Andreas Kinneging
Friday September 26, 2008
Categories: Conservatism
I mentioned in a post below Andreas Kinneging, a Dutch law professor and the philosophical leader of Holland's small conservative movement. Here's a marvelously lucid essay he's written about why he is a conservative. Excerpt: The short answer is that...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
To answer Rod's question:
The American "conservative" movement cannot be called conservative -- "conservative" within that movement is indeed merely the name under which right-wing liberals choose to go.
It is also the case that the American "progressive" movement cannot be called progressive -- "progressive" within that movement is merely the name under which left-wing liberals choose to go.
It is unfortunate that neither Professor Kinneging nor Professor MacIntyre can run for President.
It is unfortunate also that Aristotle, Aquinas, and Burke cannot.
It is most unfortunate of all that John McCain and (especially) Barack Obama *can.*
Oh joy. So now conservatives are better because they are more like pagans? Hmm. I'll defer to Franklin to unpack that one.
To adequately refute a lengthy essay would require a lengthy essay. I'll take this one to task on just two points.
First, Kinneging seems to be employing logically unsound tactics when he equates "conservative" with "good man" and "liberal" with "bad man." Thus, any time a conservative does something wrong, he falls right out of the conservative class and into the other. Only liberals can be bad, therefore there are no bad conservatives. When they're bad, they become . . . liberals! Uh . . . what?? This is the equivalent of the "no true Christian" argument. No true Christian would do something evil, so evil deeds by Christians cannot be used as evidence of flaws in the religion. It's a nice trick if you can get people to fall for it.
Second, it is not really possible to combine the categories of "gentleman" and "Christian" without doing violence to one or both of these ideals--dear as this project has been to the hearts of the ruling classes for centuries. A gentleman's position, whether in Greece or England, was founded on the unjustly appropriated labor of women and slaves. You can't exploit others and simultaneously love them as yourself. The deception and denial needed to maintain this fiction invalidate the whole project.
That said, I approve his list of desirable virtues, and equally deplore their total absence from so-called "conservative" politics today. How are the mighty fallen! Well, maybe they were never that great in the first place. Illusion dies hard. But there were a few great ones in the conservative movement. Those who were fortunate enough not to live to see the shambles made from their good intentions must be writhing in their graves--or shaking their heads in heaven, depending on your preferred metaphor.
the contemporary debates within modern political systems are almost exclusively between conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals. There is little place in such political systems for the criticism of the system itself, that is, for putting liberalism in question.
This is so true. In the end, debating with liberalism is a waste of time; one merely ends up having to redefine, redefend, and reexplain to no avail. It's truly a waste of time.
What isn't a waste of time (and in fact the right solution) is to ignore the whole liberal culture and let it sputter out, going one's own way to build something great for the future. This means creating an oasis with others who choose Christian culture (this is quite different than so-called "I've been saved!" Christianity, which is an Enlightenment degradation of following Christ to the cross).
Solution: for Conservative Christians to stop arguing with words and rather argue with deeds. This gate is narrow but well worth it. Let liberalism fade into it's own morass, accepting that people always have free will, and the road down liberalism is wide and inviting and easy and most will take it. But those who do face devastating consequences, leading to the modern collapse of their families and culture, making the argument for you. Why argue with what is fading away?
According to Kinneging's definition of conservative, the number of conservatives around today is extremely tiny. They are a very small sect within what is considered the right wing today. Many view themselves as the monks in a Canticle for Liebowitz, the sole keepers of truth in a post-apocalyptic wasteland inhabited by heathens (as a U of Dallas alum, I know plenty of people who fit even within Kinneging's definition of conservative).
Being more post-modern myself, I wonder why people obsess over the categorization of what conservatism really is. Why does it even matter?
Rod, I am indebted to you for doing so much to help me realize that I am not a conservative. I am, avowedly and proudly, a conservative liberal.
It is no coincidence that Kinneging crafts his argument in terms of the Christian gentleman. The Ancien Regime worked just fine for gentlemen. For everybody else, not so much. The way many of you conservatives look at the past reminds me of how middle class Americans watch costume dramas and all see themselves as the dukes and duchesses. But there just weren't so many dukes and duchesses, you know.
No, I'm with our current, much reviled President on this one: give me democratic capitalism every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
Kinneging needs to read Newman's "Idea of a University," in which Newman CONTRASTS the Christian and the gentleman.
I have not identified as Christian for many years, would not no what the hell to do with a snuff box and have never fought a duel so obviously I am no Gentleman and now, after reading this column in spite of my blood pressure and better judgement I learn that I am really a Liberal!
Of course as I do not write in Latin, no doubt one of Rod's folks will decide that I am illiterate as well, which will give me a perfect excuse to avoid reading that person.
