One Last Word on one Flawed Aspect of Conservatism

I know this is a bit mocking, but I think it deserves to be knocked off the shelf and I don't have the space here to do a "philosophy" turn on it.

I apologize for the length of the last blog, but I wanted to develop my ideas about conservatism and probably added too much context (the quotes). 

But, there is still one remaining piece to consider.  This will sound very dismissive. I’m somewhat surprised at the tone of what I’ve written below. I think it’s heartfelt. We’ve allowed the 19th century to dictate a lot of our thinking. I think it needs a rhetorical “jolt.”

One very common view of conservatism emphasizes the “fallen state of man,” (less sexist, “the human condition.”)  There are many forms that this basic idea takes.  In essence it is the mirror opposite of what many liberals appear to believe: the perfectibility of human behavior and society.   Conservatives declare the imperfectability of the same human nature that liberals see as the ground for creating (unrealistic?) conditions for human betterment.

Might it be that human society is not as tragically flawed as conservatives claim, or as potentially perfectible as liberals propose?  I claimed in the last blog that our ability to discern common interests with others is the foundational reality that makes possible the myriad ordered structures of social life that we call society. 

Any reasonable person realizes that societies, and the resultant condition of human life, can be worse than it is, and can be better than it is.  And we are a long way from either extreme.  We may not like or prefer, the social constraints of other societies, or desire and seek the social freedoms of other peoples, but our “middle ways” need to be seen as way stations toward the better, if we choose, while anchored with controls against the worse. 

But what about the “folk” notion of a “people. Isn’t it largely a romantic turn of thought?  It is partly a religious conception, i.e. God created people for particular stations in life and they will be happy only if they are allowed to live according to their station in harmony with the lives of others.  I.e. their destiny is to live as simply “folk” on the village green.  And, when they aspire to something “higher,” they are likely to sink into savagery.  Thank God for the higher born gentlemen and ladies that take care of them.  It is also partly poetry and parlor art with heavy musical accompaniment.

One may have to ridicule this, to fully understand the reductionist nature of the illusion.  It is rooted in historical time, an expression of revulsion to some events, misunderstanding of others, and attempts to justify wealth and privilege.  In its more bold expressions, it is sheer nonsense. 

No serious study of human societies, past or present, has ever found mindless automatons, void of individuality, ambition or hope.  There is conflict, there is music, there is greed and there is great kindness. 

And there is culture, studied with some degree of objectivity by anthropologists.

The common illusion, however, is the excess of emotion that motivated missionaries to clothe “the natives,” and let slave owners celebrate the virtues of bondage. My last word about this is that neither conservative nor liberal fantasies are grounded in any good evidence.  They are fabrications, idealized no doubt, and sincerely held, but not deserving any further word.