All Against All (On the paleo- vs. neo-conservative debate)

The Claremont Institute ^ | April 10, 2003 | Charles R. Kesler

[WaterDragon]

No. "Class" is something different from group. Class refers to a social level people are born into, regardless of ability or actions. In America, a politician too blatantly corrupt will be rejected as unworthy to serve. In Europe, corruption and greed in a politician is blandly overlooked because the pol is of a different class than ordinary folk. Pols in France, say, are the aristocracy of France, with all the privileges of the ancien regime's aristocracy.

In a class system of society, people don't move up and down as in America. The divides are rigid

One of the reasons the "Old South" system had to be rooted out of America, in addition to its harboring slavery, was because it was in fact a transplant of the European class model for society. That's why most Southerners, who didn't own slavery, defended the system -- every person in the South "knew his place." There can be comfort in that. A meritocracy produces much more anxiety -- to achieve if you want to be well thought of.

[inquest]

It means you probably shouldn't make universal pronouncements about the inapplicability of rationalism to the political sphere

Are we now equating rationalism with reason? If I'm not mistaken, rationalism is a philosophy which demands the predominance of reason in guiding our affairs - which, as you seem to agree (as you've taken it as the premise for your statement above), is self-contradictory. The contrary position is not that reason has no place, but that it has a diminished place. So therefore, I would correct your statement thus:

"It means you probably shouldn't make universal pronouncements about the applicability of reason to the political sphere"

[inquest]

One of the reasons the "Old South" system had to be rooted out of America, in addition to its harboring slavery, was because it was in fact a transplant of the European class model for society. That's why most Southerners, who didn't own slavery, defended the system -- every person in the South "knew his place." There can be comfort in that. A meritocracy produces much more anxiety -- to achieve if you want to be well thought of.

What was it about the "Old South" system - aside from slavery - that supposedly created such a stratification? I mean, what laws existed that prevented people from advancing based on merit? Did they have socialist government? Did they have an overbearing public sector? Were their policies any less "free market" than in the North?

[general_re]

That works as long as you equate rationalism with pure Cartesian philosophy. However, rationalism didn't begin and end with Descartes and Spinoza - consider the rational/empirical synthesis of Kant, where both reason and experience are complementary, and neither is a priori held in primacy over the other. Why shouldn't that brand of rationalism have a prime spot in political theory?

[WaterDragon]

It was a mindset, really. And huge tracts of land owned by a few who propped their wealth on the backs of slaves, and pretty much controlled the politics. Very like England of the day.

[inquest]

Well, if you go talking about rational/empirical syntheses, then I wouldn't call it rationalism; I'd call it rationalism/empiricism or something. I think that's different from what the author was getting at.

In any case, even reason and experience aren't always enough. Sometimes you just have to go with what you know is right, even if you can't put it into precise terms at a given moment. Ignoring that voice can win you a lifetime membership in the Jacobin Club.

[inquest]

A mindset? We needed to fight a Civil War to get rid of an attitude? And initiate land redistribution? And all this needed to be imposed from the outside? If the people of the South, including those who weren't at the top, were happy with the system they had, why exactly did it need to be destroyed? Was a culture that we fought alongside for independence from Britain, really that incapable of reforming itself as it saw fit? I mean, throughout the 19th century, freedom was taking hold in Britain, France, even Germany and Russia, without anyone forcing it upon them. We're really supposed to believe that our own countrymen were immune to this effect?

[Iris7]

I usually think of the term "class" as it is used in the formal logic sense. If you instead prefer the use as in "the English upper class", that is fine with me. In that sense, there are social classes in America. I run into this all the time at work. Don't you? But perhaps you don't run into this as often as I, because I work in a factory. Workplaces are highly segregated by class in America. Working class people have blue collar jobs, middle class white collar jobs, and upper class people have (by my standards) very high incomes and net worths. Classes are certainly not as rigid as in England, and there is comparatively more movement between classes in America, certainly. But social class exists in America. And most people stay in the same class as their parents.

[general_re]

I think that's different from what the author was getting at.

Certainly - if you get to define for yourself the philosophy you wish to dismiss, said dismissal will invariably prove shockingly easy ;)

In any case, even reason and experience aren't always enough. Sometimes you just have to go with what you know is right, even if you can't put it into precise terms at a given moment. Ignoring that voice can win you a lifetime membership in the Jacobin Club.

