HikerGuy83
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Messages
- 7,279
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I want to extend a point I made earlier in the discussion, quoting Hayek:
I believe this is exactly where "conservatism" should be, in principle. I think most of us agree that Donald Trump is not a "conservative" in any traditional sense.
Conservatism, in my estimation and epistemology, as in Hayek's, is supposed to be a moderating force. It, philosophically, is about experience over theory, the known versus the not-yet-known. But, where it has gone off the rails for some time is, ignoring what is known.
For example, we know that racism exists, and that much of the economic and physical infrastructure of our nation was conceived and constructed during juridically-sanctioned discrimination. Equality being a foundational aspiration of our nation should, to a traditionalist, militate against maintenance of such unequal structures. Yet, conservatism, in practice, seeks to keep them intact. As another example, we lived through the fascism that destroyed much of the world in the middle of the last century. We watched as it grew, so we know the process by which it develops and the signs of its development. Yet, modern conservatives revel in the authoritarian tendencies from which it springs, in contravention of "law and order", and the norms of "liberty" that are traditional. Right wing authoritarianism is anathema to the themes of tradition that conservatism lauds.
How do we reconcile these contradictions?
Again Conservatism, as defined by Hayek, would not have the ability to think about making changes.
I disagree. One of of Kirk's principles (his tenth) is:
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
It is a matter of degree and mutual agreement. Conservatives are not going to support broad and "radical" change. That might not work for some (the left), but it's part of the basic nature of conservatism.
So you could ask if allowing "racism" to exist and killing it by degree's is O.K. ? I would contend that you are not going to change it any faster than that. And if you push to hard to fast you will find opposition for more than a few reasons (and calling conservatives racist is a silly response).