Strange ideas about conservatism

I’ve seen this before from the Z Man and also from DforDoom and it’s quite puzzling.  it attacks conservatism.

I wrote under it:

He has a very strange idea of conservatism, so does Vox Day – must be an American thing. Think he’s referring here to the McCains, Romneys, Ryans and to the good ole boys.

When I think conservative, I think of Z Man and Vox, of you, of a rollicking, dissident, satirical type.

Which comes back to what a word conveys, which is what the post on labels was about.

Chuckles added:

Or of people who claim to be conservative, whatever that means. Or if you prefer, academic ‘conservatives’ versus real world ones?

Bruce Charlton wrote:

Surely the problem is that there is no such thing as non-religious conservatism – and never has been, nothing coherent – and that any genuine conservatism is subsumed by the religion of which it is a part? 

Well I would have thought so.

5 comments for “Strange ideas about conservatism

  1. June 21, 2018 at 08:07

    Conservatism is a term that is almost entirely meaningless. Practically all those who claim to be conservatives are in fact liberals. This includes the whole of the modern British Conservative Party. There’s not a conservative among them.

    If you believe in individualism and freedom then you’re a liberal. Those are the defining characteristics of liberalism.

    • June 21, 2018 at 08:42

      You prefer Big Brother and no freedoms then?

      • June 21, 2018 at 10:30

        You prefer Big Brother and no freedoms then?

        What I’d prefer would be a more traditionalist society in which people are genuinely part of a community, not just cogs in a capitalist or a communist machine or the alienated atomised and desperate lonely individuals that liberalism creates.

        I’m not sure how much chance there is of realising such a dream.

        The trouble with freedom is that not enough freedom is a bad thing, and too much freedom is a bad thing as well. What we have today is the worst of all possible worlds – no political freedom at all but unlimited freedom to indulge ourselves in mindless hedonism. We also have unlimited freedom to consume. I don’t think those freedoms are healthy.

        You need some degree of authority. If you give people freedom they will use it to destroy themselves. That’s where things like religion are useful, making it possible to impose acceptable limits on freedom.

        In an ideal world I’d prefer something closer to feudalism. Interlocking webs of responsibilities and duties and rights.

      • June 21, 2018 at 10:48

        There is another problem. We live in a post-religious society. In a religious society you can rely on religion, to a certain extent at least, to keep people’s behaviour within acceptable limits. But once religion is gone you cannot allow freedom. You will end up with the kind of depravity and chaos that we have today. So a post-religious society has to be more authoritarian.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.