This was posted elsewhere. Classic. It cracks me up, every single time I read it. I lurv the title, "An Examined Life." It is just sooo opposite what he goes on to say: that conservatism is all about faith that the "tried, true, and unexamined is to be preferred" over a reasoned life. !!! I know that this is a classic line of thinking among conservatives, but it still kills me, particularly when their latest axe seems to be an attack on the emotionality of libr00ls. I love the attempt to incorporate social constructionist thought--because he cannot disavow it, in the end--yet tries to rescue for himself and his conservativism that longed for Archimedean point (human nature) from which to declare his values and his alone to be universal, independent of the social after all.
************************************************************************ CONSERVATISM: An Examined Life
First off, I'm a conservative because my parents are. Now, in some ways, this is to be expected. Empirical studies have shown that one of the best predictors of a person's ideology (or party ID) is the ideology of their parents. Many make the mistake of assuming this result means folks are basically blank-slate automotons. Had I been born to a set of liberal parents, surely I would be on this list extolling the benefits of the welfare state, decrying Bush's military policy, and fully supporting affirmative action. Of course, I can't speak to such a possibility, except to say that, as far as it goes, the 'automoton' thesis is quite wrong.
I'm not conservative because of the following thought process: "my parents were conservative, hence I will be conservative" which is the root of the automoton thesis. No. That is the thinking process of a child. But adults cannot rely on such simplistic rationales. Whether what follows amounts to a rationalization to justify the recieved wisdom from my childhood, or the independent examination of beliefs and issues from an adult perspective that has confirmed rather than disconfirmed much of that wisdom, I leave to you. I believe it to be the later.
First, to say that I was a conservative when I was young and I am still a conservative now that I am older is to only brush against the surface of my political beliefs. While this is essentially a true statement, it misses the evolution of beliefs and issue positions over the years that my personal philosophy has endured. Saying that the ship is still a ship having traveled from port to port is to miss the journey: the only truly important function of the ship in the first place. To put it short, I started a conservative, yet knew not why. I remain a conservative, and while it is true that, like Emerson, I may be "the most helpless of mortal men" in explaining these beliefs, I can say that they are examined beliefs. Beliefs I have adopted after much thought and consideration.
Of course, as a conservative, it is not the fact of the examined life that informs my belief structure. Unlike Emerson, I put no particular stock in the fact of the intellectual. Reason, rationality, and the like are all well and good and are useful tools in assessing history, but if I have no particular faith in reasoning per se. IOW, rationality is a limited tool, cognative abilities are no predictor of good ideas, and the tried, true, yet unexmained is to be prefered to the untried, yet esquisitely reasoned every day and twice on Sunday.
But I digress. More on my philosophy of conservatism and its intellectual roots later. Back to my parents. As I said, I am a conservative, in no small part, because of my parents. But it is through example, and not some unreasoned loyalty, that this is so. At the root of my conservatism is a strong belief in morality, universal truths, individualism, a fallen world, and in the power of tradition. These values were not merely communicated to me as a youth, but I have seen them validiated in both my life and in the lives that my parents have led.
A strong sense of morality was a distinct part of my religious training and upbringing. Right and Wrong are not concepts foreign to my tongue or my life. This isn't to say that morality = conservatism, by any means. Morality, afterall, comes in many forms and is socially and culturally constructed. But that construction must have a foundation...and that foundation is the universal truth of the nature of man. A society built on a morality that ignores the nature of mankind is doomed to failure. I believe that American society, as conceived, is a well-founded society and rooted on moral principles that recognize the nature of man.
As such, and to echo Thomas Jefferson, one of the key aspects of my conservatism is my belief in individualism. This is distinct from a faith in the rationality of individuals, which is often described as an aspect of modern liberalism. Individualism, or 'liberty' as the Founders put it, is simply the belief that a man should be his own governor, in most things. That the government which governs best, governs least...as Paine put it. But Paine relied on a much stronger belief in the rational faculties of man than do most conservatives and than do I. It is not that a man is unlikely to go wrong, or through reason is better able to assess his own affairs...though I believe the latter to be true. No, were man particularly poor at governing his own affairs in relation to some distant council, I would still prefer the man. As a matter of right, it is so. But it is not merely a matter of right. Indeed, history has borne out not merely the morality of individualism but its efficency as well.
I have seen this in my own life. The decisions made by my parents, both in the home and in their careers, is a validation of the individualism I believe in. Of course, mistakes were made. And it is only through the objectivity of distance that I can now reflect on these truths. But I have seen individuals conquer obstacles. I have seen individuals make their own destiny. And while that destiny may not be of particular historical note, it is in its lack of historical poignance that it so informs my conservatism. I don't believe my parents to have been distinguished in their triumphs. Their ordinary victories, which I hold in high regard, validates my belief in the capacity of individuals to succeed. Hence I do not look for socially 'structured' inequalities. Failures and successes are not determined. In a society where freedom abounds, both will be evident. Cosmic inequality is beside the point, even where they exist.
Perserverence is perhaps the most important human quality, and it is the capacity of individuals to perservere that puts the vacuousness to those who cry for government corrections. Obstacles are not to be eliminated, nor can they be (much more on that in the philosophical section). It is folly to believe that any human institution is capable of it. No, obstacles must be overcome by individuals. And failure must be met with perserverence. Not excuses. My dad was no more inclined to listen to excuses from me, than I am now interested in hearing them from others. I have had successes. I have had failures. I have overcome obstacles, and some I have not overcome. But, as the Marines put it, it is the individual who can 'adapt and overcome'. And I have no faith, either from my own life or in my analysis of history and philosophy, in the capacity of government to do either.
TO BE CONTINUED
"We're in a fucking stagmire."
--Little Carmine, 'The Sopranos'