, not just to
universals. They work from the ground up, as it were, not from the top down.
They have the capacity for practical judgment -- what the Greeks called phronesis.
A wise person, in short, brings all relevant considerations to bear on a
problem, assigns them their proper weight, and resolves it. Humbly. Your essay takes a tone of confident certitude. That's not
necessarily a bad thing, but it's not particularly humble. A wise person
understands that even when one acts rightly, all things considered, important
moral values may go by the board. This is cause for regret. Nobody, not even
the great Socrates, is perfectly wise, but some people come nearer to it than
others. We should all strive to be wiser.
Socrates. Phronesis. Your conservatism seems
firmly grounded in Greek philosophy. That's no great surprise, given that
you're a philosopher. But how large a role does such thinking play in
current-day conservatism? A great deal of conservatism today seems to be rooted
in religion, more than in any secular philosophy. That has always been the case
to some degree, but I think religion became a more prominent and explicit
aspect of conservatism during the 1990s (and remains so today). I am not
opposed to religion as such, but seeing it become more dominant within
conservatism disturbs me. It makes me wonder whether conservatism will retain,
and appeal to, people who either are not religious or for whom politics and
religion are basically separate spheres.
Young people, bless their idealistic hearts, have no experience. Actually,
it's a mistake to say that they have no experience, for experience
begins with birth (or before); but young people don't have as much
experience as their elders. They are, to use the argot, experientially
challenged. The world, to the young, came into existence with them and exists
to be manipulated by them. What came before is to be questioned and, if found
wanting (as it usually is), abolished. The world is to be built anew, from the
ground up, using only our ideals and our technology. But
when you support a minimal government -- radically smaller than the current
government -- aren't you seeking to "build the world anew, from the ground
up"? Aren't you putting a high degree of confidence in an ideal?
Instead of punishing people, let's understand why they commit crimes and try to
help them. They're victims of their environment, not malicious choosers.
Instead of threatening other nations, let's build bridges. Let's tolerate the
wonderful diversity of religions and ways of life. Let's stop thinking of our
own way of life as superior to that of others. That creates resentment,
animosity, and ultimately violence, which is the summum malum. If we
talk, we won't fight.
With regard to wealth, why should some people have more of it than others?
Let's take wealth from the haves and distribute it to the have-nots. There's plenty
of wealth to go around, after all; it's just maldistributed. This goes not only
for the citizens of this country but for people around the world. Americans
consume and pollute too much. They -- we -- must cut back for the good of all.
And while we're at it, let's take wealth out of the political system.
Everyone's voice should be heard, whether rich or poor. Why should a corporate
executive have a greater say in policy matters than the person who cleans his
or her office every evening? Law should equalize income and wealth, or at least
move in that direction. It is obscene that some have so much while others have
so little. How did we let things get this way? It is entirely up to us how
wealth, status, privilege, and other social goods are distributed. A choice not
to redistribute these goods is a choice to accept the existing (unjust)
distribution.
Gaining Experience
Experience -- working, marrying, becoming a parent, buying a house, being a neighbor
-- deepens and broadens understanding. The experienced person realizes that
disparities in wealth are a by-product of a robust market-based economy that
works to the benefit of all, including those in impoverished parts of the
world. I think it's mostly true that a robust
market-based economy works to the benefit of all. But it's not always and
absolutely true. As you noted earlier, "There are cases, and there are
cases." (Would there be an African AIDS initiative if the
The experienced person realizes that institutions such as marriage evolved
for a reason, even if the reason is hard to articulate. Institutions represent
tradeoffs and compromises among disparate values and interests. Sometimes these
values and interests are difficult to discern, so defenders of tradition are
easily put on the defensive by their critics. They are accused of being blind,
biased, and obfuscatory. They are said to be "prejudiced" and
"bigoted." Why, they cannot even articulate their opposition to such
things as homosexual marriage or adoption! What ignoramuses! If you can't
articulate the reason for something, it is said, you should cease believing and
defending it.
This attitude toward belief -- that one should believe a proposition only if
one has articulable reasons for it -- represents liberalism in the epistemic
realm. The contrast is epistemic conservatism, which holds that belief -- in
God, in the importance of marriage, in the value of tradition -- needs no
defense. To a conservative, beliefs are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
To a liberal, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent. The liberal
epistemic standard begs the question against political conservatism, just as a
conservative epistemic standard would beg the question against political
liberalism. Conservatives must not fall for the liberal trick of making
nonbelief the default position.
Earlier you advocated conservatism by writing
"It is never too late to let the heart be ruled by the brain." Now,
you seem to be dismissing the brain. Isn't it the brain, rather than the heart,
that tries to have articulated reasons for belief? Isn't it important that
exponents of a political philosophy try to have reasons and arguments, rather
than just state their beliefs as dogma? Besides, liberals with unexamined
beliefs and unsupported assumptions do not seem all that rare.
