Skip to main content

Extremism

John Ray at Dissecting Leftism has a provocative statement up this morning:
An important implication of what I am saying is that I don't think there CAN BE such a thing as an extreme conservative. Extremes are for theorists and conservatives are people whose modus operandi is to go by what can be shown to work for the good of people over the long haul, rather than going by any theories. And I just don't see how you can be extreme about that. So my (slightly) revisionist view of the political spectrum is that it has conservatives at one end and a motley assortment of dreamers at the other.
My question is, is it true? I'll let you know what I think, but first I'd like to ask for opinions from readers - from all sides of the spectrum. My own opinion is that much of the truth or falsity of the statement depends on how one defines "conservative." There are a lot of people in the camp of the CPC (Canadian Conservative Party, Tories for short), for example, who differ from the Liberals only in the theory that they want to act out when they get to form the government (if ever). As theories go, it's not bad. Since it tends to be a theory of government minimalism it is less likely to do harm than Liberal theories, which tend to be a lot more ambitious. I do think it is possible to go too far on this theory, however. I think it is fair game for government to have a stake in the healthy regeneration of the society it governs, and that a few carrots before the people in this regard is not a bad thing. This can take the form of money or simply speaking to what we value. Government, by it's nature, is about leadership. One can disavow that but that does not change the relationship, it simply ignores it, and that is poor stewardship of the government's authority. This is why I think any theory of government that focuses primarily on ends is at grave risk of being taken too far, even a theory of minimalism. There is another aspect to conservatism, one I've talked about a lot here, and that is a conservatism that concerns itself with means. I think this is a deeper and a truer sort of conservatism. It says that if we remember to do the small things right, the bigger things will follow. "Take care of your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves." I think that this is a lot less likely to lead to extremism because it tends to keep the flesh and blood nature of people (the governed and the government) more clearly before us. Political theorizing is more at risk of treating people like interchangeable abstractions. Can this second sort of conservatism fall victim to the charge of extremism? It's less likely, but it has to be admitted that yes, it can. Let's look again at what John Ray wrote:
conservatives are people whose modus operandi is to go by what can be shown to work for the good of people over the long haul
How does this go off the rails? Well, "the good of the people" is a slippery concept. How do we define "the people?" Even more important is the concept of "the good." That is a question that goes back to Plato and then some. Can we harm some people for the benefit of others? I think the more that we keep things simple and deal person to person and not from "theory" to "citizen" the less risk we will run. To this end, the theoretical assumption that one is somehow immune from treating another as an object is a grave danger.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi