Authentic Conservativism

[Michael]

A Credo for Authentic Conservatives and Other Sane People

A Human beings are not born as rootless individuals but as members of a network of relationships rooted in genetic kinship and marriage. Our natural responsibilities to other humans, while they may vary in degree and type from one society to another, are proportional to this relationship. Thus I owe more to a mother, sister, wife, daughter than to an aunt, cousin, sister-in-law, or niece, and owe more to an aunt, cousin, sister-in-law, or niece than to an unrelated person.

B Males and females are different, physically, mentally, and emotionally, and, although there is a great deal of overlap in these qualities, these differences are at the basis of differing sets of responsibilities.

C Sexual “dimorphism” (B) combined with genetically based responsibilities constitute the natural foundation of the single most indispensable human institution, the family.

D In any society larger than an extended family, the bonds of love and friendship (Greek philia, a love that unites parents and children but also genetically unrelated friends) are indispensable to maintaining order.

E. Human beings under most circumstances quite naturally seek to survive, thrive, and propagate, but they also protect the ability of their family members and friends or social allies (socii) to do the same.

F Survival and propagation require a steady and insured access to basic elements—food and shelter at the minimum. Thus they must, in their families, have a sufficient economic autonomy to maintain their existence and provide for the next generation. Thus, while it is idle to speak of “natural rights,” we do have natural necessities and duties that require us to have a home and an income, whether that income is in the form of food or of symbolic bits of metal or paper with which we can secure food and shelter.

G Marriage and family are natural institutions fulfilling human needs; and, since each presupposes a hierarchy of authority, not only society itself but also social and political authority are natural, in the sense that they are the outgrowth of human nature and natural necessities. Thus there has never been a state of nature, much less of natural equality. In the most nearly natural human societies of which we have any knowledge, females defer to males, children to parents, young to old.

H The origins of the commonwealth, then, are much as Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas, and Althusius supposed: a progression from the “dyad” of the marital pair to the extended family to the village or tribal community to that confederation of different lineages, tribes, villages that is the commonwealth. Each society, of course, has its own history, but the general outline is clear enough.

I Since the commonwealth is an extension of marriage, family, and community, and since it exists, at least in part, to provide for the needs less perfectly supplied by lower forms of association, it can be viewed as relatively legitimate whenever it assists families and communities in their never-ending quest for food, shelter, and stability, but when it deprives these lower associations of the necessary economic autonomy to survive and propagate, takes away homes, or interferes in the relations between parents and children, husbands and wives, promotes adultery and abortion [Nota bene: I am not saying tolerates], it is acting illegitimately. Such infractions do not necessarily render a government illegitimate, but a systematic pattern of abuse—e.g., the liberation of wives and children, seizure of private property, confiscatory taxation—the legitimacy of such a government must fall under suspicion of acting tyrannically, far more so than when it merely deprives citizens of such civil rights as the franchise, jury duty, etc.

J From these considerations flows the principle of subsidiarity, which is often misstated or misunderstood. Although the word is of fairly recent origin–the first use I can find refers to it as “Well-known”–but the idea is not. Since authority flows from the primary institutions (family and kinships) to intermediate (community, tribe, village, province) to the commonwealth or state, the higher levels of authority should not invade the lower provinces and drain them of their energies. While some transfer of authority and responsibility is inevitable in a complex society, the village or town, in principle, should not be invading the authority of the household except in extreme cases, e.g. murder and harsh violence, and even then it is better to turn to some intermediate institution, such as a family council. Similarly, the state (in the US) or province should not meddle in the internal affairs of the village, city, or town nor the national state in the affairs of the province. Of course, every commonwealth has its own history and biases. For example, states mean a great deal in the American and German traditions, but not so much in England. The Roman Empire, though it was made up of provinces, was more a confederation of city-states than anything else.

