[Personal, Politics]
[personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative
Conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, when no one is inclined to do so.” — William F. Buckley
I’ve been thinking a bit lately about why I’m not conservative in the political or cultural sense. I don’t mean why I’m not a Republican — given the toxic mess the modern GOP has evolved into, I hope that should be painfully self-evident to anyone not ideologically committed to the party line — but in a larger, more general sense.
Certainly there are a number of signature political and cultural issues that I feel strongly about. I’m not sure they’re inherently issues that ought to fall along a divide between conservatives and liberal-progressives. The anti-intellectualism of climate change denial and evolution denial are more artifacts of how the GOP has approached its electorate than anything that should arise naturally from divergent political views. There is literally no legitimate argument for evolution denial except religious vote pandering. The legitimate political argument over climate change ought to be over solutions and approaches, not endless nitpicking over evolving data sets and climate models and cynical hairsplitting.
Likewise women’s health and reproductive health. If, like evolution denial, you take the religious vote pandering out of the equation, it’s not clear to me why any conservative worthy of the name would consider government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship a worthy political goal. I grant that there is a principled stance in opposition to abortion, but there are far more rational approaches to dealing with that problem than the endlessly self-contradictory contortions of the American right on contraception, sex education and reproductive rights. Again, increased government intrusion into private life doesn’t strike me as a worthy political goal for anyone of a genuinely conservative bent.
Setting those issues aside, which shouldn’t really be conservative shibboleths anyway, it would be reasonable of me to favor a small government approach comprised of fiscal prudence and a careful fostering of opportunity through the classic (or at least stereotypical) American values of hard work and self-reliance. And in truth, I couldn’t argue much with that ideal. The devil, of course, is in the details. What constitutes “small” government? What kind of fiscal policy is “prudent”? How best do we foster opportunity?
If those were the arguments we were having in American electoral politics, I might be voting quite differently. Then again, I might not. What I am never, ever voting for is Bible-based hatred, knowingly distorted educational policies, discrimination again women and LGBTQ people and people of color, deliberate distortions of science and policy to protect entrenched business interests, the further restriction of class mobility and upward concentration of wealth, and the politics of fear and paranoia — all things that Brand Republican has worked very hard to proudly stand for during my entire voting life.
So, well, here’s me not being politically conservative as the conservative movement in America has defined itself in this era. I’m not interested in generating more angry white guys. That strategy is a political dead end and a social disaster that poisons the wells of this country for everyone regardless of their political affiliation or gender or ethnicity.
But culturally? I think the real issue is that William F. Buckley was flat wrong. History moves whether we wish it to or not. Times change regardless of our fears. The old days were never as good as we like to pretend, and today is never as bad as it seems. The Myth of the Golden Age is older than the golden age itself. Even Cicero said, “Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.”
Change is inevitable.
The proper response to the change of history isn’t to stand athwart it yelling “Stop!” The proper response is to grab the reins and direct progress as best we can. To change, to move forward, is both inevitable and desirable, at least as our civilization is constituted today. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality at its deepest level, and to deny oneself the opportunity to help guide that future.
I cannot be a cultural conservative, because I believe too firmly in tomorrow, and not enough in yesterday. The nature of change makes no other response rational. Conservatism is a fear response to change, a way of saying, “things cannot possibly be better than they were”. Me, I’m wired for hope that things can always get better.
As a culture, as a society, as a nation, we shouldn’t be arguing about whether tomorrow is coming. We should be arguing about where it is going.
Related Posts
Posted: 6:41 am Thu November 15 2012 |
Comments
« [photos] Your Thursday moment of zen | [links] Link salad is a cat that really was gone »

Excellent piece (& I completely agree) by @Jay_Lake [personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative – http://t.co/TKfnZQRJ #tcot
Hey @lauriedtmann @jay_lake if you voted for #obama YOU also own the current mess & coming fiscal disaster. Shameful jobless #
@Crunched4time @jay_lake We’re recovering from the 8 year financial disaster that was Bush – a Republican the last time I looked. #tcot
@lauriedtmann @jay_lake you bought the lie Obama can fix it – but it is getting worse by the day. seen unemployment numbers or stock market?
@Crunched4time @jay_lake He’ll sure fix it better than Bush/Cheney did!
[personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative – http://t.co/LDBnwvMI Me, too!
Jay, this is one of the most well-argued, lyrical essays on the subject I’ve yet to read. I’m thankful that like-minded folks are not in the minority, or hope would dissolve.
This is also why I’m always stunned and shocked that there are so many conservative science fiction authors. Because by definition conservatives hate the future and SF is all about the future.
[personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative http://t.co/IaPxK6yt (via @jay_lake)
Jay Lake: [personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative http://t.co/rskdAeB3
Couldn’t agree more. We do need some conservatives around, to stand in the back of the room and say, “Can we afford this?” or “Is this a proper function of government?”, but they shouldn’t be running things.
Jay Lake: [personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative: Conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, w… http://t.co/sybGIY6E
[personal|politics] Why I am not a conservative: Conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, when no one… http://t.co/cuVDnNsa
Conservatives are happier with tradition than change, and assume that people have already figured out how to do everything right. Liberals assume that there’s usually a better way to do things and are interested in trying them. History is on the side of liberals.
In conservative’s ideal world, children obey their parents, and nobody is writing a book.
(The two are actually sometimes related. Growing up, I was frequently the despair of my mother for spending so much time reading, rather than being normal. And while she’s said she’s proud that I’ve had some of my writing published, I’ve never seen a sign that she’s -read- any of the copies I’ve sent her.)
Bruce
In my house spending most of your time reading was normal. I’m sorry that your mother hasn’t read your books, but I’m glad you’ve written them…
Anti-intellectualism strikes me as particular to the US version of conservatism, because conservatives in other countries are often very well educated and also favour education and literacy.
(1) The past was a golden age if, and only if, your ancestors were the ones with the gold. That’s merely a necessary condition, not a sufficient one… but it explains an awful lot about how the nonreligious portion of the conservative movement in this country consists almost entirely of either those who have inherited privilege or those who want their children to inherit privilege.
(2) Jay’s idea of an acceptable conservative is Arnold Vinick. There’s nothing wrong with that… but it particularly resonates with Jim Hines’s musing on political campaigns as storytelling… and especially when one looks closely at the kinds of people around Vinick.
I agree with your analysis, and I think it is true of the Republican party, but not necessarily true of its membership. I do have these kinds of debates with conservative friends, but it doesn’t sound as if conservatives within the party have these debates with one another. Even leading up to the primaries, candidates seem to bend over backwards to prove that they have the ‘purest’ form of whatever insane anti-intellectual, homophobic, misogynic, racist ideologies they use to distract people from their failed fiscal policies.