What Sort of Conservative?

What is the good of words if they aren't important enough to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word more than another if there isn't any difference between them? If you called a woman a chimpanzee instead of an angel, wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only things worth fighting about.

- GK Chesterton

(As there are many Democrats who read this blog, many whom are dear and respected friends of mine, I am not writing to argue with or persuade you to change your mind. If you choose to read this, think of it as something that may offer some insights as to how to converse or debate with conservatives, as well as how to tell what sort of conservative you are encountering.)

Fear Based Conservatives

Fear of change These people’s fears are not so much a dread of future consequences based on principles, but simply a mindless loyalty to “how things have always worked.” Any change, for these people, is perceived as a threat to the foundations of their way of life.

Fear of Loss These men and women see their earning power dwindling, the cost of onerous regulations forcing them to charge more for their products or services, and the omen of higher taxes, and, “Dammit, this needs to end.” The problem is, however understandable, that this is a fear based gut reaction, not a principled belief in justice.

And why does this matter?

Because each of these fears belies a sense-based or sentimental conservatism that rarely has any intellectual foundation.  While you may applaud their voting for your preferred candidate or cause, such “conservatism” is ephemeral: tomorrow, they will support whoever buys off their fears with impossible promises. Remember: Fearful people vote their fears not their principles. (Note to liberals: these people are low-hanging fruit!)

Politically Ideological Conservatives

These True Believers have turned conservatism into a Political Religion - with dogmas and anathemas thrown in for free! These people are like Roger Williams (the Puritan, not the singer), whose demand for purity led him to refuse to eat the Lord’s Supper with sinners, which, at the end of his life, left him eating alone.

Conservatism is not a religion. This mindset is something that any principled conservative - from Edmund Burk to Russell Kirk – would vehemently oppose. Frankly, properly understood, it is not even an ideology. Conservatism is a mindset, a particular kind of character and approach to life, and the quest to discover and live by and for the “permanent things.” (TS Eliot) While a conservative mindset affects how one engages within the sphere of politics and political economics, it is about far more than politics.  

Instinctual Conservatives

These people’s hearts resonate with conservative principles. However, as they have yet to spend time reading and reflecting, they have no intellectual basis upon which to stand or from which to debate. Quite often this leaves them as “reeds in the wind,” not to mention lousy debaters.  (Note to liberals: higher hanging fruit but ripe with possibility.)

Principled Conservatism

Conservatism is about reverence for the permanent things: those values, precedents, and traditions that have been winnowed and sifted throughout history, where God has revealed His purposes for our existence and how societies can best live and function in harmony.

Conservatives believe in a constitutional limited government, not in populism or in “despotic democracy.” (Tocqueville)

Conservatives see an inexorable link between respect for private property and freedom.

Conservatism has a deep regard for what will make humans truly happy: virtue, not net-worth. Trust me here: if you meet a professing conservative who places no value on virtue, the public’s or his own, his conservatism is dying or already is dead, if it ever existed. (Note to {some} liberals: seize the day!)

Conservatives believe that tragedy will always be a part of human existence. While its effects can be ameliorated by the charitable acts of others, it cannot be eradicated. There are no utopias in our future.

Conservatives believe in the equality of worth of all humans before God, as well as equality before the courts. They do not believe, however, that equality of character and abilities exists, so do not advocate legislating an equality of results from demonstrably unequal people. Such equality has never existed and no matter what is legislated never will.

Conservatives believe in individuality but not individualism. Individuality is about respecting the diversity, variety, and uniqueness of all people. (This is one of the reasons for the Bill of Right’s Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion, and etc.) Individualism is about self-glorification (or deification) with no regard for living in community, societal harmony, or of permanent things.

Conservatives are averse to alterations of long standing norms, traditions, customs and institutions. I do not say that they are “against” change, only that they believe it should be organic - the culmination of a long and deliberative national conversation, rather than legislated by the fiat word of the Powers That Be.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2016

CoachingByMonte

LegendaryLeadership:TheBook

Patriotism and Nationalism Are Not Synonyms

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.  - Charles de Gaulle

Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on his own dunghill.  -Richard Aldington

It seems to me a lot of people are using the words “patriotism” and “nationalism,” interchangeably. I beg to differ, as these words are not synonyms. Sure, I get that some people use them as such but, given our present national conversation where so many are touting the glories of nationalism and others are hearing “patriotism” when they shouldn’t be, I think it’s time to clear up our language, as well as to ask others to define their terms.

As I understand these two mindsets:

Patriots are proud of their nation’s culture and accomplishments and, at the same time, are aware of its failures.

Nationalists only tout their nation’s glories (real and imagined) but are willfully blind or indifferent to its failures.

The antisemites who called themselves patriots introduced that new species of national feeling which consists primarily in a complete whitewash of one's own people and a sweeping condemnation of all others. – Hanna Arendt

Patriots generally respect the accomplishments and cultures of other nations.

Nationalists belittle, resent, and are belligerent toward other nations and cultures.

Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind. - Albert Einstein

Patriots are proud of their nation’s achievements, but they never, in dealing with other nations, seek to “achieve” at the expense of morality and justice.