But of course I will read it, if only for the slight chuckle that I get when I realize that these poor folks actually expect to be taken seriously.
And that "no" should have been "Know" so perhaps reading this material is making me as illiterate as some of the people quoted after all. Or perhaps I should know better than to type in daylight, instead by candle-light like a good Conservative.
Some of the posts here have a very blinkered understanding of the gentlemen's code, of the chivalric ethos, of the idea of honor.
A gentleman is someone who recognizes his own privilege and accepts the responsibilities that go along with that privilege, as opposed to someone who tries to imagine himself as less privileged than he actually is, in order to evade the responsibilities that go along with his privileged station, in order instead to spend his time indignantly demanding "rights" in often gross excess of those that he already has.
Gentleman status is relative -- one need not be *absolutely* privileged to be bound to certain obligations by the gentleman's code; one need only be *relatively* privileged: privileged compared to someone else, which everyone in American today most certainly *is,* privileged relative to most people living in the world today, let alone most people who have ever lived in the history of the world.
I would also hazard that anyone with enough leisure time to spend reading let alone posting on blogs is privileged enough to be obliged to meet certain responsibilities under the gentleman's code.
Now, of course, one can reject those obligations, one can reject the gentleman's code, but what one *cannot* do is expect to be accorded respect by those who accept that code.
All the red-faced huffing and puffing in the world about one's "rights" will not make any gentlemen obliged to call a cad anything but a cad.
Two final provisos: everything I've said about gentlemen applies to *ladies* as well and nothing I've said stands in *necessary* contradistinction to Christianity.
Once again I find myself applauding a suggestion from mdavid. Yes! Why not abandon this cruel world of 57 varieties of liberal, and walk your talk up to Alaska, to put your ideals into practice? What is the excuse of so many conservative gentlemen for hanging around on the internet, that vile tool of Satan, instead of getting yourselves a moose gun and a woman and getting down to the task of procreation? Build a happy, functional, anti-democratic, anti-technological community, and let the world beat a path to your door. Alaska will indeed become a "refuge state" for the upcoming Last Days. At least, if you can get a powerful pastor to expel all the witches and pray away those pesky "python spirits."
But wait . . . will the Legion of Orthodoxy first have to do battle for the franchise with the A/r/m/y/ oops, I mean Assembly of God? Will there be battle axes and horned helmets? Will gunpowder be allowed? Or crossbows? Where should the line be drawn? Can I bring popcorn and a lawn chair to the Last Days (a/k/a EndFaire), or would that be too far out of period? ; )
It's funny that this should crop up in the same week that I'm considering some of Susan Nieman's writings and thought. She says, btw, that in her view enough of Enlightenment beliefs and values have been absorbed that they are permanent.
A short reply to Kinneging is that he has falsely characterized Modernity/post-Enlightenment as mere submission to crudest animal nature and no process of synthesis and purification at work. Orthopraxis as method of attaining noble quality certainly doesn't work for everybody; whether it works for much of anyone outside highly constrained environments is open to question. I grew up in a social class, schools, and religion in which it was still method but realized to be failing.
There's also the core dogma, the near-idolatry of the/a particular transcendence-centric scheme of deity construed as "spirit of religion". To the skeptics it lacks and will perpetually lack persuasive evidence. To the sympathetic but rigorous it is inadequate, can't truly be squared with the manifestations of what has been called the transparence of deity. Modernity is not going to stop wearing on both points.
sigaliris,
*You* could also move to Venezuela.
Rufus says: Now, of course, one can reject those obligations, one can reject the gentleman's code, but what one *cannot* do is expect to be accorded respect by those who accept that code.
A Christian ethos demands that its adherents grant respect to everyone, even to its enemies. If respect is only for those who agree with you, can you not see that your code is worthless, except as a tool for enforcement of unity within your own group? I've pointed this out before to those who tout "chivalry" but extend it only to those women who already defer to them. A code of "honor" that goes out the window as soon as someone is designated as the enemy is not only unchristian, but unworthy of the name.
"Gentleman status is relative -- one need not be *absolutely* privileged to be bound to certain obligations by the gentleman's code; one need only be *relatively* privileged: privileged compared to someone else, which everyone in American today most certainly *is,* privileged relative to most people living in the world today, let alone most people who have ever lived in the history of the world.
I would also hazard that anyone with enough leisure time to spend reading let alone posting on blogs is privileged enough to be obliged to meet certain responsibilities under the gentleman's code."
Rufus, I have no quarrel with any of that. My argument is that the way we've gotten to the economic point you describe is, in large measure, classical liberalism. Without the Enlightenment and several of its happier consequences, I would not be sitting in front of a computer on the 28th floor of a downtown office building in a good sized US city alternating between the entertaining activity of reading and commenting at this blog and doing legal work that's billed at a rather high amount per hour. I am loath to bite the historical hand that feeds me; indeed, I would consider doing so an act of ungentlemanly ingratitude.
