“Change? Why do we need change? Aren’t things bad enough”
Lord Salsibury may never never have really said these words that are often attributed to him, but as a staunch conservative Prime Minister at the turn of the 19th century, he certainly could have. Certainly he agreed with the overall sentiment, a sentiment which nicely captures, in. nutshell, conservative political thought from its origins in the work of Edmund Burke up until the last 20 or so year (and especially the last 8). For those of of us on the left, they present a dreary, pessemistic and. myopic view of human history and the possibility of progress. But, while we may disagree, they do at least present an actual world view, a philosophy of respect for tradition and suspicion of innovation. But at least it is *a* world view, a coherent if misguided approach to public policy. It is also not a *stupid* view. Smart people, perhaps not Salisbury but Edmund Burke have argued for it not by appeal to rage, fear, or wanton irrational prejudice. Burke had actual reasons. And if we reflect on the contrast between the ideals of the French Revolution and the resulting Terror, we may even say that sometimes, the conservative position turns out to be correct. ( I think the long term effects of the French Revolution were overall positive, really fundamental in overcoming aniquated feudal practices in Europe. But you would have to be quite the serious Jacobin to think this somehow provides morally sufficient justification for the Terror.
Indeed there is a grain of conservatism even in the mind of the John Stuart Mill, who also famously quipped “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative. While the Utilitarianism Mill championed was and still is a great force for positive he also recognized that while mindlessly following tradition is, well, just plain dumb, respect for traditional moral rules that have “stood the test of time” is required if we are not to find ourselves either paralyzed by constantly considering the good and bad consequences of every individual choice we make, or making serious moral mistakes because the sad truth is that we are not necessarily that good at calculating consequences and it is easy for self-interest, prejudice, or just faulty reasoning to lead to serous errors in judgment. Except for unusual cases, we should not lie, not because honesty has some kind of magic property, but because the history of the human race has shown that more often that not, lying, even when we think we have it. figured out and believe it leads to the greater good, just gets us and/or other people in trouble.
The point of all this is that traditional conservative, so conceived is dead as a political force in the United States. Our esteemed Republican politicians do not see their role as a check on what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be ill conceived or dangerous innovation. Rather quite the opposite! though the ‘innovations” proposed are are not new radical ideas, but rather, and I am using this term quite literally, reactionary change aiming to turn back the clock. It is as if Edmund Burke did not just oppose reforming Parliament, but advocated for its abolition in favor of an absolute monarchy.
In my lifetime the change is striking. You know, there was a time when Republican politicians, with notable exceptions (looking at you Jesse Helms), recognized the success of the civil rights act, even if they, like Barry Goldwater, opposed it initially. The same could be said for women’s rights. The Republican Platform endorsed the ERA before Phylis schaffley got into the mix, not because they saw it as great radical change, but because it was thought to codify what was then thought to be. just a common sense codification and expansion of generally accepted norms (women, are people). , pre-reagan, pre-religious right, To be sure only a few (Rand Paul for instance) will explicity voice their opposition but the virulent and open or thinly veiled racism and sexism racist rhetoric.
“Kamila Harris is married. Why isn’t her last name Emhoff?’—Laura Loomer. I knew she was crazy, but I had to double check just now to. make sure I was not misremembering that.
There was a time that I thought George W. Bush was the second worst president (the worst, maybe even still, was Andrew. Johnson whose only redeeming quality was that he was a unioinist and that he reluctantly came to accept the 13th amendment—he opposed the 14th and 15th)
It is sad that there are very few real conservatives left, even for a person like me who is best identified politically as socialist lite (AOC, Bernie). Even in the usual case in which the. conservative opposition to change is wrong, its good for us progressives to hear a genuine conservative critique. Who else is there to keep us honest? Yeah I can hang out with my leftist buddies and say “Hell yes, let’s nationalize the banks! Knowing what banks are like, it is easy to come up with arguments for doing this, but at least with respect to this issue, conservatives have a point “do you really want the banks to be used as. political footballs of this or that random politician?” Not saying this decides the issue, but its an important and genuinely conservative consideration to keep in mind.
I’m rambling a bit, but I have to make one more point: Today’s “conservatives” are not even really reactionaries, if being a reactionary involves actually supporting your view with reasons, however strange or outrageous. What we have instead—just look at a Trump Rally—is appeal to raw irrational emotion, to fear, to rage,. When successful Trump does not persaude, he whips his audience into a fury. No not even reactionary. Much closer to fascism.
