RSS
What’s the Difference Between Me and You?
Dr. Jack Kerwick posted a poorly reasoned piece on the Intellectual Conservative web site concerning the difference between, well, him and me. He being the “Classical Conservative” (i.e. paleo-conservative) I representing the “Neo-Conservative” camp. Dr. Kerwick begins his discussion by comparing a utilitarian’s opposition to abortion to that of natural law theorist’s. Mr. Kerwick writes:
“The utilitarian opposes abortion because he believes that the general practice of abortion will in the long run cause more pain than pleasure for the greatest number of people. In stark contrast, the Roman Catholic natural law theorist opposes it because he thinks that abortion is inherently wrong, irrespective of consequences.” So far so good, no objections here. He goes on to state how classical and neo-conservative philosophies differ in much the same way. Kerwick then compares the classical and neocon perspectives in three areas; reason, morality and the State.
Reason/Knowledge
Kerwick states “Neo-conservatives endorse a trans-cultural, trans-historical conception of reason. Reason…is ultimately capable of rising over and against [tradition].” Classical conservatives on the other hand, according to Kerwick, believe “…reason is the product of…tradition. [Reason*] consists not [of]…’self-evident truths’ but in unarticulated feelings, habits and customs….”
In other words, neocons view Reason as existing in nature and paleos view it as existing in the way each specific society conducts its affairs for an undetermined amount of time. Put another way, neocons believe in Natural Law as where paleos believe in a “what feels right is right” philosophy. I am sure a few Paleos may have an objection or two to Mr. Kerwick’s supposition.
Morality
According to Kerwick, neocons believe “morality is comprised essentially of ‘principles’…of ‘natural’ or ‘human right[s]‘. Uniquely accessible to all rational beings”
Again, I do not disagree but I do believe he has pegged most paleos incorrectly. To classical conservatives, Kerwick says, natural rights to not exist. Rather, “morality is local, tradition constituted.” Kerwick continues “Whatever principles there may be, they are the offspring of a historically specific, shared way of life….” Is he truly arguing that paleos are moral relativists? I am sure some paleos are, but as whole, I think not.
The State
Dr. Kerwick’s final comparison focuses on the nature of a State. Neocons, he says, believe the State “exists to for the sake of bringing to fruition some premeditated ideal or end, like Freedom, Equality, Virtue, Security, Prosperity or Democracy.” I disagree. I, and I think most if not all neocons (and probably paleos too) would agree, that the State exists to perpetuate and safe guard Freedom, Equality, Virtue, Security, Prosperity or Democracy, not to create it or bring it to “fruition.”
Kerwick states that classical conservatives, in comparison, “reject any notion that there is a single supreme end or hierarchy of ends toward which it is government’s responsibility to direct society. Government is important, and it is important that government should be strong, but its functions are few and its chief function is to preserve order.” Really, no “supreme end?” No final arbiter of disputes or conflicts? Then how can a government “be strong” or “preserve order?” Strength for what and to what end? And what “order” is being preserved? The democratic one? The freedom of each citizen? Equality? What?
May 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I’m not sure you are fairly characterizing Dr. Kerwick’s argument, especially with respect to classical conservatives.
I think what he is saying is that classical conservatives recognize that people are a product of their culture. That by living within a particular culture, certain preferences, attitudes and modes of thinking and reasoning emerge. Classical conservatives see these cultural influences and, instead of rebelling against them, trying to progress from them or, as neo-cons are wont to do, universalize them, they embrace them and live within them, realizing that it is these very cultural conditions which have been proven to work in this country, with this people.
It seems to me that he is right that there is a fundamentally different approach that neoconservatives take with respect to the role of the State. It is easy to discern when one hears GWB intone about “bringing Freedom and Democracy” to the Middle East. The point is that the Middle East may neither be culturally prepared for Freedom, nor certainly for Democracy.
To fetishize American love of these concepts (which stems from our long experience of them) and to turn them into some universal object toward which every nation should be shepherded, even against their will, is to ignore the cultural conditions of other countries. We are trying to force a square peg into a round hole and are becoming increasingly frustrated that the peg just doesn’t seem to want to seat properly. As a result, we search now for a bigger hammer with which to drive the peg home.
The more intelligent approach might be to select a different peg.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Dr. Jack Kerwick writes : “Classical conservatives value the individuality and diversity of life forms that have become our way of life in the West, and so they emphatically reject any notion that there is a single supreme end or hierarchy of ends toward which it is government’s responsibility to direct society. Government is important, and it is important that government should be strong, but its functions are few and its chief function is to preserve order.”
If that is classical conservatism, than I detest it. The error he appears to make is in looking to the modern state with its corrupt final end, and thinking that the opposite is for the state to have no final end at all. In fact, he is nothing more than another strain of modernism.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
ltg,
What is the end toward which your government should be directing you?
May 10th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Is it heaven?
May 11th, 2008 at 12:03 am
“The more intelligent approach might be to select a different peg.”
In accepting an Iraqi constitution that enshrines Sharia (though a very particularly liberal form of Sharia) in Iraqi law forever, didn’t we show our willingness to select a different peg for the “Freedom and Democracy” hole?
(Wait a . . . “Freedom and Democracy Hole”? What a great nickname for the Iraqi government!)
wac
May 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Mr. WAC,
I heartily disagree that it the government’s role to direct its populace toward heaven. That would necessarily entail the government selecting an approach to obtaining heaven and it would almost certainly not be the approach that I would select.
Should the government mandate compulsory church attendance? Do they get to choose the church? Should there be a national religion?
I’d rather they left that to individuals to work out on their own in their churches with their pastors.