Nationalists give no thought to right or wrong: only to what advances their nation’s interests.

Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. - George Orwell

Patriots admire and appreciate their way of life and, if needed, will fight to defend it.

Nationalists want to force other nations to adopt their nation’s way of life.

Patriots have a sense of “national responsibility.” (Adlai Stevenson)

Nationalists take no responsibility for and give no thought to the effects their nation’s actions have on other nations, as they couldn’t care less.

Nationalism is the last refuge of scoundrels.  - Winston Churchill

Patriots place duty to God, family, personal integrity, morality, and justice, high on the list of their life’s priorities, which, in turn, governs their approbation of or obedience to the state.

Nationalism is a political religion: the worship of a particular state that commands its citizens has no other gods before it.

Pervading nationalism imposes its dominion on man today in many different forms and with an aggressiveness that spares no one. The challenge that is already with us is the temptation to accept as true freedom what in reality is only a new form of slavery. – John Paul II

Nationalism is idolatry. It is also the hubristic whitewashing of evil, a lust for blood (metaphorically or literally), a justification for injustice, the validation of greed, and the road to destruction. Patriots hear calls for nationalism as a harbinger of evil and will do her or his all to stand against it.

Or so I believe …

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2016

CoachingByMonte

LegendaryLeadership:TheBook

Political Activism and the Reality of Evil II

Some follow-up thoughts on my last post, Political Activism and the Reality of Evil

Striving for a societal utopia via political/ institutional machinations and alterations is a foolish and dangerous delusion. Any project or program for reforming society that does not take the existence of evil and its constancy into account is doomed to failure.

There is no such thing as “social progress,” as the term is typically used: there is only the infinitely slow and often imperceptible progress of the individual who is seeking, by the grace of God, to bring moral order into a soul mired in moral disorder. Therefore, the reformation that matters most is the reforming of the individual’s morals, which begins with embracing God’s grace and forgiveness and in seeking after virtue.

Politics deals with the problems of ethics and ethics are defined by religious faith. (Two of this nation’s primary religions are self-worship and the religion of despotic democracy - the majority is always right-eous.) The state exists to enforce morality. The only question, then, is, Whose Morality? However -

Passing all the “right” laws will never reform society, never eradicate evil. The belief in “salvation” by law and regulation is an evil in and of itself, leading us to look to the state, a politician, or a political party as a messiah who will usher in the peaceable kingdom.   

Dealing with evil in society must always begin with my own heart. Most strident and overzealous reformers have failed to deal with the logs in their own eyes (Matthew 7.3), which leaves them Pharisaical. Combating societal evil with evil attitudes and behaviors is just plain stupid, not to mention destructive.

Discarding any belief in objectively defined evil, we have marginalized the importance of churches and spiritual communities to societal health, as well as the critical nature of electing virtuous men and women to political office. Yes, wisdom, sound principles developed through deep reflection, and political savvy are also critical for our political leaders (as well as for ministers, priests, and rabbis!). However, I don’t see how anyone who is either agnostic or antagonistic toward virtue is going to have an adequate mindset regarding justice, the rule of law, or personal accountability.

Ameliorating the effects of evil doesn’t happen by simply counting votes, erecting “better” institutions, or inflicting evil on the despised minority de jure. It is always hearts and minds that must be at the forefront of our concern. Imagine if we put as much effort into sharing our faith and understandings regarding God’s love, grace, and wisdom with our neighbors for the last 30 years as we put into advocating specific social programs, political policies, and candidates … or in tearing them all down. The mind boggles.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2016

CoachingByMonte

LegendaryLeadership:TheBook

Political Activism and the Reality of Evil

The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.

- Malcolm Muggeridge

“Dear Sir: Regarding your article 'What's Wrong with the World?' I am.

Yours truly,”

- GK Chesterton

Most everywhere we look, we are seeing the disintegration of American society. We then ask ourselves, what do we do, what can we do to turn things around? We then begin frenetically running around seeking to reform the Department of Education, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigration Customs Enforcement, US Customs and Border Patrol, the Internal Revenue Service, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government, and so on. Of course this means then that we, both Democrats and Republicans, believe the primary source of our societal conflicts is an “it.”  Get “it” right and all will be well.

Really?

What if the source of our societal maladies is not in our institutions but in our hearts? What if our institutions are corrupt because we are corrupt? What if the fundamental problem is the evil that lies in each of our hearts: evils such as greed and envy, hatred and malice, pride and egoism, lawlessness and decadence, lust for power and control.

Having largely discarded religious faith, we jettisoned belief in a transcendent moral order and, with it, any concept of evil (moral disorder). Well that is not entirely accurate: we replaced religious belief with political ideals and dogmas, which we (Democrats and Republicans) adhere to and defend with a fanaticism of a witch burning Puritan.

Do you, O thou spiritual believer in Christ, doubt me, here? Pray then answer me this: if I disagree with your social agenda or choose to not vote for your favored candidate, are you going to anathematize me? Your Facebook posts tell me that you will.

