Are Conservatives anti-Enlightened?

As per John's request, let me offer my thoughts on a post at LegalFiction by "Publius" analyzing the claim that conservatism is akin to Straussian ideology (Publius says it isn't, but that it is anti-Enlightened). This post won't be so much an analysis of Straussian thought (over which I don't claim to be an expert), as an analysis of Publius' argumentation.

Let me begin by offering that I'm surprised that John seemed to enjoy the piece so much. I don't intend this as a personal attack on the author, however I don't feel the writing was overly impressive stylistically. Additionally, I found the number of (il)logical leaps, overly simplistic representation, and off-the-wall claims to be distracting to the general argument of the piece.

In short, as I read it, it reminded me a bit of the kind of conversation a college freshman has his first break home from school, trying to flaunt his mastery of Intro to Political Philosophy 101. In other words, a lot of big-word dropping without much substance or real understanding. 'Publius' isn't exactly the most apt moniker for this writer.

At any rate, I might be coming off as a bit harsh, so let me go through the piece a bit to give a general sense of my dislike for the blogpost.

_____________________

To begin, the author is entirely too flippant with language, painting with an awfully big brush.

Publius early on includes the throw-away phrase "And yes, parts of the American right are Anti-Enlightenment." This is a tremendously loaded statement. Does he provide evidence for it? No. And saying so doesn't simply make it so. And frankly, to make the claim that vast swathes (or any swathes, for that matter) of people with whom you disagree are 'intolerant of reason' usually says more about you than it does about your opposition. Not always, of course. But usually. That such logical disconnects are common throughout the blogpost doesn't speak well to Publius' attempt at convincing anyone other than those who already agree.

But let's get into the nitty-gritty of the work.

Publius lays out his understanding of political history by using convenient definitions that prove his point. The problem is that his definitions aren't accurate.

He states:

”To be grossly general, the last six hundred years or so of Western history has been a battle between three great forces. Let’s call them Traditionalism, Liberalism, and Leftism. Traditionalism is a political system with God (or a god/s) at the center of its universe. Liberalism puts the individual at the center, while Leftism puts the collective mass at the center.”

Ironically, Publius is more accurate using the term "grossly" than he intended. While Publius might try and argue that the need for simplification took away the nuance of his actual thinking, the simple fact is that his definitions don't suffer from oversimplification so much as from simply being wrong.

I would ask Publius to explain where Totalitarianism, Oligarchy, Monarchy, and Dictatorship -- the most prevalent forms of government in human history (or, if prevalence is an indicator, the 'traditional' forms of government) -- would fall in his system?

Certainly they cannot be seen as Leftist given the total disregard that those systems show to majority social need. Similarly, they aren't Liberal forms of government (Unless one wishes to count public voting by the barrel of a gun). Which leaves the Traditional category. As I noted, given that these have been by far the most common forms of social organization, there are literally the Traditional styles of government.

Yet Publius has definitionally excluded them from the Traditional Category. According to the post, "Traditionalism" is:

"...the world of “hierarchy, tradition and religious orthodoxy.” Some good examples of Traditionalist systems are the old Catholic Church and the feudal system it helped maintain. A more modern example would be the Taliban. In this system, God – as opposed to a Constitution or democratic legitimacy – is the basis of the government. (Or to be more precise, the ruling elite’s interpretation of God)."

I suppose you could try and argue that the general masking of "The Leader" (to use Paul Berman's phrase) as a God-like figure in Monarchical, Oligarchal, et al., systems is enough to fall under Publius' definition. But given that all his examples are religious in non-worldly senses, and because he can’t hide an obvious dislike for Christian churches in particular (whom he continually connotates with extremist, violent movements like Al-Qaeda), I find it hard to believe that his painting of all the oppressive, pre-modern governments as theocratic institutions is anything but intentional. But quite simply those early forms of government, even if they had close ties to Churches, were not theocratic governments except in a small handful of instances.

In short then, the first aspect of Publius' defined political history -- Traditionalism -- is laughably inaccurate. His focus on Theocracy as the prototypical form of government throughout pre-modern history is like picking out Devo as the prototypical example of what music is.


But Publius doesn't do any better in his later definitions either.

In the course of his definition of Liberalism, Publius says that it "replaced God with human reason." Well, no, actually it didn't. Take the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. Surely Publius would agree that American political creation was a product of the Enlightenment. Yet in Jefferson's brilliant explanation for America's revolution to create Liberal government, he utilizes the Enlightenment thinking that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...."

Why would Jefferson cite a reference to God in an "Enlightened" document for Liberal government if it was anathema to Enlightened ideology? A quick look at Locke's Second Treatise on Government, one of the most famous Enlightened Documents advocating Liberal government, also illustrates that belief in God as a determinative force in life and Liberal thought were not mutually exclusive. To this end, the amount of examples throughout Enlightened thinking that references God is such that I really don't think I need say more. How Publius somehow thinks then that Liberalism and "Enlightened" thinking exist only with an absence of a belief in a determinative God, whom they "replaced" is inexplicable. My guess is that it's just wishful thinking on Publius' part.

____________________

There are many other aspects of the work that are simply wrong or defamatory, ranging from assertions that the Catholic church doesn't believe in the equality of women, to the idea that the White House proactively lies to American citizens. It's not worth my time trying to counteract those assertions. I suspect Publius is far enough off the reservation that it wouldn't really matter if I could provide evidence that he is wrong.

Overall, Publius seems to base his assertions about Conservatives being anti-Enlightenment based on his own incorrect understanding of both history and the Enlightment. Using big words doesn't hide the fact that he wasn't paying attention in his History of Political Theory classes...

As for me, I think I've run the course for how long I can write about the post. I will say that as long as Liberals focus on arguments that revolve around how Conservatives are stupid and backward, I'm content. It'll guarentee we win every election.