In some areas, but not, I think, in the political sphere. In politics, when you stop listening to the head, the thing that generally speaks up in its place is appetite - consider the modern liberal. Besides, there hasn't been a politician, theorist, or theory yet that deserves leaps of faith. "Trust us - we know what's good for you and yours" is a rather risky place to suspend the use of reason and experience....

[x]

I don't agree. Virtually every society has classes and elites, and every self-conscious political movement or party contains the seeds of elite rule. I don't see any especial support among paleos for the idea that politicians are a class that is above all of us and can't be replaced if they do wrong. If anything, they seem to be too hard on politicians, at least in contrast to the neo-cons. It may be that paleo-conservative policies, if applied, won't bring equality, but that's true of other political agendas, including the neo-conservative one.

Quidnunc's idea that the paleocons represent the East Coast elite is wrong. Most of them live between the two coasts and oppose the policies of America's most prominent elites. That was the original impulse behind the emergence of the movement. There is an animus against political and economic elites running throughout all their writings. Some paleos add other views to this, like a sympathy with the Old South, that are objectionable, but the tendency behind the movement has generally been anti-elitist.

The idea that paleos stand against an egalitarian and mobile society is also not proven (and it's also not true that egalitarian societies are always the most mobile and vice versa -- there are stagnant egalitarian and highly mobile inegalitarian societies). One could well argue that a permanent commitment to globalization, unlimited free trade and mass immigration will produce a radically inegalitarian society. One could also argue that the US is less egalitarian now than it was forty or fifty years ago. And one can certainly question whether globalization will benefit most Americans.

But I suspect the problem here is that people are arguing different things. I think Jaffa won his debate with Bradford and Kendall, and don't see very much point in reviving the Confederate view of history now. It was wrong and inadequate and shouldn't be unearthed. Nor do I think Fleming's peddling of sociobiological theories is a worthy endeavor.

But I do think think that the ideas of global human rights and egalitarianism are sometimes used to justify the expansion of government power beyond what is necessary or desirable. Kesler would apparently agree with this, at least in part:

[In] abstract terms, the paleo-cons and neo-cons agree on far more than they disagree on. Both sides agree that rationalism in politics leads quickly to Jacobinism; that universal truths of the sort expressed in the Declaration of Independence (or in twentieth-century liberalism: they tend to see the two as continuous) are ultimately destructive of authentic, historically rooted human communities; that history or experience is therefore a better guide than reason in political affairs.

So it looks to me like there is much room for common ground here that those who want to promote an either/or view ignore. Kesler himself seems to be of two minds. He recognizes the common ground, but wants to minimize it to advance his own faction above the others. He sees that radical ideas may win acceptance in a conservative disguise, but he doesn't always take the problem as seriously as he ought. He's right about the more extreme ideas of some thinkers who define themselves as paleoconservatives, but he's too complacent about the neo-conservative tendency of many of today's prominent conservatives.

[Iris7]

FreeRepublic entertains many old fashioned people, not terribly learned or articulate, bless them, and a small town, rather Nineteenth Century ethos. I like it. On the other hand, this will not be a successful defense against the "left" aspect of modernity.

"This" refers to "a small town, rather Nineteenth Century ethos" as a phrase, "ethos" as a noun. I should have been more specific. I owe you this one.

[Iris7]

How are the universal truths in the Declaration of Independence destructive?

What the post said is that both the Paleo and Neo point of view hold the "We hold these truths to be self evident" declaration destructive. The post did not say that "these truths" were destructive. This is a meaningful difference. Perhaps you meant to ask "How can the Paleos and Neos hold the 'these truths' declaration to be destructive?" That I can answer.

The Neos say that the "these truths" statement is a declaration of faith, a declaration that persons are "endowed by their Creator", that "these truths" is a declaration of belief in God, that is, that human rights rest upon belief in God, in faith in Him, and in essence nothing else. Neos are mostly Athiests and so see this as no basis what so ever for human rights and therefore look for some other basis for human rights.

