Essence of neoconservatism, revisited

Here is a brief put content-filled VFR article from 2004 which I just came across and recommend: “The essence of neoconservatism.” It’s an analysis of neocons from the point of view that they are rationalist liberals who reduce every dimension of reality to easily digested verbal formulae. It will be interesting to see what happens to the neoconservative ideology, now that the neoconservatives are about to lose their place in the proverbial corridors of power.

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

For some time I have been trying to grip firmly this concept of the “modern, rationalist liberal,” and not quite succeeding. Something was always slipping loose for me. James Kalb often discusses this, but I don’t get enough concrete examples from him (as an engineer-type, I need concrete examples, specifics). [LA replies: I’m not an engineer type, but I also need concrete examples to understand abstract ideas.]

In my ongoing discussion at work about same-sex couplings, one of my interlocutors asked me to define marriage. It was an epiphany for me—here I was dealing with a “modern, rationalist liberal.” He needed a specific, all-encompassing definition, like an expert lawyer, and from that legal definition marriage could be defined for all society. It needed to be defined completely, circumscribing all possibilities, neatly and cleanly, so it could be properly and completely managed—by precepts and laws. Traditionalism would not do, because messy as it is, it doesn’t spell out everything in easy to digest bites. My interlocutor can’t grasp all of what a marriage is, he defines it as a social contract—a clear sign I’m dealing with a reductionist. He also has a keen interest in Supreme Court decisions, another clue that he looks to expert legal management of society.

I’m making this connection with legalists, because of the kind of people Jesus dealt with—the legalists! They had reduced God down to just his commands (plus their own bonus additions), a checklist of dos and don’ts. Jesus’ popularity, which threatened the leadership, came from the fact that he showed that God has a heart and a soul (so to speak), and love; he showed his followers the One behind the Law, and that he was lovable. Lawyers aren’t like that, and they can’t see the ones behind the law.

Maybe I’m being too grandiose here, correct me if I’m wrong. But it seems that law reflects a society’s definitions of good and bad. Since a society is complex, there will be complexity in the law, sometimes bizarreness even. The rationalist liberals can’t deal with the messiness, mysteries, and imponderables of life—it’s a jungle out there! No, they must start with a clean sheet, elaborate some principles—keep it simple and short, please!—and then try to derive society from their simple list. The easiest way to do that practically in the U.S. is with judge-driven law, not a representative legislature making laws, which is why they try to drive their agenda with judges.

Do I understand finally?

LA replies:

All this sounds correct to me. In large part, you’re describing the Enlightenment, the grand enterprise of clearing away centuries of messy medieval residue from the laws and customs of a society and running the society on a simple, understandable set of principles, the way a scientist runs his lab. Which means: no tradition, no authority of accumulated, non-systematic experience and common sense, and no transcendence (except insofar as the transcendent can be boiled down to a digestible phrase, e.g., “All men are created equal,” “All people desire and deserve freedom”).

H.G. Wells quite literally wanted the world to be governed by a committee of scientists.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 10, 2008 10:19 AM | Send