I think that harumph-harumph, nostalgic conservativism -- as distinct from conservative liberalism -- reflects an insufficient knowledge and/or appreciation not only of economics, but also of history.
Also, btw, when I said the Ancien Regime worked fine for gentlemen, I deliberately excluded ladies, for whom it worked well in some respects and quite poorly in others.
I can't see, really can't see, whatever mdavid says, how it is possible for an American to claim to be conservative in anything approaching the sense that had until about half an hour ago. To be conservative means to support a stratified society, with little social mobility, a monarchy, an established church, authoritarian families, and male dominance. Bits of the British Tory party were conservative until Thatcher. Franco's regime was more or less conservative, albeit with a fascist streak. French Legitimists and Spanish Carlists are fully conservative.
sigaliris,
You are incorrect.
Christianity does not require "respect" for others, in the modern, secular-liberal relativistic sense in which you use the word.
It does not -- in other words -- require "tolerance" or "respect" for, let alone "celebration" of "diversity."
Instead, It requires charity toward others, love of others.
Jesus did not "respect" the money-changers, for example, but He *loved* them enough to die for them.
I myself *love* you, but I don't "respect" you, in the sense that I don't regard your choice to follow whatever it is that you follow as being equally as honorable a choice to have made as the choice of someone else to follow Jesus or even just the gentleman's or lady's code, independent of formal Christianity.
ScurvyOaks,
The advance of capitalism, the advance that is of economic liberalism, makes maintenance of the gentleman's code even more imperative than it was before.
Capitalism has indeed, as you point out, greatly increased the number of privileged people -- that is, it has greatly expanded the range of what one might called the relatively aristocratic class, and therefore it has greatly expanded the range of those who are subject to certain obligations toward others, in terms of the gentleman's code.
Remember that Adam Smith was not only an economist but also a moral philosopher.
Remember also that there are distinctions to be made between the British (the Scottish) Englightenment and its French and its German counterparts.
The British Enlightenment thinkers and the American Founders who were among their philosophical heirs would never, ever have agued that moral laissez-faire was needed for political and economic liberty.
Indeed, from Smith on down, they argued just the opposite of that.
They argued that some form of moral authority was a necessary precondition for political and economic liberty.
What we have now is a hard-headed and hard-hearted Frankenstein's Monster that combines political and economic liberty with moral laissez-faire.
What has resulted is moral, political, and economic chaos.
To survive in the long term, our society must either remoralize itself our dedemocratize itself.
Much that was untrue was said in the 1960's.
One thing said then that was true was that "to live outside the law you must be honest."
We either get honest, we either get real, we either come to Jesus, et al or "the law" will come picking a fight with all of us, a fight the law will "win."
No one who values democracy should be arguing we ought to be more like cads and less like gentlemen.
We need more caddishness like a hole in the head.
In fact, more caddishness will probably get some of us holes in the head when "the law" picks its fight.
Rufus, darlin', it's good to know that you care! ; ) Though I am a tiny bit puzzled as to how your love expresses itself in a wish that I'd move to Venezuela. Thank you, no. Tropical climates don't agree with me. Which brings me to my next point: you continue to indulge in erroneous thinking. Thus: Rufus finds sigaliris disagreeable, and he finds Hugo Chavez disagreeable. Therefore, Hugo and sig must like each other! Er . . . no. Sigaliris disapproves of Rufus' way of thinking (not Rufus himself, mind you--I'm sure we'd get along quite well if we were neighbors) and sigaliris also disapproves of Pepsi as a beverage. Therefore, Rufus MUST love Pepsi! I don't think it works that way.
With regard to the rest of your comments, doesn't respect, in whatever sense of the word you wish to use, require that you find out what someone thinks or believes, before denouncing them? You rashly ascribe all manner of beliefs to other people, never bothering to ask if you're right. So I think your claim to love them in any sense is questionable.
sigaliris,
"Yes, pot," said the kettle. "I *am* black."
I hardly think my quip about Venezuela was any more (or any less) of a caricature than what inspired it: your more-than-a-quip about Alaska.
Nor do I think that I am ever any more (or any less) snarky than you.
Lighten up and/or toughen up.
Either way, pop a chill pill.
quote: "The Ancien Regime worked just fine for gentlemen. For everybody else, not so much. The way many of you conservatives look at the past reminds me of how middle class Americans watch costume dramas and all see themselves as the dukes and duchesses. But there just weren't so many dukes and duchesses, you know."
