Conservatives tend to see the human person as an incorrigible mass of contradictions: a fallen and imperfect being created in a divine image, a creature possessed of fundamental dignity and inalienable rights but prone to excess and to sin and ever in need of self-restraint and moral formation. This elevated yet gloomy conception of man, deeply informed by the peculiar, paradoxical wisdom of the West’s great religions, sets conservatives apart from libertarians and progressives alike, and sits at the core of most conservative thinking about society and politics.
Don’t worry, he does get to civilization vs. barbarism.
A failure to initiate the next generation of children into the ways of civilization would not only delay or derail innovation but also put into question the very continuity of that civilization. This is why conservatives rarely imagine that our society is on the verge of utopia and frequently (perhaps too frequently) imagine it is on the verge of a breakdown. And it is a crucial reason why conservatives care so deeply about culture.
Another excerpt:
An enormous portion of the conservative worldview becomes clearer when we see the importance this view places on cultural continuity as a function of generational transmission—on the inescapable responsibilities human procreation imposes on each generation. An enormous portion of the progressive worldview becomes clearer when we see the degree to which it is shaped by a desire to be liberated from these obligations—and from the implications of the basic facts and character of human procreation. Many of what we loosely call the “social issues” in our politics involve debates about whether such a liberation is possible or desirable—whether the word choice can be poured like an acid over traditional social arrangements, burning all links of obligation and duty and making responsibility merely optional.
And another:
Conservatives tend not to share in the progressive confidence in technical expertise, doubting that any group of experts could ever have enough knowledge to pull off the feats of management and administration that the Left expects government to achieve.
I have not yet excerpted the parts of the essay that I like the best.
Several of the comments on the essay, many of them critical, are also worth reading. I think that these criticisms reflect the way that many on the right feel that they were “burned” by George W. Bush, who as a candidate appeared to embody many of the intentions of what Levin calls reform conservatism.
1. On domestic policy, what the Bush Administration considered to be tactical concessions turned out to be strategic defeats. No Child Left Behind is a poster child for that. This leads to a question of whether reform conservatism is feasible in practice, or whether it is doomed to founder on progressivism’s “home field advantage” in Washington.
2. Although as a candidate Mr. Bush scorned nation-building, he and other conservatives undertook a costly nation-building exercise in Iraq. Many people do not trust reform conservatives to exercise sound judgment and humility in dealing with barbarism beyond our shores.
I think that if reform conservatives want to overcome the skepticism of others on the Right, they will have to acknowledge this baggage and address these two concerns.
Was Medicare Part D, a tactical concession, a success or a failure?
A cynical exercise in vote-buying is what I’d call it.
That corrected a bias against pharaceuticals that either saved lives or avoided…murders…well, clearly not murders…manslaughters?
Anyway, it’s complicated.
Both this and No Child I find rather interesting. In both cases, the policy is right up the Democrats’ alleys. Somehow, they managed to both get what they want, and also smear Bush as being evil for providing them.
Washington politics is strange. Medicare Part D is certainly a lot more straightforward and effective than the ACA, and certainly does a lot more obvious good for the poor and the elderly. Yet, try to find the Democrat that will thank Bush for having supported it.
I have always wondered what evidence there was that GW Bush was a Conservative. GHW seemed like an uninspired administrator type, which is preferable to a neocon crusader, but not a humble Burkean by any stretch. Even social security privatization was a boondoggle. At the time, and a commenter here has pointed out that it is now probably too late for this, all I wanted was to be able to keep some of the surplus, preferably all of it (aka what is left of my money after current recipients are paid) to put into a retirement account. That seems conservative. I’m not sure what “privatizing” the trust fund or whatever that meant was.
Yes.
It was a tactical concession, in that the unfunded liabilities of Medicare were not reduced and probably were increased. It was a success, in that it showed that consumers could handle choice. It was a huge failure, however, in that it failed to give Republicans any traction in reforming health care policy.
Conservatives want to believe they are the (somewhat pessimist) realists, but are as often immune to reality, believing it can be made through belief. Liberals while (somewhat optimist) idealists, more often face these shortcomings and look to deal with reality as it is and ways around it, so far from dissolving responsibility, seek to address its lapses. Conservatives end with what should be while liberals begin with what could be.
“Conservatives end with what should be while liberals begin with what could be.”
You have that precisely backwards.
I am starting to think of progressives as synthetic speculative conservatives. For example, they seem to view universal daycare as a proven technology and sustainable pattern of specialization and trade. Nevermind the utter lack of evidence.
Not that conservatives don’t have a similar problem. They want to artificially punish people for creating evidence by trying out new patterns.