Conservatism and the Plainly Visible

The political problem for American conservatives in this era seems to me more complex, but at the same time less intractable, than a simple juxtaposition of the visible (or “envisionable”) vs. the unseen.

My mostly-former colleague Dan Scotto develops a thesis on conservatism and “the unseen” that I think may be too coherent, or explain too suspiciously much, to be fully credible.

The debater’s “presumption of the status quo” is the classical conservative presumption, and adherence to it lends justification to the frequently heard claim that authentic conservatism is non- or anti-ideological, or pragmatic and utilitarian rather than idealistic and intellectual, especially in the American tradition: We care less, so the theory goes, whether the results fit any enunciated theory than that we actually prefer them over apparent alternatives. The argument was crucial to Michael Novak’s The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982), one of the best and arguably most influential intellectual cases for American non-intellectualism. Long-time readers at this site may recognize the contradiction or implicit paradox as typical and in multiple senses systematic: As a defense of  Americanism as an anti-ideological ideology, especially during the period of competition with communism, Novak’s argument was that democratic capitalism concretely delivered the goods, whether in the form of victory in war or a very tangibly higher standard of living even for the poor, than real existing alternatives, even if, from certain perspectives, those alternatives might look better “on paper” or “in the abstract.”

Put differently, American conservatism puts as much priority on the very much seen, on the entirely visible, as on any supersensible justifications, and its difficulties have as much to do with the tendency for what we accept, favor, or need to become “hidden in plain sight.”

Not that Dan is simply wrong: His initial statement, for instance, strikes me as quite reasonable, as far as it goes- that is, in describing merely “[o]ne way to think about conservative argumentation.” “When conservatives oppose a progressive policy plan,” he writes, “it is not out of pique or unthinking resistance to change; it is often because, at some level, we believe that the progressive plan is neglecting some invisible—but all too real—danger.” He goes on to list a familiar set of conservative policy stances in relation to particular “invisible evils,” or what we more conventionally call “unintended consequences” – a higher minimum wage that constricts the labor market, health care reform that pre-empts medical advances, bailouts that increase risks, income support that paralyzes the recipient – then provides a conservative’s practical credo:

These unintended consequences, or invisible risks, are best mitigated by acknowledging the importance of limits: limited human knowledge and limited human capacity suggest that we should limit our exercises of political power in these complex domains, choosing instead to work with and improve existing structures that have proven their effectiveness over time.

The rest of his discussion seeks to explain American conservatism’s current political problems on this basis, especially by demonstrating the susceptibility of the Republican Party to takeover by a demagogue who is all about the gaudy show (larger than life and beneath contempt), but I think the treatment inadvertently allows what that credo observes, or glimpses, to fall completely out of view – I mean that last part about “existing structures that have proven their effectiveness over time.”

I agree about much with Dan, and I think I understand his thesis and his development of it – including his most speculative passages concerning the decline in religious belief – but to me the opposite view, that Americans and the American system are based on a very pragmatic acceptance of the visible and material, is just as valid: Americans have accepted our generally but not exclusively inefficient, at times quite embarrassingly and pathetically paralyzed and corrupt, often morally execrable as well as ridiculous and self-defeating governance because one way or another it has not gotten too much in the way of exploitation of America’s materially advantageous position in the world.

Now, the real basis for such success as America has had may remain “unseen.” It may be beyond anyone’s ability to view in its entirety or to explain comprehensively. Similarly, the way that one isolated, seemingly rational and desirable initiative or reform may affect some other, seemingly remote concern may be quite invisible to most or all of us – a problem that returns us to Dan’s initial examples. More generally, the same very material, entirely visible facts may look quite different, depending on distance, viewing angle, lighting, backdrop, and so on. Yet a conservative looking for evidence that America does not need to be made “great again,” because American never stopped being “great,” would not need to look very far. The political problem for American conservatives in this era seems to me more complex, but at the same time less intractable, than a simple juxtaposition of the visible (or “envisionable”) vs. the unseen.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

0 comments on “Conservatism and the Plainly Visible

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Conservatism and the Plainly Visible"
    1. […] you haven’t read it, I recommend this back and forth between Dan Scotto and CK Macleod on […]

    Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



    Noted & Quoted

    TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

    For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

    The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

    Comment →

    Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

    Comment →

    [E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

    Comment →
    CK's WP Plugins


    Extraordinary Comments

    CK's WP Plugins