I consider myself a conservative. But I must say that I sympathize with those who have raised the above point about elites during the Ancien Régime. One of my biggest problems with Kirk's "The Conservative Mind" is defense of traditional elites.
That being said, I firmly embrace the other aspects of conservatism such as a realization that humans are limited and prone to sin, the need for restraint and virtue, the limits of reason, the importance of family, and above all the importance of God and "permanent things." The left by contrast has taken its main ideas from the Enlightenment such as the goodness of human nature, the ability of "science" and "education" (both as defined by the left) to solve most of our problems, the notion of "progress", extreme egalitarianism, and the possibility to perfect humans and society. These of course, are also the ingredients of Totalitarianism.
In my view, the bloodshed of the French Revolution and Communist regimes show the folly of left-wing Enlightenment utopian ideas. The totalitarian regimes and wars of the twentieth century also mean the crude positivistic assumptions of those on the left that modernity is somehow "better" and more "enlightened" than previous ages is laughable. Only a naive, credulous person could believe in "progress" after August 1914.
Whatever its flaws, the Ancien Régime was far less bloody and oppressive than the bastard children of the Enlightenment that ran amok in the twentieth century. Louis XIV and Nicholas II were mild compared to Lenin and Stalin. If the ideas that have animated the left since the French Revolution have indeed taken over modern society then our civilization will fall and the Benedictine option as mdavid mentions is the only one for conservatives, or indeed for anyone who values civilized life.
rr
Rod,
If you're interested in Dutch thinkers of this sort, you might want to look into the Kuyperian tradition, including Herman Dooyeweerd whose critiques of liberalism are withering. Much of their work is available in English, and his history of law is excellent.
Thanks for this.
I can't see, really can't see, whatever mdavid says, how it is possible for an American to claim to be conservative in anything approaching the sense that had until about half an hour ago. To be conservative means to support a stratified society, with little social mobility, a monarchy, an established church, authoritarian families, and male dominance.
You are correct, American conservatism suffers from a grand historical irony or internal contradiction. It is an endeavor to be a perfection of traditional Europe- but the deeper nature of the continent it is on and its larger society are obstacles it can suppress at times but inevitably fails to overcome.
Jillian,
"Modernity" -- which is a set of choices made by people, not a welt-geist independent of human choice -- will likewise continue to "rub down" any intrinsic or transcendent reason why someone should not cleave your skull into pieces with an axe.
So be careful what you wish for.
Rufus,
I very much agree with you. The only way Enlightenment liberty can work worth a hoot is if it is combined with (i) political structures premised on the reality of humanity's fallen nature and (ii) individuals' commitments, aided by institutions within society, to living a life of virtue and self-restraint. (If I didn't think these things, I would be some kind of liberal other than a conservative liberal. I also probably would not be 5 years away from paying off a 10-year, 4.25% interest mortgage, for example.)
I agree that the imperative is to remoralize ourselves.
rr,
And I agree a lot with you as well. I'd argue that the totalitarian bloodletting of the 20th century utopians is the product of the Enlightenment's bastard children, not her true ones. There's a straight, blood-soaked path from Rousseau's anti-rational instincts to the rolling disaster that is post-modernism. (Sorry, I'm dramatically compressing a long argument, but that's all I have time for.) Mostly, I just wanted to signal broad agreement with your points.
Rufus and rr,
If I relaunch the Whig Party, might you all join me? :)
Jillian, you're certainly invited, too! We'll break out the old Scottish moral philosophy textbooks used at the College of New Jersey in antebellum days and work hard on orthopraxis.
"Modernity" -- which is a set of choices made by people, not a welt-geist independent of human choice -- will likewise continue to "rub down" any intrinsic or transcendent reason why someone should not cleave your skull into pieces with an axe.
Sadly, there have been plenty of "intrinsic" and "transcendent" excuses to act likewise. Osama bin Laden represents the degeneration associated with the pre-Modern "weltgeist"(sic) in the present age. Cultural anthropology suggests to me that Modernity will do just fine in the long run.
The creationism-of-morality at the core of your assertion is just another creationism that is going to unravel. You might want to start reading the Bible a bit differently- as a book of advices to achieve greater purity and humanity for those committed to that end. Few or no religious books are any good as a political books, as rulebooks for people you don't like.
ScurvyOaks,
I want to join too. It think your post of 4:59 could form the basis of our Port Huron Statement.
steve
Jillian,
I have no idea what you're talking about ... and I must say that I prefer that to those few times when you do make it clear to anyone besides yourself what you are trying to say.
Maybe your hard-hat's too tight.
; )
ScurvyOaks,
Sign me up, but only if I can be a Blue Dog Whig or a Scoop Jackson Whig or something like that.
I've never thought about the possibility of a Scoop Jackson Whig. That might be exactly where I am. :)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.