global warming

[forestwalker]

Conservative Georgetown Univ poli sci professor Patrick Deneen has just published an essay at the Postmodern Conservative blog taking on the nuttiness of the global warming debate. It truly is a must-read.

Heating Up

[MacUser]

An idiot. Seeking to redefine the definition as designed will never work.

Confusion applied with poppycock when it's not even warming at all. Is a bogus attempt to be basically cute.

Sorry I read more than half and gave up. Liberals DENY choice except during Abortion related topics. Conservatives offer choice within common sense and respect.

Btw.. Global Warming OR the New Word, CLIMATE CHANGE is bogus because IT IS NOT WARMING. *sigh*

[forestwalker]

I'm not surprised you were the one to comment. You are the kind of liberal-in-conservative's clothing he's talking about.

[rjjunior]

What's his thesis ('cause I'm too lazy to read...)?

[oletimer]

forestwalker

I'm not surprised you were the one to comment. You are the kind of liberal-in-conservative's clothing he's talking about.

Sick-um (sp) Gerald, he's fair game now. Most likly a throw back to from days of the hippies. You know one of the flower child, a blooming, oh well you do it so much better.

[Tim Elston]

This is the part that I have often thought about:

"[Conservatives'] implicit hostility to nature attacks the deepest source of conservatism’s meaning – the imperative to conserve. It is my hope that a new generation of conservatives – highlighting the root word 'conserve' – will change the dynamics of this debate. By urging a concern for the natural order; by insisting upon governance of our appetites; by inculcating prudence and respect for the natural order; by pointing out the incoherence of both contemporary positions, perhaps we will indeed find a better way to exist in a natural order that we did not ourselves create, upon which we rely for life and livelihood, and of which we are finally and permanently a part."

This non-conservative impulse of current conservatism appears to derive from neo-conservative ideology, which historically emerged from the intellectual liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s. This impulse is apparent in the non-conservative stance that conservatives now take not only on economics, but also on foreign policy, social engineering, and basic moral values.

I may not be as convinced about his analysis of liberalism, because I'm not sure that he is making a proper distinction between rationalism and liberalism. Both liberalism and conservatism have been impacted by rationalism, but neither liberalism nor conservatism is rationalism per se.

Still, though, thanks for sharing a breath of intelligent thought.

[MacUser]

It's extremely hard to have an intellectual debate on an issue that doesn't exist except in the pure form of emotion. This is the inherent root of the problem and thus why all that results from this flippant read is poppycock.

[forestwalker]

It's extremely hard to have an intellectual debate on an issue that doesn't exist except in the pure form of emotion. This is the inherent root of the problem and thus why all that results from this flippant read is poppycock.

Here's a hint: the article ain't really about global warming. It's about why you're not a conservative.

[forestwalker]

This non-conservative impulse of current conservatism appears to derive from neo-conservative ideology, which historically emerged from the intellectual liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s. This impulse is apparent in the non-conservative stance that conservatives now take not only on economics, but also on foreign policy, social engineering, and basic moral values.

Yep. Not sure I'd lay it at the feet of the relatively recent ascendancy of neo-conservativism (more properly named aggressive neo-liberalism), though. A truly conservative political tradition doesn't really exist in the US (as political philosophy at least; it's been the starting point for most of the populace [e.g. the Populist revolt] until recent decades).

As the article suggests, the roots of the current conservative degradation are in the Cold War-era alliance between traditionalist conservatives and liberal/libertarian philosophy. The result was libertarian-inclined power brokers paying lip service to traditionalist issues and traditionalist/conservative thought being deeply undermined and confused by libertarian philosophy.

I may not be as convinced about his analysis of liberalism, because I'm not sure that he is making a proper distinction between rationalism and liberalism. Both liberalism and conservatism have been impacted by rationalism, but neither liberalism nor conservatism is rationalism per se.

It's tough to talk about clearly given liberalism's claim that any rationalism that is not it's own materialistic rationalism is no rationalism at all.

[MacUser]

It's about why you're not a conservative.

I clarified that with him being a cute idiot.

I guess next you are going post an article to some failed fictional writer turned college professor that "gay" marriage is now defined as just a couple of "happy" men?

Beam me up Scotty.

[Tim Elston]

Not sure I'd lay it at the feet of the relatively recent ascendancy of neo-conservativism (more properly named aggressive neo-liberalism), though.

Aggressive neo-liberalism is a good term for it. The movement leaders dissociated from traditional liberalism and infiltrated the right, especially during the Reagan presidency, in response to what they perceived to be the weakness of liberalism to effect ideological aims. From the right they adopted aggressive tactics to counter their previous experience. Another term might be pseudo-conservatism. I'm glad they experienced another round of failure during their hegemony with the Bush 2 presidency. Into Bush's second term they had lost favor, due again to the incompetency of their catalyst, and Bush policy thankfully became more traditional, albeit with residual messes for his successor to clean up, hopefully.

A truly conservative political tradition doesn't really exist in the US (as political philosophy at least; it's been the starting point for most of the populace [e.g. the Populist revolt] until recent decades).