Besides, as we know, generally when the government takes over a function, that function is executed badly. I’d rather we didn’t expect the government to take charge of the well-being of our souls. Who knows where we’d end up.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Karl-
Concerning your first comment, it appears you somewhat agree with Dr. Kerwick that reason and morals are relative. Is this so? If not then maybe you are arguing that the priniciples of freedom and equality under the law not “natural” to all mankind?
I agree with Dr. Kerwick in his analysis, at least this neocon is a believer in Natural Law, which is knowable by all men and IS universal as well. I disagree that we neocons are a product of liberal enlightenment. I also disagree that paleos are generally bound by a belief in moral relativism.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Mr Wac writes : “Is it heaven?”
Yes. The final end of society is the final end of man.
_______________
Karl writes : “I heartily disagree that it the government’s role to direct its populace toward heaven. . . I’d rather they left that to individuals to work out on their own in their churches with their pastors.”
“Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” Matt 12:25 A society which does not know its own end and how to obtain that end is a divided society.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Specifically how does a government go about shepherding its flock to the kingdom of heaven?
May 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Karl writes : “Specifically how does a government go about shepherding its flock to the kingdom of heaven?”
Through its laws. As I have written before, every law aims at making men good. Because even the tyrant aims at making men good, not for the citizen’s own sake and according to the true good, but good according to the tyrants specific corrupt good.
And likewise does every state and society aim at some good. But that society which aims at man’s final good aims most accurately because it aims at that good which all other goods are properly directed towards.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Bill,
I don’t see how you conclude that I have taken the position that reason or morals are relative. Acknowledging that two people from different cultures will reason differently says nothing about morals and says little about whether their reasoning is equivalent inasmuch as the goal of reasoning is to arrive at the truth.
For instance, must every person on earth live under the same economic system, the same type of government, and the same enumeration of rights? If so, do you advocate a global government?
May 11th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
ltg,
Nice try. I asked for specifics, you gave: “through its laws.” What laws in particular could a government institute that would ensure salvation?
May 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
ltg,
Let’s take a specific. Do you think the government should mandate weekly attendance at church? That certainly will conduce to man’s final good, so according to your latest comment, you should have no objection to such a law.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Karl writes : “Do you think the government should mandate weekly attendance at church?”
Church??? Heretics “attend church”. So no. Nor can the law cannot force a man to incorporate himself into the Faith, which would also include going to mass.
Your better question was : “Should there be a national religion?”
Yes, if it is Catholic. And should all laws conform to Catholicism? Yes.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Karl-
How do I come to the conclusion that you believe morals and/or reason are relative? First, I asked because I don’t think you really believe that. The reason I asked is because of your “fetishize the American concepts of freedom and democracy” comment.
I do believe freedom from unreasonable constraints and a democratic government are morally right. All men have a duty to work towards these goals. Yes, I believe all governments ought to be democratic. And yes, I believe all of Humankind ought to live under a capitalism based system. No, I do not think that that requires a “global government.” The United States, Great Britain, Canada, you name it, we all live under these basic and knowable moral systems. Yet we manage to exist without a global government.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I’m with Karl. The point of the state is not to lead men to heaven, because the state (in almost all cases nowadays-put your hand down, Malta!) is not suited for the task. LTG is reading too much into Aquinas- The point of the law is to encourage virtue and restrain vice through proscriptions, regulations, and punishments.
Furthermore, even the Church is against the confessional state nowadays, recognizing, as it has, that it is impossible for a plurality to be governed as a “Catholic” state. That’s why they renegotiated the Italian Concordant (at the request of the Vatican!) back in the 1980’s- to repudiate the Italian Government’s recognition of the Catholic religion as the State religion.
Bill, I believe that all governments should be self-determined, though not necessarily democratic. I detest dictatorship, and I wouldn’t dream of living under a monarch. But if my countrymen decided they want a monarch, well, long live the king, I s’pose. When it comes to Iraq, we got the invalid, demonic, baby-eating despot out of power, and we gave that nation the opporunity for self-determination. If they let another baby-eater waltz in and take over, I guess that’s just the way it goes, huh?
wac
May 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Thanks be to God for Mr. WAC., I thought I was on my own in this argument. And, inexplicably. The fact that I oppose a despotic theocracy should not be remarkable. Yet, somehow, that has been labeled as moral relativism and liberalism.
We were very nearly a monarchy ourselves (The United States). That ought to give pause to the idea that only one form of government is appropriate for all peoples. What would you have been arguing if the United States had been ruled by a monarchy? It was a close thing.
Mr. WAC says: “When it comes to Iraq, we got the invalid, demonic, baby-eating despot out of power, and we gave that nation the opporunity for self-determination. If they let another baby-eater waltz in and take over, I guess that’s just the way it goes, huh?”
I couldn’t agree more.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Mr. Wac writes : “the state is not to lead men to heaven, because the state (in almost all cases nowadays-put your hand down, Malta!) is not suited for the task”
Not being suited is a defect, just as a blind man is not suited guide men as a sea captain because of that defect. In both instances the defect is a barrier to action which is proper to the art intended.
An art exemplified by King David.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
So, when God sends his prophet to anoint the next President, everything will be fine.
The art intended, as I said, is to promote virtue and restrain vice. Period. If the state does this, it does its job.
You can’t show dogmatic authority that the confessional state is the ideal, nor can you prove that the secular state is inherently defective.
And, if your political philosophy is only brought current though to the 13th century, I suggest you take some time to read something other than St. Thomas on the subject. Much light has been thrown on the subject in the ensuing 800 years, including nuanced, orthodox, Catholic thought. You might even enjoy it.