You’e not a conservative if …

So much has been written, and spoken, on what makes for conservatism, that we are all hopelessly dogpaddling in a swamp of contradictory ambiguities.

“Conservatism” or “conservative” are terms used by everybody, but meant clearly by almost nobody. Usually, the word means something fuzzily right of center. Russell Kirk did a nice job in attempting a positive definition in his worthwhile book, The Conservative Mind, but even he came to grief when he had to deal with tough nuts like GK (Chesterton) and his buddy Hillaire (an odd couple melded by a Shavian pejorative, “Chesterbelloc”).

They had the temerity to rail, while railing against the Fabians, about usury – surely a Brahmin holy cow that waddles, festooned and feted, in the marketplace. What’s more, they promoted something as deeply disturbing as “distributism.” Even the sound of the word inflicts spiritual agonies on any right-thinking Republican.

Kirk choked on calling Chesterton and Belloc “conservative,” yet their conservatism is unquestioned by Kirk’s counterparts on the other side. Counter-inhibitional anti-western egalitarian hyper-materialistic de-mythologizing tenure-lusting mummers (i.e., the New Human) positively hate GK, with one of their few cogent thought-processes they still possess (they would hate Belloc too, but he has passed, as so much has, out of their ADD span).

The Republican Party has done more than any other to destroy the good offices of the word. The GOP has managed to plop in a black pot, for a gloppy stew besmirched with a secret sorrow, the following ingredients of “Conservative Soup”:

• No new taxes.
• Less regulations for business.
• More opportunities for defense contractors.
• No interference with the marketplace, but donations are welcome.
• God-status for successful corporations.
• Pro-life and pro-church statements to keep poor Republicans happy, for now.

Kirk went out of his way to emphasize the tradition-preserving agenda of Conservatism, and its equally important task of strengthening the sociological function of the inhibition of destructive instincts (i.e., Freud’s understandings of sex and aggression).

But where, O Kirk, is the cultural preservation in today’s Republican scheme? Why is Leo Strauss paid more attention, in Cheney’s circles, than T. S. Eliot?

Yes, yes, yes -- the Democrats are just as transgressive, to be sure. Distributists and Christian social workers are just as disconsolate with the burros as Christian Conservatives should be with the olifants.

So, disappointed by Kirk, and in the absence of a decent positive declaration, I thought I might pitch a list of negative declamations. I’m taking the easy road here, because it’s always abler to know what you aren’t than to know what you are.

You’re NOT a conservative if …

… you think that you have a right to be happy, or to pursue happiness. Happiness is a pleasantry, but to make it a “right”? To objectify it as a “pursuit” or a “goal”? Are you not of greater worth than these?

… you believe that  church is what you choose, or that you can change Sunday mornings (or Saturday nights) like channels on the remote.

… you hope that the poor will be cared for by the marketplace, or the state. Gee whiz, if you don’t care for the poor at all, or if you think that the poor are poor because it’s their fault and it’s no skin of your nose if they are (shrug, Atlas), you’re not just not conservative, you’re kind of a, lessee, a monster.

… you equate stewardship of the land with Greenpeace eco-warriorism, or dismiss it as an automatic ungodly coalition with Al Gore. Remember, my Patriarch is the Green Patriarch well-named, and he’s more conservative than any Republican, Russophile, or protestant monk at Esphigmenou.

… you confuse conservatism with libertarianism. It’s high time that Christian politics shake itself from its bribed and feted slumber (a doldrum banquet was put on at the Ritz for us fundy bumpkins, to impress and suppress), as for decades we were told that there is a Christian “right” to unhindered profiteering, community-busting agribusiness and gun-toting. There isn’t. Recreational drugs should be illegal. So should automatic weapons. So should executive salaries that are calculated in multiples of their employees’ by the second power.

… you replace creeds with consensus statements, hymns with choruses, sanctuaries with multi-purpose rooms, sinners with seekers, the Trinity with a Higher Power, beatitude with "be happy attitude." Awful, just downright offal.

… you give the power to declare war to the Executive. Which has been done.

... you think that suburbs, malls, Hamburger Helper, WalMart, and movies like "Talladega Nights" are natural.

… you prefer the rights of capital over the customs of clan and land. If you do, then you’re a capitalist, not a conservative. The two, I’m sorry to say, are not the same.

… your worldview has been determined by your latest neo-quasi-Christian therapy, and you understand and identify yourself by the advertisements of whatever sexy movement you’re paying dues to. Neocon, e.g. Emergent, e.g.

… you don’t need to be saved by Christ crucified anymore.

Now, if you are any of these, you could be many things, and I don’t deny it. You could even be Christian, for that matter. You could be, and probably are, much nicer than I. You could be a soccer mom, a Nascar dad, a member of a NCC commission on bioethics or a multicultural specialist. I could probably like you, even though you probably wouldn’t like me.

Though a conservative you would not, could not, be.

Comments

[Christopher McAvoy]

I have thus far voted only for democrats. Though I am far from satisfied with them, I am unable to vote for most republicans as they seem to me to be more hypocritical and manipulative. I find democrats more humble. Though they both love Israel far too much, while my Church in Tyre, Lebanon is bombed with US missiles :(

[Charles]

Oh, by the by Father, thanks for your kind reply to my silly little rant on the Crusades a while back. Pax.

I hope your Lent is going well.

[Charles]

Chesterbelloc..

I've always thought it ought to be written "the Bellocteron" or something - which, while not as euphonious, would be more apt, as Belloc is in everyway more interesting & substantial than Chesterton, who's so arch and fey he's impossible to read without going into spasms. Belloc was catalyst to GK's conversion; and had far more influence on GK, than the reverse.

And I would far rather march and sail with Hilaire, and write like him, than GK, anyday, anyway.

Shaw was a twit, as are most we (postwhatever, blah blah) moderns. Hardly anyone reads the Servile State, Path to Rome, the Great Heresies .. further evidence, and fruit of our decadence.

And as for rights to happiness, all I can do is refer you to Thomas Aquinas- He says it's the whole point of being a Christian. I mean, the Vision is called Beatific, after all. And ascesis, sanctification, is conducive to happiness this side of the veil, as well, as my own experience attests.

I should quote in support, but am far too lazy to drag the Summa down and sed contra your toocan, so just take my word for it.

To be Christian is to be happy, even when suffering.

I'm sure S. Gregory Palamas would have none such sophisistic, papistical nonsense. Ah well. I only report the scholastic twaddle for the record.