|
More on conservative liberalism
Another column by Stanley Kurtz lays out in more detail the conservative liberalism that I noted a few days ago. In That Other War: Where the moral debates are, post-Bennett-gate, he proposes that “we are living in a moral universe consisting of three broad groups: religious traditionalists, social liberals, and a balancing and relatively secular group in the middle.” He insists that all three groups are necessary — religious traditionalists, because society needs binding standards to hold it together, social liberals, because they stand for the freedom that is our good as individuals, and the middle group to balance and negotiate the conflicting demands of the others. He also says that the division will be an enduring one, because life inevitably begins with family and dependency, but it is now carried on in adulthood amidst the impersonality of city, market, and bureaucracy. Kurtz puts himself in his middle group, and claims his position is not far from the traditionalist one. Nonetheless, in his principles he’s decisively on the liberal side. He’s in the middle in the same sense a theocrat is in the middle who recognizes that radical attempts to enforce divine law comprehensively backfire so some space must be left for individual choice. A true middle-of-the-roader wouldn’t systematically subordinate either side to the other. He would try to solve conflicts by reference to considerations of general public benefit both sides recognize. In contrast, Kurtz treats religion and moral tradition instrumentally, as things to be valued within limits because they serve purposes, like providing a stable setting for raising children, that liberals themselves recognize as socially essential. He treats individual freedom of choice as an ultimate good, one worth pursuing for its own sake and worth the sacrifice of other goods that are recognized more universally. For example, acceptance of the practice of cohabitation damages the quality and stability of relations between the sexes — Kurtz says he agrees with William Bennett on the point. Nonetheless, he supports it because it increases freedom. He thus favors standards that sacrifice the success of a practice — male-female bonding — on its own terms, and its contribution to human well-being, to the individual freedom of those participating. That is the mark of someone who is fundamentally an ideological liberal. Kurtz says that we’re in a long-term situation in which the libs will oppose the trads, with neither side winning, so his middle position is the practical one that will enable life to go forward. It’s no doubt true today, as always, that a middle position is needed. It is doubtful, though, that moral authority can be treated as a sort of social policy designed to safeguard a conception of freedom that rejects innner standards. My disagreement with Kurtz may have to do with a difference in starting point. He takes the success and continuity of the American regime for granted, notes current conditions and trends, and infers its future moral trajectory. I look at a regime that has come to recognize no good higher than the arbitrary freedom of the individual to do as he chooses, decide it can’t last, and look for something else. Time will tell who is right. Comments
I would have to reject Kurtz’s whole line of reasoning. There is not a single standard of traditional values in America, but a polyglot. It includes freewheeling yankee traders and stern Puritans and piously decadent southern gentlemen. Where in this mix are “traditional” values to be found exactly? Modern conservatism is horribly badly named—only slightly descriptive. The left-libertarian position that he’s taking was present in the Tom Paine wing of the Anti-Federalist party before the Constitution was ratified. His position is just as traditional as anybody else’s and while it’s useful it’s not the political center. It’s quite a way to the left. To its right would be the Bull-moose party, then the early Republicans, then the Whigs, then the Federalists, then the Loyalists. To his left lies the original Democrats, then the Democratic Republicans, and from there into the various permutations of leftism ranging from Debbs to Chomsky. Depending on where you put the extremes he’s near the center, but in American history he’s quite a way to the left. Everybody likes to think of themselves as the moderate, even-handed center, but obviously it’s not true. Mr. Wilson has used over 300 words to say … what? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 9, 2003 8:37 PMI respect Stanley Kurtz as an honest thinker. Nevertheless, Kurtzian conservatism is fundamentally inadequate, because you cannot have anything worthy of the name conservatism or traditionalism without God, religion, the transcendent. Take the issue of co-habitation versus marriage. The sociological benefits of marriage, by themselves, can never be enough to convince people that marriage ought to be the standard. At bottom marriage is a transcendent value, and its central place in life can only be recognized by people who acknowledge the transcendent in some form. Others may see marriage as a value, but only as a relative value that can be chosen or not depending on how one feels. Thus the remark from an older lady of my acquaintance that I’ve previously quoted: “I think marriage is great. But if a woman wants to have children without a husband, that’s fine too.” Ultimately, without a transcendent sense of the human good and of what God wants for us, there is no reason not to feel as this lady feels. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 9, 2003 8:56 PMIt seems incorrect to concede that liberal ideas are needed. Mr. Kalb asserted, “It’s no doubt true today, as always, that a middle position is needed.” He was referring to a middle position between “trads” and “libs.” Perhaps a more principled assertion would be, “It’s no doubt true today, as always, that a middle position is often required of traditionalists.” There is no doubt Mr. Kalb knows exactly what he meant, so I will leave it to him to set me straight. Posted by: P Murgos on May 9, 2003 10:33 PMI think Mr. Wilson is trying to say that Kurtz is actually a leftist in the grand scheme of things. Posted by: John on May 9, 2003 11:00 PMAs far as I know, the Catholic Church holds that heterosexual sex for the purpose of bearing children is the only form of sex permissible by God. (I am ignorant of the Church’s rationale for the acceptance of post-menopausal sexual relations.) This is an ideological and practical position. It conforms to God’s dictates (as interpreted by the Catholic Church and some of the other Christian Churches) and ensures abundant life. Moreover, it seems Mr. Auster is on to something by proposing it is problematic to refer to an authoritative natural inevitability about heterosexual attractions. Homosexuality is not understood thoroughly, and its existence in human society is as ancient as heterosexuality, as far as we know. Considering the inscrutability of the laws of natural selection, it seems preposterous to propose the concept of “natural” has decisive significance in a world made by God. Mr. Auster, I humbly propose, is reminding us of the reality of God and His laws. It is intriguing that after Father Gregor Mendel, Charles Darwin (and Alfred Wallace), and Watson and Crick, no Newton or Einstein has come forward to propose reliable rules of natural selection. The religious should not be prideful about this for the obvious reason. See my second paragraph for what it is to be in the middle. Kurtz, a liberal who believes legitimate principles of restraint, order and continuity are needed to keep liberalism from destroying itself, is in the middle in the same sense as a theocrat who thinks there ought to be legitimate principles of freedom and individual choice to keep theocracy from destroying itself. Also, it’s not the position of the Catholic Church that each sexual act has to be fertile in fact or intended to be fertile in fact. It’s that it has to be of a kind that because of what it and the participants are can be fertile. The happenstance that timing, chance, age or physical defect make the act infertile is not thought to change the nature of the act or participants. Posted by: Jim Kalb on May 10, 2003 6:46 AM |