The Stupid Party, continued

For the sake of completeness, I'll wrap this up: a word on conservatism.

A person's political opinions are, typically, non-rational. Very few people I know use reams of stastical data to determine whether or not their political persusion should be mostly liberal, populist, libertarian, or some other stripe. Instead, these opinions bubble up from beliefs about what the "the State" or government's role should be in relation to individuals, families and communities. (These beliefs, to dig a bit deeper, are dependent on a person's fundamental view of the world: "What is the world for? Why do people exist? Is there a God, and if so, what is his relationship to human beings?").

Russell Kirk is typically thought of as the founding father of American Conservatism. He defines six primary beliefs conservatives hold that distinguish them from other political persuasions:

1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;

2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;

3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;

4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;

5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and

6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence (from The Conservative Mind)

But Kirk's conservatism seems a little alien to us today, accustomed as we are to a historical development called "Fusionism", which took place in the 1960s. To make a long story short: In the 1960s, both conservatives and libertarians were concerned about the rising tide of liberal, collectivist public policy (The New Deal, The Great Society, Soviet Russia, etc). Seeing the writing on the wall, conservatives and libertarians clasped hands in the Republican Party, opting for a united resistance against the expanding role of government in society.

Today, most who call themselves "conservatives" actually espouse a strange blend of libertarianism and traditional conservatism. One only has to turn on Fox News for a few minutes to catch this intellectual schizophrenia.

Readers may have noticed EC and I frequently (excessively?) citing Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Conservative" blog. Dreher's "Crunchy Conservatism" is, in his own words, a 21st century version of traditional conservatism, in the tradition of Edmund Burke (see pic above), Kirk and Richard Weaver.

Kirk said it is culture, not politics or economics, that determines the course of a society. And the primary rudder of culture is religion and spirituality. The idea that all the material world rests on a spiritual world is foundational to conservatism.

I believe this to be true.

Some people view modern universities, and especially graduate schools, as the breeding ground for liberal/leftist thought. I am actually leaving graduate school, and the state capitol in Denver, consciously conservative in my political persuasion.

One of my greatest concerns about becoming involved in politics was that I would come to hate "the other side." I don't. If anything, I have more respect for the other side than when I first walked up the Capitol steps in January. "The other side" (be they Republicans or Dems of libertarian, populist, or liberal ideology) is often brilliant, articulate, polite and compassionate. Regretably, I believe they are also frequently wrong about questions of public policy.

Legislative government is in many ways like an athletic event. You know your opponent's sole purpose is to defeat you. Frankly, you might not like anyone from the other team at all. But after several hard-fought skirmishes played within established rules, you see your opponent with a new level of respect. Not agreement, but respect.

BC