It seems to me that today even Christians, who should know better, are wrestling more with “its” rather than hearts, including their own, behaving as if societal reformation begins and ends with political and institutional reformation and the election of the Right Candidate.

Newsflash: Even if you get “it” reformed and the “right” person elected, if people’s hearts are not transformed, your activism is nothing more than an attempt to put a classier suit on a corpse.

I believe that all political and social problems are ultimately problems of individual virtue. Therefore, all endeavors to reform society must start with the human heart and the fact that evil exists in the world and within us all. If it is reformation we are after then this is a reality that needs to inform and govern our political activism.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2016

CoachingByMonte

LegendaryLeadership:TheBook

Elections2016: WWJD

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-  Thomas Jefferson

The Democracy of the Dead

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

- GK Chesterton

Do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers have set.

- Solomon

Has there ever been a generation of Americans more ahistorical and anti-tradition than ours? We live and make our decisions as if history began with our generation and us. We pay no heed to the wisdom and traditions, i.e., a body of beliefs, handed down from age to age: the understanding that comes from experience winnowed down through the ages means zip to us. We believe that we are fully capable of sorting out the major crises of our day without any guidance from the past. Consequently, we have become a nation of pigmies who are cannibalizing the inheritance passed on to us by giants.

Much of the wisdom we need for successfully navigating through life is found in “the democracy of the dead.” Back in the day (before John Dewy, the father of modern education here in the US), this was one of the great goals of education: to immerse the student in the collective wisdom of ages past as to what constituted a fully functioning human being, a strong family, a harmonious society, a prosperous nation. Western Civilization itself grew out of and sustained itself by this very mindset. In studying theologians, philosophers, artists, societies, and cultures where human dignity, liberty, and equality before constituted law were espoused, each generation sought to conserve and add to this wisdom, so as to pass on the beliefs that secure the pillars of civilization.

Some of the pillars of American civilization are:

God creates humans and ordains government

Belief in a transcendent moral order that is based in religious faith

Belief that individual virtue is essential to societal harmony

Religious liberty

Individual liberty under law

Equality before the law

The right to own what you produce: a critical component of all our freedoms

The most effective governments are localized not centralized

Society is a spiritual community with responsibilities to both past and future generations

Does this mean that we are to accept every espousal of wisdom and tradition (beliefs) passed on by past generations as if it were Holy Writ? Of course not. But if an ancient boundary has been set - if there are generations of customs, mores, and beliefs that have been established – we are fools worthy of destruction, if we treat such as minor inconveniences of no consequence. There is a reason why generations of people adhered to this boundary, why they believed as they did.  At the very least we should find out why this was so, before we throw it into the dustbin of history.

Ignoring the wisdom and traditions of our forbearers while tackling the crises that are threatening civilization with anarchy or tyranny with only our limited reason and experience is hubris of the highest degree. If we want to leave our grandchildren a nation that supports “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then we ought to discover what body of beliefs from the past created such a culture in the first place.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson.2016

CoachingByMonte

LegendaryLeadership:TheBook

Leveling Variety And The Hatred of Freedom

No matter where we look, we see variety and diversity.

In creation We have deserts and sub-tropical jungles; forests filled with various trees and plants; oceans, lakes, and streams; all kinds of animals, mammals, fish, birds, and bugs; heavens that are filled with uncountable unique stars and planets; and etc.

In humanity We see two genders, various colors of skin, ethnicities, and languages, and cultures filled with people who possess differing temperaments, personalities, intellectual capacities, physical abilities, drives, desires, interests, tastes, talents, and skills.

In the Body of Christ St Paul tells us that the Church, the body of Christ, is made up of various members with a variety of gifts, each one necessary for the working of the entire Body (I Corinthians 12)

In heaven We also do not see any leveling or homogenizing but, rather, people “from every nation, tribe, people and language” worshiping God (Revelation 7)

So why is it that our nation’s government and cultural elite so often wants to poleax people into a cookie-cutter, one size fits all culture, where everyone acts the same, believes the same, and wants the same things? How is it that we think that leveling society to the lowest common denominator in any shape, form, or fashion is going to lead to societal peace and harmony? This is as idiotic as requiring there be no variety in nature.

If variety is the spice of life, then all attempts at leveling are the sapping of life, bleeding out individuality, personality, and mystery.

Oligarchies, tyrants, and what Tocqueville called despotic democracies hate a spicy society, preferring centralized power so as to bring about societal uniformity. Freedom loving people fight for variety because they know that only with freedom do individuals have the possibility of expressing their God given uniqueness, are allowed to utilize their talents as they deem best, have the right to their own property, and where people’s various ideas, diverse opinions and wisdom, can come together and produce a harmonious and flourishing society. In other words, only freedom loving people are fighting for life in all of its fullness.

In the heart of every leveler is hatred for freedom and for the diversity and variety God has brought into being. These egalitarians and utilitarians want to manage and control people, so as to work out their own will for society. Freedom lovers see this for what it is: an aspiration to overthrow the Creator and Lord of the universe and enthrone themselves as gods.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2016 

CoachingByMonte

LegendaryLeadershipTheBook