The Paleos mostly hold that the "these truths" declaration is a Deist corruption of revealed religion. Jefferson was by no means a believing Christian (nor Franklin and others) and many Paleos hold against Jefferson that he was apparently comfortable putting words into the mouth of God. Most Paleos believe nothing good can come of this practice, which in Christianity is a very serious sin indeed.

[general_re]

Neos are mostly Athiests...

You can, of course, support that rather gratuitous assertion, I assume.

[inquest]

Certainly - if you get to define for yourself the philosophy you wish to dismiss, said dismissal will invariably prove shockingly easy ;)

Let's get the convo back on track a little. The author wasn't trying to dismiss anything; he was simply describing what neocons and paleocons agree on. It seems pretty clear from the context that he was referring to rationalism of the pure sort. You had imputed to him more than what he was saying, by any natural reading of what he was saying, and I was trying to point that fact out to you.

In politics, when you stop listening to the head, the thing that generally speaks up in its place is appetite - consider the modern liberal. Besides, there hasn't been a politician, theorist, or theory yet that deserves leaps of faith. "Trust us - we know what's good for you and yours" is a rather risky place to suspend the use of reason and experience....

Speaking of "defining for yourself the philosophy you wish to dismiss." Nothing in your paragraph referred to the point I was making. There's no reason to think that the only two choices of anatomical sources of political ideas are the head and the stomach. Nor was I saying that people should listen to a politician who says "Just trust me." (I'm about the last person on this board who'd argue that) My point, very simply, is that when deciding the political issues of the day, people need to consult their own innate sense of morality and ethics - in addition, of course, to consulting reason and experience.

[lurky]

I thought you were clearly drawing a paralletl bewteen "left" and "nihilism/license." Guess not, then. Well, now you really have me confused.

Also, I advocate very little except that one be willing to distinguish between truth and lies.

A direct and forthright answer was all I asked for on what you advocate. You're clearly playing rhetorical semantics, now.

Fine, by "progress" I'll point to abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote. The rise of capitalism. Whatever you like. Anything "positive" that's come about since the Renaissance.

I'm not the usual "innarticulate" FR poster ("bless them"). Please cut thru the rhetorics. Or not. You had something thought provoking posts and I was curious what you advocate in concrete, real terms. Or else we're forever talking conceptual circles around each other. A caution for over-intellectualizing, if you will.

[stainlessbanner]

bump

[general_re]

As per usual, I don't think that we're actually all that far apart, although we seem to be taking our usual circuitous route to discovering that ;)

The author wasn't trying to dismiss anything; he was simply describing what neocons and paleocons agree on. It seems pretty clear from the context that he was referring to rationalism of the pure sort.

And what I'm saying is that he's abused the notion of "rationalism" by either accidentally or purposefully keeping it narrowly defined. Or not - it may seem clear to you, but it's rather opaque what he means by "rationalism" from where I'm sitting. I happen to think of myself as fairly conservative, while also managing to recognize that the notion of "rationalism" encompasses much more than what neos and paleos purportedly agree on. Apparently that puts me out of the running entirely, since now neither neos or paleos will have me as a result, but there you go ;)

Speaking of "defining for yourself the philosophy you wish to dismiss." Nothing in your paragraph referred to the point I was making.

Sure it did - my point was simply that if one is going to listen to that "still, small voice from within" in matters political, it would be wise to know who is speaking.

There's no reason to think that the only two choices of anatomical sources of political ideas are the head and the stomach.

Or, more specifically, what I mean to suggest is that people are remarkably adept at rationalizing the things they want as being in the service of some higher good - hence the suggestion that one should take care to insure that one's sense of ethics is not being perverted by selfish desires. I suppose this will come back around again to our old dispute of whether morality and ethics comes from within or without - if it comes from...elsewhere, then listening to that innate sense is entirely appropriate. If not, then that innate sense is nothing more that reason and experience again, I think - whether in service of good or bad should be examined closely, though.

Nor was I saying that people should listen to a politician who says "Just trust me." (I'm about the last person on this board who'd argue that)

Nor did I intend to intimate that you do. I made that point trusting that you and I would be able to agree on it. Sigh ;)

[billbears]

The paleos are in favor of big government in certain areas

Where?

[rightofrush]

No fair using references and allusions beyond the ken of the fuzzy-minded.

[rightofrush]

A pox upon all philosophers.

I do believe that you mean this sincerely.