Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Conservatism: An Abstract Philosophy or a Mode of Governance?
There is no question that the rise of Donald Trump has created a schism on the right. I’ve certainly had my run-ins with folks here on Ricochet, most notably @garyrobbins and @georgetownsend. While I vehemently disagree with these gentlemen on a lot of things, arguing with them has had its benefits, namely that they have pushed me to constantly refine, redefine and clarify my beliefs.
In a recent lengthy back-and-forth they provided me with this question on the state of things in the post-Reagan era: Is Conservatism just an abstract utopian philosophy, the inverse of theoretical Communism, or is it an actual and practical mode of governing?
If it is an abstraction, this explains the Progressive Lite ways of the national GOP. They can give lip service to the ideal (especially when raising funds and campaigning) while still governing in opposition to those ideals simply because they are impractical.
Many here, including the aforementioned gentlemen, insist that Conservatism is indistinguishable, even 30 years after the fact, from Reaganism. Is it? Or has that been abandoned?
I have constantly issued the call to examine whether American conservatives are indeed committed to fulfilling Reagan’s dream. To this end, I spent time rereading President Reagan’s re-election platform. As in all political manifestos there are a lot of vague “we encourage this” and “we urge that” and a lot of “we embrace the idea of” platitudes that are not easily translated into specific political action. I have identified a list of 32 concrete actions that the Reagan Administration told Americans they wanted to accomplish in regards to domestic policy in a second term. (By all means, please read the document and see what I may have missed.)
The third item on this list, the line-item veto, was accomplished yet struck down by the Supreme Court. It was asserted by the Court that it would be permissible if pursued through the amendment process.
Are these still goals of Conservatives or are they obsolete? And if they are obsolete what does it mean to call oneself a Reaganite in the 21st Century?
I fear that Conservatism has become nothing more than catchphrases, things said religiously by rote instead of through critical thinking. What does it mean to say “Government shouldn’t pick winners and losers” without acknowledging that even policies advocated by Conservatives do just that? And how do you change things so that it no longer happens?
What does it mean to say, “Never blame your troubles on someone else?” Does that suppose that all government action, whether from the left or right, is benign? (I’d say that’s just demonstrably wrong.) And isn’t pointing to specific policy far different than the Left’s ethereal bogeymen of racism, sexism, ageism, and a plethora of “phobias?”
If Conservatism is no longer a mode of governance but merely a theory, something that can only be accomplished in an ideal world then we need to re-exam it and ourselves, especially if the governing class is playing a giant game of bait-and-switch with the electorate. If we are to go forward Conservatism can’t be a mile wide and an inch deep.
Published in Domestic Policy
You sure? LD has been pretty adamant on it and people have liked his comments on them. People seem to think it is germane.
Anything? I haven’t cited anything? That’s simply not true. In multiple posts I’ve cited at least 289 accomplishments of Trump to support my contention that typically Trump supporters, Trump defenders, Trump apologists, Trump defenders, and Trump well-wishers cite facts.
So you’re wrong, but hey – that Could Happen to Anyone.
Oh, I’ve read them alright. That’s why I know that they never make actual sense. That’s why I wrote it.
The primary argument is that he’s unfit because he’s disgusting. What makes him disgusting? Because he’s an unfit to be president. Trump-deniers all have pretty much the same view: even when he does something right, the Trump-deniers say Okay, that was luck, but he’s still unfit. Why? Because he’s disgusting and brings down the dignity of the office. So what has your view of the dignity of the office got to do with his record? His record is not his because he did not do it, others did. How do you know that? Because he’s unfit, so he couldn’t have done it. Why? Because he’s disgusting.
This is the essence of every Trump-denier’s argument. You can never pin them down because they just don’t like him and feel they have to come up with some other rational-sounding argument. There are plenty of reasons not to like Trump, but with Trump-deniers, it always comes down to this type of reasoning.
Why didn’t you like Clinton or Bush 43 or 0bama? You have reasons for that that make sense. For Trump it never actually does. Remember, they all were largely supported by the deep state; only Trump is subject to their direct, relentless assault, which involves mostly PR and lawfare. They either have to turn him or eradicate him, and any propaganda they can use, they have been using.
From Roger Scruton.
I shall argue that the conservative attitude, and the doctrine that sustains it, are systematic and reasonable. Conservatism may rarely announce itself in maxims, formulae or aims. Its essence is inarticulate, and its expression, when compelled, is sceptical. But it is capable of expression, and in times of crisis, forced either by political necessity, or by the clamour for doctrine, conservatism does its best, though not always with any confidence that the words it finds will match the instinct that required them. This lack of confidence stems not from diffidence or dismay, but from an awareness of the complexity of human things, and from an attachment to values which cannot be understood with the abstract clarity of Utopian theory.
