Steve G has a nice discussion of conservatism and liberalism, turning on the more genuine opposition between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. Read.
For related issues, see also my earlier piece on Fascism's Faces.
But I don't think SteveG nor I were equating conservatism with authoritarianism. Certainly not Steve. The difference here was to slide the distinction towards authoritarianism vs. anti, which can fit various places on the political spectrum. My thinking, however, is that the current brand of conservatism in the US pulls out the authoritarian elements and drops the anti-authoritarian elements. In my view, it seems perfectly appropriate to criticize the current administration for "not being conservative."
As political philosophy, I don't quite get that review. As a strong liberal, don't you nonetheless find s trong dose of pluralism at least in your thought as well as skepticism of absolutes? That seems to me central to liberalism of the pragmatic sort I accept, at least. Even traditionalism. It's one thing to say that we ought to adhere to the authority of tradition; it's another to make the more epistemological claim that tradition always has a necessary role in understanding. It's consistent to be experimentalist and hold on to some version of the latter. To hold onto a version of the former is to move towards authoritarianism.
I don't think conservatism is a full-fledged political philosophy. And I can easily see today's conservatives - in practice - rejecting much of the description in this review.
Still, I wonder how much conservative versions of these four elements - traditionalism, skepticism, pluralism, and pessimism - adopt implicit stances on the fixity of tradition and authority, human nature, and knowledge, relying instead on arguments from authority.
1 comment:
Peter -
But I don't think SteveG nor I were equating conservatism with authoritarianism. Certainly not Steve. The difference here was to slide the distinction towards authoritarianism vs. anti, which can fit various places on the political spectrum. My thinking, however, is that the current brand of conservatism in the US pulls out the authoritarian elements and drops the anti-authoritarian elements. In my view, it seems perfectly appropriate to criticize the current administration for "not being conservative."
As political philosophy, I don't quite get that review. As a strong liberal, don't you nonetheless find s trong dose of pluralism at least in your thought as well as skepticism of absolutes? That seems to me central to liberalism of the pragmatic sort I accept, at least. Even traditionalism. It's one thing to say that we ought to adhere to the authority of tradition; it's another to make the more epistemological claim that tradition always has a necessary role in understanding. It's consistent to be experimentalist and hold on to some version of the latter. To hold onto a version of the former is to move towards authoritarianism.
I don't think conservatism is a full-fledged political philosophy. And I can easily see today's conservatives - in practice - rejecting much of the description in this review.
Still, I wonder how much conservative versions of these four elements - traditionalism, skepticism, pluralism, and pessimism - adopt implicit stances on the fixity of tradition and authority, human nature, and knowledge, relying instead on arguments from authority.
Post a Comment