Source (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/06/26/a-credo-for-authentic-conservatives-and-other-sane-people/)

The title of this piece of course asserts that one must be insane if you do not agree with all of these ideological statements of faith. I suppose it would be unfair of me to point out that is one of conservativism's greatest failings - an apparent inability to recognize that their own views are not popular with the majority. I'm not suggesting here that conservatives adjust their belief systems to address their unpopularity - rather that they hold to put a lid on the scorn and derision they believe constitutes an argument against their political opponents.

All that being said, I must re-iterate that this is a list of doctrinal points that one must have faith in. None of the these points are supported by any actual science of course, and some of them seem to contradict scientific findings. But that is of no matter. Political ideologies are the same as religions. They stand (or fall) by faith alone.

Speical attention goes to point H for asserting that the story of Adam & Eve forms the basis of all human existence and society. I always find it amusing when doctrinal religion is mixed in with doctrinal ideology. It is of course highly appropriate since both are predicated entirely on faith.

I also will point out that this listing of conservative values is indeed authentic. So much so that it contradicts or undercuts most existing conservative values (particularly about individual rights).

The author's comments about the Roman Empire of City-States unfortunately makes him look rather foolish. Nothing worse that trying to force actual history to fit into one's pet ideology. Looking silly is a natural consequence of this.

Anyway, I just posted the list of 'authentic conservative values' for comment. That these points may be contradictory or based on circular reasonings, is part of the exercise. Ideology is always based on faith and faith is impervious to reason or fact.

[Non Sequitur]

While many will undoubtedly disagree with me, as a conservative i think this list is hogwash. My problems are as follows:

1. From a religious stance, the conclusion of point A is false. While I agree that humans are not totally individualistic and that family, religious community, and nationality play a far greater role than we in America would like to concede, the conclusion that I owe more to my family than others goes against the golden rule and several other Biblical passages.

2. the conclusion that must come from B leads into all sorts of nasty things in the relationship between males and females.

3. Again, from a religious standpoint C is wrong. The family is not the all important institution. This same complaint goes for G.

4. H is pure Biblical nonsense that misuses the text of Genesis 1-3.

5. as you noted Michael, the comment about the Roman Empire is pure historical nonsense.

In response to this, my idea of conservative values are as follows

1. the belief that property and freedom are closely linked
2. the understanding that progress can not be divorced from tradition and custom without chaos.
3. A healthy respect for faith, tradition, and custom

[dilettante]

An interesting collection of points. It sounds as if its consistent in exalting a very particular male/female relationship as the essential principle of society. I don't think I can get behind it though; that kind of focus on kinship sounds reminiscent of the 20th centuries darker moments.

Non Sequitur succinctly summed up what I generally think of when I think of "conservative values", particularly point 3. Or, at least its what I think of when I'm feeling optimistic...


In response to this, my idea of conservative values are as follows

1. the belief that property and freedom are closely linked
2. the understanding that progress can not be divorced from tradition and custom without chaos.
3. A healthy respect for faith, tradition, and custom

[Michael]

4. H is pure Biblical nonsense that misuses the text of Genesis 1-3.
Actually, I thought H seemed to be the most outrageous historical nonsense.

In all of my study of history, I don't know of any society that displayed much focus upon the 'essential' man & wife combination as the building block of society. Indeed, this seems like quite a modern development (in the big scheme of things). The Roman Church, for example, showed little interest in topic of marriage prior to the 12th century AD.

I'd say that the larger extended family-clan was a far more important 'building' block of ancient societies than the nuclear family couple.

In response to this, my idea of conservative values are as follows

1. the belief that property and freedom are closely linked
2. the understanding that progress can not be divorced from tradition and custom without chaos.
3. A healthy respect for faith, tradition, and custom

Yes, I think this is good list of the 'core' values of conservativism.

As for item one, the downside of that point is that those who have no property, have no real freedom.

[Daktoria]

Heh, so we have a Canadian criticizing an Irish American on the differences between Anglo-Canadian Red Toryism and Germanic-American paleoconservatism (German because it appreciates how efficient organization can preserve and procure security and prosperity).