Semiotics lays waste that distinction. The signifier and the signified are arbitrary. What one may consider as substantive is also semantic. For example, you say “liberal”; I say “liberal”. We both use the same the sign. Or, you say “wood”; I say “wood”. You would say “wood” is substantive; I would say “wood” is semantic (as a metonymy). Same sign, different meaning. QED.
I’m guessing you’re an academic. Orwell’s quote comes to mind: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”.
Not at all ! Just happened to sit in on some of Roland Barthes’ lectures at the Collège de France. Some others too. It disabused me of thinking mortal men could prove what was true.
Let me make this clear as mud so you can’t possibly fail to understand it. You stated that Gary and George make substanceless arguments against Trump, virtue-signal, and cannot explain their objections to Trump.
Those are all claims, or conclusions rather, and you did not cite anything that showed that.
You cited some article from the WE about ostensibly conservative accomplishments of the Trump Administration. Notice how that has no relation what George or Gary have typed at Ricochet that show them being virtue-signallers or even critics of Trump.
And then to top off this bad faith you attack another Ricochet member for not citing evidence of the Gary and George not being such, asking him to prove a negative. So no, you are wrong and perhaps you should think before you type next time when maligning fellow members. I would hope that anyone with integrity would call out your baseless attacks
To be fair, your own complaints about abstraction are apples and oranges, and I was responding to the nature of your complaints. I responded to
to which you added,
You seem to worry first that abstractions are somewhat meaningless, and second that invoking them is a shell game to screw over the electorate. One is apples, the other oranges. Yes, politicians, being what they are, may use anything, abstractions included, to screw over the electorate. That doesn’t make the abstractions themselves meaningless, or abstraction innately utopian.
You’re right it’s typically impractical to fully realize an ideal. But there are better and worse approximations, better and worse compromises. Using an abstraction as a guideline, something to approximate, is not an excuse for governing in opposition to that abstraction — it’s not an excuse for doing anything in opposition to that abstraction. If politicians play the shell game of, “That ideal isn’t easily obtainable, so let’s do the opposite!” that’s hardly the ideal’s fault. Or the fault of those who have such ideals. Ideals is apples, the shell game is oranges.
Is that true? Or can understanding ideas which won’t be implemented lead to better understanding, including better understanding of ideas which will be implemented? DB Hart at First Things wrote,
A view which dismisses anything which can’t be implemented is a crabbed, drear view, and a view that might miss a lot. That view applied to Christianity resulted in the Social Gospel, which is liable over time to become all social, no gospel — Christianity as social work, indistinguishable from Progressive pieties. Conservatives — and here I don’t mean conservative politicians or pundits but actual conservative voters, like the good folks of Ricochet — claim to hate that.
Strictly speaking, I never said Gary and George “cannot explain their objections to Trump.” My argument is more along the lines that Gary’s and George’s typical complaints against Trump are substanceless, comprising little more than virtue-signaling, moral-preening platitudes and circular reasoning. I’ve tried, but failed to get either of them (or other NeverTrumpers) to explain what executive actions by Trump – which are the most conservative presidential actions since at least Calvin Coolidge – support their persistent NeverTrumpism.
In this thread alone, others have offered a lot of corroborating testimony to my argument – Anyone can see that much. My “attacks” are hardly baseless. I just spent considerable time going through my notifications, but I cannot find posts by Gary and George as easily as Spin claims. Perhaps he can help you out – he’s the one who says it’s easy. I’m the one who says it’s tiresome.
Of the three, I liked Peirce the best. I’m shocked–shocked–to hear Teach say he likes James. I’m obviously experiencing an overwhelming urge to start picking your brains about the Pragmatists*. Also Plato. Also Kant. Also a couple others. But I shall resist; it’s EJ’s thread, after all.
*(I don’t run into a lot of Philosophy Profs in my line of work. Even before my line of work was not working, I never got to talk to any except, on vacation when I saw my elder sister, who was the only egghead of the five of us–TCU Prof after Duke, Harvard Divinity, Duke Divinity, all summa cum laude IIRC but don’t quote me on that. I’m bragging on my sister, sure. It’s all I got.)
Exactly.
Exactly. We need practical action to implement sound ideas.
