In this insightful piece, Brooks asserts that conservatism
has split into two camps: Economic conservatism, which champions unfettered
markets and abhors government intervention, and traditional conservatism, which aimed to preserve the ethics and traditions that "would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage."
Today’s conservatives, as Brooks laments, are purely economic.
They only appeal to "people as potential business owners, but not as parents,
neighbors and citizens."
What’s interesting to me is his definition of social
conservatism, and, surprisingly, how much I agree with it.
Social conservatives, in Brooks words, aren’t religious
zealots or anti-abortion or gay marriage. They just want people to continue the ethics and traditions that have flourished for generations.
Social conservatism isn't odds with Progressivism at all; in fact it's, perhaps paradoxically, just a milder version of it. Since
“the individual is foolish but the species is wise", reform should happen
“steadily but consistently”.
Most profoundly, for me, It holds that “life is best organized as a series of daring ventures from a secure base."
Social conservatism -- where families
are intact, self-discipline is the rule, children are secure and government
provides a subtle hand – is the secure base.
***
After reading Freedom by Jonathan Franzen, where the characters drown in their depravity, succumbing to their every desire and whim; where they don't stand by any principles or ideologies; reading this piece is refreshing.
The social conservatism Brooks outlines (a milder, prudent, version of progressivism), which roots itself strongly in the power of traditions, communities, as well as the self-discipline of the individual -- is looking evermore attractive.
The social conservatism Brooks outlines (a milder, prudent, version of progressivism), which roots itself strongly in the power of traditions, communities, as well as the self-discipline of the individual -- is looking evermore attractive.
1 comment:
I'm not myself conservatively inclined, but what I like best about this idea is the "social" part. I like that Brooks is at pains to emphasize the importance of social dimensions of life outside the market - including family, religious groups, secular associations, and so on. I think it's really corrosive and dangerous when the logic of the market invades every aspect of life. And even though I think social and economic conservatism are not always neatly separable and that some things that typically fall under the umbrella of social conservatism - e.g., a strong emphasis on heteronormativity - are pretty damaging, I would see a shift in emphasis away from economic to social conservatism in the Republican Party/US conservative movement a positive development for the US, relatively speaking.
Post a Comment