Replies

The idea of the social contract versus the idea of natural law is crucial to the distinction between left and right. Social contract people are trying to come up with a rationale as to why citizens should obey a government, without getting into the issue of human nature. This comes right down to the present day, for example in the work of John Rawls, idolized by the left for his "original position" social contract ideas. (Basically Rawls said if before any of us was born, and knew what endowments we would have of health, intelligence, wealth, etc., we would all agree to a lavish welfare state as insurance against the possibility we would be born with little endowment. And since it is something presumably everyone would agree to, it is just to impose such a system now). Never mind that such systems as Rawls's would prevent a prosperous free society from ever developing. On the other hand, conservatives (like Kendall) have thought man does indeed have an ascertainable nature, that it is possible to design a government based on a true understanding of it (which is what the founding fathers did, unique in history). That man does indeed have a given nature, nothwithstanding the insistence of the left that everything is purely culturally imposed and arbitrary, was given important support in James Q. Wilson's "The Moral Imperative," in which he shows, contrary to the social constructionists, that there does seem to be a universal moral code found throughout all human societies, though often imperfectly realized. Put another way, the left thinks man is infinitely perfectible through social arrangements, imposed by coercion of course. The right thinks man is tragically flawed, and prone to great evil, but also capable of great goodness, and the problem is to come up with a society that recognizes best and makes allowances for that flawed nature, which is what the founding fathers did. (Checks and Balances, Separation of Powers, Constitutional, that is limited government, etc.) Never mind the liberals have been working hard ever since the beginning to dismantle the system and its protections in favor of moving toward revolutionary utopian goals. So this Kendall piece was very important in illuminating this basic distinction between right and left.

thanks for the post, it's quite explanatory.

I'm a little familiar with Rawls (have read about his ideas in other books): don't mean to be crude with his idea(s), but to me it seems that he banks on the idea of human fear and the emotional impact of, well... inequities. But that's just me.

not to diverge off too much, but, what i find interesting about Kendall (i've read The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition) is that he is a majoritarian -- not to mention that he seems fond of Rousseau, which for the right seems out of place.

But thanks for pointing out those differences. I keep forgetting the fundamentals while getting caught up in the discussion, lol.