I like your idea on this. In other words, the practical activities and impacts of conservatism are more important than some Ivory Tower thoughts on the matter. (Or the activities and impacts are equal in importance to the notion of arriving at some very pure form of intellectualized conservatism.)
And as I mentioned before you have not shown any primary evidence of this. At best we have secondary, in this case your hearsay. Spin has given counter-testimony to this, also hearsay. Which am I to believe? Should I even consider hearsay? Especially when you state that other members do little more than virtue-signal and make little-to-no substance critiques of the President.
Again am I to believe your sole testimony on this? Is executive action, however defined, supposed to be the only area of measurement in the value of a President?
Someone else here posted quotes from Gary and George? Could you please cite the comment number because I have not seen any quotes/links from them presented here. What if I stated that Gary and George do not make substance-free critiques and virtue signal? There would then be multiple witnesses with contradictory messages.
They are baseless. You have stated that George and Gary have not clarified their beliefs and that their critiques of the President amount to a substance-free moral preening. That is quite a claim, and you have not provided anything from Gary and George that show such. All you have brought forth are your own words that you have typed. Its quite telling that you have stated that you have looked and have failed to find the evidence you claim to exist. Perhaps you should rest before you sink any more value into a fruitless adventure at debasing fellow members.
#metoo
I’m not sure that is a question of practical vs theory. The fact is that even on the right there are sharp divisions over things like right, wrong, justice, harm, public good, etc. If we’re to live in a functioning society or even an optimal society then radical.individualism won’t ever cut it. There will always be serious disagreement. So we need political solutions and regulations. On the other hand, it’s obvious that tyranny of the majority is no good solution either, so we need to constrain that political entity.
To me, conservatism lives in that space between the truths and downsides of both individualism and collectivism. That space is huge and can accommodate disparate opinions on any given topic. Primarily, conservatism at the federal level has been a reaction against the de-subsidiarizing of our country, the accumulation of power toward the top and in few hands instead of spreading the political decisions over many local hands who will actually live with the decisions being made and where decisions can be more easily corrected.
And I think that the Republican party has failed at moving us back toward subsidiarity or to even make the case. Whether it be eliminating federal bureaucracy, rolling back federal entitlements, or devolving regulation back to states.
What is the conservative position on war? Foreign policy? Trade? Gay marriage?
I think that part of the schism on the right today is precisely because there is no definitive conservative position on any of these topics and more. Is Pat Buchanan a conservative? What about Mitt Romney? Rand Paul? Jeff Flake?
Which is why some conservatives are never-Trumpers. They can’t stomach the idea that someone who is not of a conservative ideology can 1) win an election as a Republican, and 2) put conservative principles into practice – not all, but enough to make this life-long Republican stand up and cheer like I haven’t since Ronaldous Magnus was in office . . .
Victor Davis Hanson has remarked that poor writers tend to be poor readers. I agree with him.
I said that there’s corroborating testimony to my argument. I was right, as you’ll see if you read comment #123:
It’s so tiresome dealing with NeverTrumpers. Lighten up – enjoy the presidency of Donald Trump, the most conservative administration since at least Calvin Coolidge.
Is there a compilation of principles that underlie (and support and disclose) sound ideas?
I would say there is, it is these principles are the fundamentals of what we would call conservativism.
Yeah, let’s talk philosophy more sometime! I do start the occasional thread, though I don’t think I have anything philosophical planned right now. I hope I don’t miss too many other philosophy threads. Feel free to tag or PM me if I’m missing something.
So should I know who your sister is?
At https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/anchor-podcasts/the-ak47-podcast I talk about James and Augustine with @aarong3eason. (I don’t make a point of listening to myself; I have a vague suspicion I said one thing wrong, and I know I forgot to mention the Shakespeare connection mentioned here.)
You might know who a friend of mine is. Sheldon Cohen. He’s an Aristotelian, and has had a couple of books published. I asked him about his notoriety once, and he said other Aristotelians would know who he was.
I’m afraid I am ignorant. https://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-Nature-Incomplete-Substance-Sheldon/dp/0521533139 looks like a promising analysis.
This is he: https://philosophy.utk.edu/staff/cohen.php. He’s one of the funniest people I ever met.
Close, but not quite. Picture it this way:
The theory of a just and free society of equals under self-government (aka, “some Ivory Tower thoughts on the matter”) is the plans for the house. “The practical activities and impacts of conservatism” are the builders working to build the house.
The political strategy of conservatism is the project plan, written by the general contractor. What materials and workers need to be where? and in what order? in order to turn the plans into the practical activities so that the goal can be reached.
Exactly.