Well let's straighten out what Fleming's saying here. Taking a utilitarian perspective, it would seem sensible to acknowledge that there are efficient and inefficient cultures, and that the family is the little platoon (see Burke ;)) that states rely upon, states which are founded via social contracts by interested parties.

The relativist critique would label this thesis as outrageously discriminatory, but then and again, the relativist doesn't have an absolute definition of utility to work with, so such a critique would be incompatible (and possible incommensurable given the language at hand) with what Fleming is trying to say.

However, there are still a couple of problems with Fleming's platform here.

One, he's opposing federalism while supporting the hierarchical family unit. Unfortunately, he hasn't drawn the line with regards to where hierarchy is and is not permissible under a sense of justice (unless we take the ultimate utilitarian perspective of might makes right which undermines the conservative prime intent on the rule of law anyway). Not that I oppose holistic family values, but families have to be justified from the ground up as anarchic free associations, not coercive institutions. Yes, parents should be able to control their children (and personally, I would say that parents should be able to treat their children as property unless there is a demand for emancipation based upon negative rather than positive liberty), but again, we can't fall back on might makes right in order to establish a legitimate theory or sense of justice.

Two, paleoconservatism ADAMANTLY opposes free trade (opposition which Fleming has no gripes with). Now while protectionism might have some merit if we're going to govern based upon a mercantile and imperial policy, it doesn't have any possibility of merit if we're going to govern based upon a peaceful and isolationist policy, something which America has historically been able to exploit as a result of existing in the New World since it's foundation. After all, with an abundance of resources and space available, who's to complain about foreign harassment? Just be content with your own quaint corner or niche in the world and stop whining...

...nevermind how a lot of those with warrior, guardian, or gladiator personalities turned to crime instead as outlaws, gangsters, or organized syndicates out of boredom and frustration. :rolleyes:

Merged with his points about the family and federalism, there is no stronger check against corruption than the free market, corruption which would take place as violation in his model within the relationship between the government and households. If the pure society (AKA government and families) is efficient and meets the corrupt society in the market, it should recognize the elevated prices of the corrupt society and refuse their offers. Likewise, if the pure society is inefficient and meets the corrupt society in the market, it should investigate how the corrupt society can be so efficient before accepting its offers and realize that accepting the corrupt society's offers is not a viable long term strategy. Furthermore, if the pure society is immature and decides to accept the offers of the corrupt society, then it will either learn its lessons the hard way and rescind those offers in the future, or it will decay from exposure to corruption and perish such that it is not tortured any longer than it has to be from enslavement of unjustified practices.

[Michael]

Heh, so we have a Canadian criticizing an Irish American on the differences between Anglo-Canadian Red Toryism and Germanic-American paleoconservatism (German because it appreciates how efficient organization can preserve and procure security and prosperity).
First of all, I'll ask you to refraining from asserting my nationality as meaningful of anything than the fact that I'm western. The facts of the matter are far more complex than that, which is why I rarely mention it. Fact is, I'm as much American as I am British as I am Canadian (legally speaking). I'm also part Native Indian too. In reality, I have more Swedish blood in me than Native Indian and my Canadian birth status is the one true accident of chance as none of my parents or grandparents were born in Canada.

As for the OP, I didn't really criticize anything there other than to point out that the listing uses the "Adam & Eve" theology as a basis for their social contract (which I consider an absurd, but extremely common and popular fallacy).

I also pointed out that the reference to Roman history was entirely spurious.

I didn't make a comprehensive critique of the listing. I offered the list here for conservatives to discuss because I find the topic interesting. :)

Well let's straighten out what Fleming's saying here. Taking a utilitarian perspective, it would seem sensible to acknowledge that there are efficient and inefficient cultures, and that the family is the little platoon (see Burke ;)) that states rely upon, states which are founded via social contracts by interested parties.

The relativist critique would label this thesis as outrageously discriminatory, but then and again, the relativist doesn't have an absolute definition of utility to work with, so such a critique would be incompatible (and possible incommensurable given the language at hand) with what Fleming is trying to say.
1. I am aware that Burke describes the family as the 'little platoon' as a building block of society. I may admire Burke as the most respectable and intellectually coherent representative of conservativism, that doesn't mean I agree with anything he says. Indeed, I'm not a conservative.

