Tuesday, August 29, 2006
What Kind Of Conservative Are You?
Douglas Kern had a piece at TCS Daily about a week ago that looked at the human capacity for good and evil and where America stands on Iraq. It's an interesting piece, and I agree almost totally with his political conclusions, but it also reminds me that if I were not a religous person, I would be a liberal.
Reflecting upon it, it strikes me that the ultimate division between left and right lies in whether a person believes man to be basically evil, or basically good. Conservatives believe the former and liberals the later.
Conservatives can then be dividied into those of faith, and those not of faith - this division is vidily illustrated in the recent discussion surrounding Heather MacDonald's piece of a week or two ago. This is the best overview of the discussion I have found.
Kern appears to be of the "not of faith" variety of conservative and I am struck by the extreme cynicism and lack of hope evident in his piece. He centers his discussion on W's contention that all people hope for freedom, which I explain to set up these quotes I present to illustrate the hopelessness:
But I am struck by an interesting problem with his analysis. As he admits - from whence does the saint arise and how did that longing for freedom take shape if we are indeed so hopeless? Now that these things are here, the standard is visible, but where did it first come from?
The answer is, of course, religion. Mr. Kern says:
So what really is the lesson of history? That a healthy and free society requires hope, and that religion is the best source of such hope. Without religion, I am left with the near fatalistic hopelessness of Mr. Kern, finding hope only in the unexplainable rising of "saints" - or I can be a liberal and place my hope in man himself - which Mr. Kern and I, and history, agree is no hope at all.
Related Tags: religion, politics, society, hope, history
Reflecting upon it, it strikes me that the ultimate division between left and right lies in whether a person believes man to be basically evil, or basically good. Conservatives believe the former and liberals the later.
Conservatives can then be dividied into those of faith, and those not of faith - this division is vidily illustrated in the recent discussion surrounding Heather MacDonald's piece of a week or two ago. This is the best overview of the discussion I have found.
Kern appears to be of the "not of faith" variety of conservative and I am struck by the extreme cynicism and lack of hope evident in his piece. He centers his discussion on W's contention that all people hope for freedom, which I explain to set up these quotes I present to illustrate the hopelessness:
I wish I could disagree with Bush's quote. As a conservative, I hate everything about it. The quote goads me to lash out with cynicism and sarcasm -- or, better still, with the kind of pseudo-sophisticated nihilism that sometimes passes for worldly conservative insight.Kern then goes on to find "hope" or at least credibility for Bush's contention in the facts of history itself, that saints do, in fact, arise, and that freedom has, in fact, prevailed.
[...]
Nothing explains saints. Nothing acts upon them to make them good. What they are, they choose to be -- freely, happily, without hope of reward, without coercion. Saints become saints through the exercise of free choice, which all men possess.
But I am struck by an interesting problem with his analysis. As he admits - from whence does the saint arise and how did that longing for freedom take shape if we are indeed so hopeless? Now that these things are here, the standard is visible, but where did it first come from?
The answer is, of course, religion. Mr. Kern says:
We don't know what makes saints. But we do know that some circumstances are more likely to produce saintliness than others. We know that strong families and intermediary institutions are conducive to decency and dignity. We know that small governments have limited ability to wreak havoc. We know that democracy tends to encourage accountability and transparency. We know that love begets love and hate begets hate.Religion is that which assigns value to those circumstances that are more likely to produce saintliness. The same history that Mr. Kern appeals to to create any sense of hope also tells us that government cannot coerce or create these conditions - only religion seems to ever have been able to do that, and specifically, only Christian religion.
So what really is the lesson of history? That a healthy and free society requires hope, and that religion is the best source of such hope. Without religion, I am left with the near fatalistic hopelessness of Mr. Kern, finding hope only in the unexplainable rising of "saints" - or I can be a liberal and place my hope in man himself - which Mr. Kern and I, and history, agree is no hope at all.
Related Tags: religion, politics, society, hope, history
