Clearly excited by Sarah Palin - aren't we all? - Bryan is on fire just now, but I'm going to take him up on this one. He suggests here that a true conservative would be bound to buy in to the anthropogenic global warming package, and that those of us who don't have been corrupted by those twin impostors, neoliberalism and noeconservatism. Well pardon me mister, but it seems to me that a position of scepticism (note, scepticism, not outright denial) is entirely consistent with a conservative outlook that is naturally suspicious of anything that approximates to a universal explanatory system , that is equally conscious of the limitations and the provisional nature of human knowledge , and that deeply mistrusts universalist, transnational 'solutions' that overlook the deep complexity and variety of human institutions (especially solutions that involve huge concentrations of state power and huge expenditure of other people's - i.e. our - money).
It is surely perfectly possible to respect the complexity of natural systems and to wish to minimise human disruption of them, without believing in the anthropogenic warming model (which is in itself an inevitably simplistic representation of an endlessly complex system). For myself, I can see a good deal of sense in many 'green' imperatives - and, as I've observed before, my 'carbon footprint' is a great deal smaller than that of most of the warmists I know. But I still think scepticism on the Big One is the sanest position -and, as it happens, a genuinely conservative one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Scepticism was exactly the mood and mode of 19th-century conservatives. But early 21st-century conservatives, at least the ones in America, are more likely to be very religious, true believers who are not the least bit skeptical once they've found the source of their faith.
ReplyDeleteTime for a word other than 'conservative' to describe the latest version of the tribe.
That age old problem with the word 'conservative'. Happened here too, for a while, when Thatcherism and 'conservatism' were seen as one and the same. It's probably why 'libertarian' has gained ground, though that too has other associations.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, Nige. It's the older form of conservative that is naturally skeptical about ideologies that claim to heal all ills. Best way to be.
Very well put, Nige. You are playing for Greece against Bryan's Rome. Looking about and keeping an open mind is a fine way to live, surely. Why worry about labels? It's not as if we'll be wearing a badge when we arrive outside the pearly gates. And as you say about carbon footprints, in the end all we can do is till our own garden. One has to wonder about folks who claim they have the surefire solution for tilling the next guy's garden.
ReplyDeleteNige, your response to Bryan's overwrought prose is spot on. Yours, too, Mark & Dick.
ReplyDeleteAnd not mine, Randy???
ReplyDeleteLOL, Susan! I'm sorry, but I was so occupied with thoughts about Straussian/Nietzschean theory while posting that comment, that I decided to pass on expressing an opinion on your interesting suggestions about 21st century conservatives and the need for a new label. FWIW, my impulse was to agree because doing so would largely confirm my viewpoint. As I'm not sure that we are "spot on," however, I didn't include your comment in my response.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised, Susan, that you haven't noticed how aggressively evangelical the Obama acolytes are. Moreover, liberalism has some pretty powerful religious roots itself. You may recall a Dr. King, for instance.
ReplyDeleteAcolytes, whackolytes, Frank. They're all doing whatever they can to both mimic and refute the other side.
ReplyDeleteYes, Susan- I vividly recall people fainting at John McCain's early rallies, the atmosphere of 19th century religious revivalism, the gushing tributes from ephemeral celebrities, the hysterical rally in Berlin etc etc. It was all there from the start... the Obama folk picked up on it later, and had to mimick in order to refute.
ReplyDeletePeel's original definition of Conservatism remains valuable: conserving what is good whilst providing redress for proven grievances.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is deciding what is good (and choosing between mutually exclusive goods) and which grievances are proven.
Hence your disagreement with Mr A.
He rightly points out that a Conservative should be wary of disrupting the complex system that is the natural world, but equally a Conservative should be wary (as you imply) of disrupting the complex system of our present social and economic arrangements.
Both options are admirably Conservative. The trouble is that Conservatism doesn't answer the key question: Which horse should you back?
Hello Nige,
ReplyDeleteI followed the link here AFTER making a post on BA's article. I wish I had clicked on the link BEFORE, as you made pretty much the same point as I, except much more eloquently, and it would have save me the bother of posting!
John