2. Relativism does not logically reduce all value judgements to 'absolute equals' as you are so fond of asserting. Relativism precludes absolute claims of value superiority - that's all. Relativism does not preclude claims of relative or temporal value superiority.

3. There is no known historical evidence in any way, shape or form for the assertion that "states are founded via social contracts of interested parties". This is a theoretical or hypothetical construct that is logically necessary for compatibility with Christian doctrine of human origin. If the Christian doctrine of human origin is ignored as unjustified suppositional faith, then there is no logical requirement for a social contract to exist at all. Without the biblical story of genesis, social contract theory is superfluous.

However, there are still a couple of problems with Fleming's platform here.

One, he's opposing federalism while supporting the hierarchical family unit. Unfortunately, he hasn't drawn the line with regards to where hierarchy is and is not permissible under a sense of justice (unless we take the ultimate utilitarian perspective of might makes right which undermines the conservative prime intent on the rule of law anyway). Not that I oppose holistic family values, but families have to be justified from the ground up as anarchic free associations, not coercive institutions. Yes, parents should be able to control their children (and personally, I would say that parents should be able to treat their children as property unless there is a demand for emancipation based upon negative rather than positive liberty), but again, we can't fall back on might makes right in order to establish a legitimate theory or sense of justice.
I'd say that hierarchical family values may theoretically be 'fine' for a family, but that doesn't mean that heirarchical family values are necessarily appropriate for the organization of society or for defining justice.

And the primary problem with families holding children as property is the fact that such liberty in the past has often resulted in parents prostituting their children for sex-labor or wage-labor (or both) for parental profit. Banning such liberty is in my opinion entirely reasonable, rational and justified.

Two, paleoconservatism ADAMANTLY opposes free trade (opposition which Fleming has no gripes with). Now while protectionism might have some merit if we're going to govern based upon a mercantile and imperial policy, it doesn't have any possibility of merit if we're going to govern based upon a peaceful and isolationist policy, something which America has historically been able to exploit as a result of existing in the New World since it's foundation. After all, with an abundance of resources and space available, who's to complain about foreign harassment? Just be content with your own quaint corner or niche in the world and stop whining...
Agreed. Paleoconservativism has always been anti-trade and anti-commerce. This state of affairs can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome and all through the dark ages, medieval era and rennaissance kingships, long before America was born. This is the one truly enduring feature of paleoconservatism with the longest roots.

...nevermind how a lot of those with warrior, guardian, or gladiator personalities turned to crime instead as outlaws, gangsters, or organized syndicates out of boredom and frustration. :rolleyes:

I think you have this one backwards. Those of the warrior, guardian or gladiator personalities often do turn to crime by choice, passion and/or ego. This is quite logical.

And where do you think modern capital actually comes from? The 'creation' of a capitalist-based economy in post-USSR demonstrates this quite well. US 'robber-barons' or the US 'prohibition-gangsters' are also good examples. Such unsavory bastards do tend to create large fortunes that often in the next generation turn into legal capitalist investments and industrial empires.

Merged with his points about the family and federalism, there is no stronger check against corruption than the free market, corruption which would take place as violation in his model within the relationship between the government and households. If the pure society (AKA government and families) is efficient and meets the corrupt society in the market, it should recognize the elevated prices of the corrupt society and refuse their offers. Likewise, if the pure society is inefficient and meets the corrupt society in the market, it should investigate how the corrupt society can be so efficient before accepting its offers and realize that accepting the corrupt society's offers is not a viable long term strategy. Furthermore, if the pure society is immature and decides to accept the offers of the corrupt society, then it will either learn its lessons the hard way and rescind those offers in the future, or it will decay from exposure to corruption and perish such that it is not tortured any longer than it has to be from enslavement of unjustified practices.

"Free markets" may be the perfect check on corruption, but since "free markets" don't actually exist, you might as well say that God is the ultimate check on corruption. Same difference. You can't prove to me that either one exists.