Respecting Tradition
Liberals deny even a weak presumption to traditional ways of life.
Conservatives, in contrast, accord tradition a strong presumption, preferring
to err on the side of caution rather than boldness. President
Bush is moving quite boldly in the War on Terror. I am glad he is not
"conservative" in the sense of being more cautious there. The
conservative mantra is to move slowly. It is not, as liberals are fond of
saying, to thwart change altogether. It is to slow the rate of change so
that along the way we can see the unfolding effects of what we are doing. So, conservatives and liberals have the same goals, but one
group wants to move more slowly? That is not an inspiring vision of
conservatism. It is the caution of the wise and experienced, the caution
that comes with age, the caution that acknowledges one's fallibility (moral as
well as epistemic) and humility. If the effects of the change are not as
expected (or hoped), we can make adjustments or reverse course. It will not be
too late. Just as it would be unfair to say that liberals want change for
change's sake, it is unfair to say that conservatives value tradition for
tradition's sake. The difference is subtler than that. Liberals and
conservatives have different temperaments, different attitudes toward risk. Actually, much current liberalism is about aversion to risk,
in matters ranging from foreign policy to workplace rules to environmental
regulation. Present-day conservatism, at its best, often involves accepting
risks and putting risks in perspective.
This idea of temperament begins to get to the nub of it. Liberals are
optimistic about human nature, whereas conservatives are pessimistic. Liberals
assume that people are good until corrupted by society; conservatives know that
they are bad and can be made decent (or at least law-abiding) by society.
Liberals think that what needs explaining is why social projects fail.
Conservatives think that what needs explaining is how they ever succeed, given
human selfishness, ignorance, greed, envy, and vanity. Liberals view the state
as a facilitator of good; conservatives view it as an engine of evil that must
be carefully monitored and controlled. Doesn't advocacy
of free markets require a degree of optimism about human nature? Isn't support
for big government often driven by fears of what people will do without
guidance and regulation? You cede far too much in presenting liberalism as the
ideology of optimism and confidence.
Liberals think children should be given wide latitude to explore,
experiment, and create. Conservatives know that children, for all their
innocence and promise, are animals who require discipline, rules, and
punishment. Liberals believe in the power of love. Conservatives believe in the
power of tough love. Liberals think Bobby Knight is a bully. Conservatives know
that in spite of his rough edges he is a shaper of character and a maker of
men. The world needs more Bobby Knights, not fewer.
Many of the problems we see in the world today are the result of lax and
irresponsible parenting. We Americans worship liberty, but fail to see that it
goes hand in hand with responsibility. Animals are free, after all, but hardly
responsible, which is why it makes no sense to blame them for what would, in
the case of humans, be misbehavior. Humans must be both free and responsible,
else they become mere animals. By not understanding (and therefore
misrepresenting) the connection between liberty and responsibility, liberals
dissolve the person and degrade the social environment. Each of us, the liberal
thinks, is what we were made to be: by our parents, our teachers, our friends,
our neighbors, our popular culture. The element of personal choice disappears
from view, and with it the person. This is why liberal punishment, rationalized
as rehabilitation, is disrespectful. Conservatives show respect for criminals
by paying them back for their misdeeds -- in proportion to the gravity of those
misdeeds.
As I've aged, I've come to appreciate the vastness, complexity, and
intricate beauty of things. I've come to see the delicate evolved equilibria in
human institutions. Just as it is unwise to disrupt a natural ecosystem, it is
unwise to disrupt, disregard, or disrespect longstanding human practices. But sometimes it needs to be done. Wasn't it necessary to
disrupt slavery? Should the longstanding practices of, say,
The institutions that conservatives defend, or
should defend, are often very dynamic ones. Capitalism involves wide-ranging,
ongoing change. The
Cultivating Humility
History looms large in the conservative mind. Conservatives learn from
history, which is a repository of both good and evil. Liberals, seeing only the
evil, view the past with scorn -- as a record of mistakes, failures, and
injustices. Liberals wish to replace the ugly, shameful past with a new regime
of justice and love. (Think of the well-meaning but clueless hippies.) This is
of course hubris, and it is dangerous. Please don't misunderstand: I'm glad
that there are liberals. Young people should be liberal. Youth is a time
of idealism, exploration, hope, and searching. These traits need to be
cultivated if the emerging adult is to be an integrated whole rather than a
personal fragment.
Fortunately, most young people survive the turbulence and naiveté of adolescence
and gain the experience and judgment necessary to become proper conservatives.
They begin to use their brains after relying for so long on their hearts.
Because the natural movement is from liberalism to conservatism, I hold out
hope for the salvation of my middle-aged but childish liberal friends. Long
live conservatism! Which conservatism? There are many.
And they can't all be right.