That's a point worth considering. American political philosophy is, by definition, liberal when measured against everything that came before it. Populist conservatism is more religious and nationalistic than, as you say, politically philosophical. Early federalism under Washington and Adams may have been the closest thing to a manifest conservative political philosophy, since it retained shades of monarchy, but the federalism that re-emerged as Republicanism with Lincoln was by then more democratic and thus liberal. Territorial expansion during the nineteenth century never allowed the convenience of political conservatism, and ever since Wilson America has been too involved in foreign interests to be conservative either militarily or politically.

As the article suggests, the roots of the current conservative degradation are in the Cold War-era alliance between traditionalist conservatives and liberal/libertarian philosophy. The result was libertarian-inclined power brokers paying lip service to traditionalist issues and traditionalist/conservative thought being deeply undermined and confused by libertarian philosophy.

That's an interesting thesis. It points up one of the innumerable gaps in my knowlege base. I have never read anything substantial on the history of libertarianism or its historic interplay with conservatism in America.

It's tough to talk about clearly given liberalism's claim that any rationalism that is not it's own materialistic rationalism is no rationalism at all.

Where does religious liberalism fall into this? It certainly isn't materialistic in the philosophical sense, yet it is pervasive within both traditional and new political liberalism. The way I see it is that rationalism has fundamentally altered all strata of our culture, including religious fundamentalism. (Not even the Orthodox tradition has been untouched by it, though that tradition is arguably the most successful holdout of pre-modernism.) Because rationalism's impact is pervasive and not limited to enclaves of philosophical materialism, and since political liberalism is permeated with religious belief, I don't think that I would agree that materialistic rationalism defines liberalism, at least in its predominant political manifestation.

[forestwalker]

The movement leaders dissociated from traditional liberalism and infiltrated the right, especially during the Reagan presidency, in response to what they perceived to be the weakness of liberalism to effect ideological aims.

As far as the renewed (it's not new, of course) aggression and messianism in our foreign policy, that's right I think. Speaking more widely, though, Reagan is also the genesis of the "libertarianizing" of the thought of the formerly conservative Evangelical communities. It always comes back to philosophy. He made the poison of Hayek, Rand, etc. into the mainstream of GOP thought. Their rejection of virtue and embrace of utopia through "liberation" is as fundamentally incompatible with any kind of political conservatism as it is with Christian thought. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists reentered the political process in force through the Moral Majority as the new libertarian thought was gaining a stronghold, and without a clear political philosophy of their own, came under it's tutelage.

Early federalism under Washington and Adams may have been the closest thing to a manifest conservative political philosophy, since it retained shades of monarchy, but the federalism that re-emerged as Republicanism with Lincoln was by then more democratic and thus liberal. Territorial expansion during the nineteenth century never allowed the convenience of political conservatism, and ever since Wilson America has been too involved in foreign interests to be conservative either militarily or politically.

Have to remember that the federalism established in 1789 was a compromise. It wasn't conservative, it was simply the largest degree of centralization of power (in fact a substantial increase from the Articles of Confederation from just a few years prior) under the new liberal state that was politically possible at the time. As you recount here, centralization has only increased steadily ever since.

A read you might appreciate that's more-or-less on point: Killing for the Telephone Company: Why the Nation-State is Not the Keeper of the Common Good

Populist conservatism is more religious and nationalistic than, as you say, politically philosophical.

Not sure I agree with that. I'd characterize populist sentiment, especially among Christian populations, as subsidiarist. It's localist, parochial, resistant to empire. It's "leave us alone". And with the destruction of rooted communities it's easy to see why it's degraded to the "leave me alone" of contemporary culture.

That's an interesting thesis. It points up one of the innumerable gaps in my knowlege base. I have never read anything substantial on the history of libertarianism or its historic interplay with conservatism in America.

I find it useful to think of contemporary libertarianism as a kind of Lockean fundamentalism on one hand (the true believers) and the new guise of the old Social Darwinism on the other.

[Tim Elston]

A read you might appreciate that's more-or-less on point: Killing for the Telephone Company: Why the Nation-State is Not the Keeper of the Common Good

I guess I waited too long to read this. The link is no longer valid, and from an Internet search it appears that the article is available now only for purchase. Too bad; the author's abstract made it look interesting.

[forestwalker]

35 bucks for a journal article? They're crazy.

Here you go.

[Tim Elston]

35 bucks for a journal article? They're crazy.

Here you go.

I was the editor for ATLA's Religion Index One: Periodicals for five years, and I know about publishing conglomerates buying up small publishers to make a killing at everyone else's expense. We indexed the journal Modern Theology, in which this article appears.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't feel right about reading the article unless I access it from a properly licensed source, with appropriate authorization. I know the user name and password to access it through ATLA's ATLAS application, but since I'm no longer staff there I don't log in.

Personally I think it should be taken down from being publicly accessible without a proper license here, but I do appreciate the gesture of you posting it. I would think that the owners of Jude 2 would also want to consider copyright liability if they chose to leave it posted.

I'll try to remember to try to find it in a library database at some point. Thanks.