As for "pure" and "corrupt" societies, these are extremely relative values. For example, I consider the US form of campaign financing to be 'institutionalized and formalized corruption', pure and simple. Others may reasonably disagree and say it is not 'pure corruption'. That's relativism. Different people hold different values. What you call "pure", I may call totally corrupt. What you call "corrupt", I'll probably say looks like a moral improvement.

[bug]

Oh my. Oh dear god. I hate that list with passion that is unmeasurable. If that is conservatism, clinging to gender roles, separate but equal GARBAGE, I (too misanthropic to be a humanitarian and not enough pantsuits to be a feminist--we'll call me an individualist) despise conservatism. Oh, and so what happens if I don't want to get married? Better yet, what if I am too ugly to get married? Am I not allowed to play with society if I don't have a family? Do I have to sit alone in the sandbox? Do I have to move to some desert island?

[Daktoria]

2. Relativism does not logically reduce all value judgements to 'absolute equals' as you are so fond of asserting. Relativism precludes absolute claims of value superiority - that's all. Relativism does not preclude claims of relative or temporal value superiority.

We haven't really elaborated on the whole relativism issue, but superiority isn't the issue I have (beyond the law of noncontradiction and principle of explosion). My problem is that any given system will have one, and only one, method of global optimization although multiple local optimums are possible. I'm not a math whiz so I don't know whether or not set theory, game theory, topology or whatever else covers this, but it just doesn't make sense to me for a single system (such as our world) to have multiple equally valuable equilibriums. Morality, from this, is THE methodology that generates the global optimum, so while there can be multiple perspectives on the method, there can only be one method. Can inferior methods be practiced? Yes, but they don't qualify as morality since they lead to unjustifiable resolutions, justice asking, "Why should morality be satisfied with less than best results?"

A note about deontology here, the ends still don't justify the means, but the best ends only come about through honest and pure intentions due to the self-destructive nature of hypocrisy. Furthermore, for the sake of pure practical reason, human beings are imperfect creatures with finite potentials (lifespan, cognition, dexterity, etc), so intentions rather than consequences have to be the benchmark for what we do.

3. There is no known historical evidence in any way, shape or form for the assertion that "states are founded via social contracts of interested parties". This is a theoretical or hypothetical construct that is logically necessary for compatibility with Christian doctrine of human origin. If the Christian doctrine of human origin is ignored as unjustified suppositional faith, then there is no logical requirement for a social contract to exist at all. Without the biblical story of genesis, social contract theory is superfluous.I guess this goes back to our discrepancies on rational behavior. evidentalism, and the value of theories of history; I take the Austrian perspective from the methodenstreit that says no amount of historical or empirical evidence can accurately portray human behavior such that models have to be based on axioms at some level or another (although evidence CAN portray the symptoms of intentions within definite levels of confidence despite how the intentions themselves aren't necessarily known).

Honestly though, I don't see how this can be reconciled between us. I'm going to insist upon thought experiments, and you're going to insist upon historical examples. You're going to say that thought experiments are inherently biased and that my definitions of interest are too vague to be practical, and I'm going to say that psychohistory derives too much from too little and that evidence is always subject to post hoc.

Still, I'm not sure how you're associating Christianity with social contract theory beyond how Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau cite religion out of obligatory etiquette and as a powerful institution that needed to be considered in government. Today though, we can see writers such as Rawls, Nozick, and Gauthier who defend social contract theory without religious reference.

And the primary problem with families holding children as property is the fact that such liberty in the past has often resulted in parents prostituting their children for sex-labor or wage-labor (or both) for parental profit. Banning such liberty is in my opinion entirely reasonable, rational and justified.Rather than go on about property rights to get around this, I'm going to play devil's advocate here:

If marijuana and abortion should be legalized, why should there be an age of consent and why shouldn't prostitution be legalized? Again, this sounds like a corporatist, realpolitik, and utilitarian standard that undermines the fundamental purposes of liberalism.

Agreed. Paleoconservativism has always been anti-trade and anti-commerce. This state of affairs can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome and all through the dark ages, medieval era and rennaissance kingships, long before America was born. This is the one truly enduring feature of paleoconservatism with the longest roots.Well not quite. Paleoconservatism opposes foreign free TRADE, but NOT domestic free markets, and it is a pacifist and isolationist ideology that contrasts against the campaigning for glory and plunder associated with feudalism and despotism.

For blooming countries that are trying to develop infrastructure and a national solidarity, it can be effective, but defending against globalization is a doomed enterprise especially for the strongest country on Earth that's catalyzed the information age.

I think you have this one backwards. Those of the warrior, guardian or gladiator personalities often do turn to crime by choice, passion and/or ego. This is quite logical.

And where do you think modern capital actually comes from? The 'creation' of a capitalist-based economy in post-USSR demonstrates this quite well. US 'robber-barons' or the US 'prohibition-gangsters' are also good examples. Such unsavory bastards do tend to create large fortunes that often in the next generation turn into legal capitalist investments and industrial empires.That's where choice, passion, etc. come from though, no? Boredom? (http://tcr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/8/3/287)...The deployment of carefully honed survival skills in dangerous situations, the on-the-spot integration of practiced artistry and illicit adventure, the embracing of emotional rituals that pre-date modernist rationality—all suggest experiences that are not boring, and not boring precisely because they recapture, if momentarily, the lost immediacy of self-made human experience. They suggest a broader question as well: Are certain crimes committed not against people or property as such, but against boredom?...

...Answers like this confirm that criminologists must continue to investigate the circumstances of collective boredom, circumstances both historically structured and situationally negotiated. Such stultifying circumstances shape not just moments of illicit excitement, but the politics of social movements and the dynamics of cultural rebellion; for Wobblies and Situationists as for BASE jumpers and graffiti writers, boredom constitutes the unbearable experiential foreground of modernity. In daily life alienation is no Marxist category, rationalization no Weberian construct; the alienation and rationalization of modernism play out instead as an endless monotony, a stale sickness, for some a plodding death so ‘insistent’ that it ‘strips real death of all terror’ (Vaneigem, 2001: 163)....
Applied to Russia, I would say that's a perfect example of boredom taking effect. A corrupt government with abusive measures gets removed and replaced by former bureaucrats transformed into tycoon oligarchs. With nothing else to do and with plenty of resources to infiltrate the justice system, how isn't state-capitalist Russia supposed to be expected? Barons and gangsters fall in the same club. Weak justice administration, buyer beware market ideology, an abundance of weaklings and ready to go resources with boons in technological growth and industry, why and how not boredom?

"Free markets" may be the perfect check on corruption, but since "free markets" don't actually exist, you might as well say that God is the ultimate check on corruption. Same difference. You can't prove to me that either one exists. That's not really analogous since interference and coercion are identifiable parts of our world. God is not. Similarly, demonstrating the existence between the two isn't analogous because free markets are the absence of interference whereas God would be an existing entity.

Put it like this, free markets are like pure water or empty space. Dismissing pure water's or empty space's existence behind the claim that all water and space is contaminated at some level would undermine the permissibility of analysis at every level, but we still allow it because it's a plausible foundation that can be conceptualized...

...which is why Kant said that we can't prove God's existence. God is supposedly perfect in every way, and as imperfect creatures, we are not capable of conceptualizing divinity. If you choose to hold faith, you do so for normative, not positive, reasons. :-/

As for "pure" and "corrupt" societies, these are extremely relative values. For example, I consider the US form of campaign financing to be 'institutionalized and formalized corruption', pure and simple. Others may reasonably disagree and say it is not 'pure corruption'. That's relativism. Different people hold different values. What you call "pure", I may call totally corrupt. What you call "corrupt", I'll probably say looks like a moral improvement.What I'm offering here isn't a proposal of how purity, corruption, efficiency, maturity, torture, enslavement, etc should be defined, but a tautology since the system should always work no matter how you specifically define the semantics.