That is an excellent essay, I learned a great deal from reading it. The clarity of his language is exemplary, and his suggestions for what the Left should do are particularly wise.

However, there are some sketchy bits.

He is certainly correct in his analysis of conservatism -- for one definition of conservatism. He is indulging in a bit of the conflation he accuses the other side of, however, in identifying "conservatism" in this sense entirely with what is vernacularly called conservatism in U.S. politics today.

That there is much nostalgia for, and support for, conservatism of the civilization-destroying variety in the Republican party seems to me obvious. That its extreme demagogues and think tanks are actively plotting the annihilation of all alternatives to received social orders, I can credit.

That all Republicans are conservatives in his sense, and all Democrats democrats, does not, however, follow.

His "conservatives", by definition, seek to establish aristocracy, and their deviations from that are merely tactical. They are fundamentally inimical to reason, and employ it only where necessary, simulating it when possible.

This is true of many dangerous people, and in America today, probably those people are Republicans. It isn't remotely true, however, of Republicans as a category.

It is perfectly possible to hold "conservative" positions -- to support the death penalty, to oppose affirmative action or even welfare as we know it, to advocate preemptive attacks on other nations, or whatever -- and not be trying to establish or maintain an aristocracy.

It might be possible to hold those positions and not even be a dupe or tool of wannabe aristocrats. It might turn out that those who think that these measures will support democracy are, in some cases, actually right.

It is in the nature of reason that it yields different answers to different seekers. My totalitarian alarm bells go off when I hear anyone who believes that their logic is irrefutable -- that reasonable people cannot hold the opposite position as a result of reasoned introspection -- or else, if they do, they are mere dupes, not to be taken seriously. This is a kind of intellectual claustrophobia.

It is one thing to argue that the abolition of welfare or a hawkish foreign policy will lead to centralization of power or the diminuition of democracy or the entrenchment of aristocracy -- I'm right there with ya. It is quite another to argue that the proponents of these positions are motivated by (or unwitting tools of) anti-democratic conservatism.

Don't get me wrong -- real conservatives, in Agre's sense, are indeed the enemy; and liberals could use better think tanks, language, and proposals.

But we should recall that conservatives in Agre's sense belong to a broader class of anti-democrats -- those who believe that power must be centralized in some special class of chosen persons, who rule others for their own good. An aristocracy is not the only such class. Marxism is not merely a regrettably bad model, as Agre seems to regard it -- it is also an example of precisely the same kind of anti-democratism that conservatism is.

If I have to choose between being ruled by aristocrats or Stalinists, I'll take the aristocrats any day. They move slower, and they're a bit more sentimental.

Though I might feel differently if I'd been born a slave.

Anyway, largely I agree with Agre, except that I don't think you can make the equation "the Democrats are the democrats, and the Republicans are the conservatives, so all the Republican arguments must be doublespeak and antilogic".

It's not quite that easy; that's not what democracy requires. You actually have to sort through the arguments and figure out who's right about what.

It's true, for instance, that "political correctness" is only ever used as an accusatory label. However, it is also true that the phenomenon it describes -- the stifling of reasoned discourse by a tyrranical faction within academia -- exists. (I went to Brown, people.) PC-ness was not the worst folly or evil; it was well-meaning, naive. However, although it strove to be democratic, it was actually not. It was destructive of reasoned discourse. The conservatives -- or rather, the people holding conservative positions who were not agents of aristocracy -- were right about that one. (Though of course, it was then blown way out of proportion by conservative demagogues as a tool to attack lots of reasonable and democratic discourses and practices).

So maybe we need two words; one for the conservatives Agre's talking about. And another for democrats on the Right?

Ben

The fundamental problem with Gene Wolfe's argument is that it oversimplifies, and greviously misunderstands, the middle ages.

Ben wants another descriptor? I'm still trying to figure out what 'neocon' means.

Benjamin writes:

My totalitarian alarm bells go off when I hear anyone who believes that their logic is irrefutable -- that reasonable people cannot hold the opposite position as a result of reasoned introspection -- or else, if they do, they are mere dupes, not to be taken seriously. This is a kind of intellectual claustrophobia.

I saw Bill Clinton on The Daily Show Monday night. He said, "When people think, we [Democrats] win."

I found that a particularly pompous (and dumb) attitude...the implication being, as Benjamin poitns out, that no thinking person could hold contrary views.

Not necessarily. It could just mean that, on balance, more thinking people would hold aligned views than opposing ones.

The implication still seems fairly clear that the Democratic platform is inherently intellectually more sound in some way, which to me comes across as snobbish and insulting.

I consider myself independent. I agree with many liberal values. I'm pro-choice, strongly in favor of separation of church and state, and so on. I'm more libertarian on issues like gay marriage. However, I've become very hawkish since 9/11 when it comes to repressive, autocratic and/or theocratic failed states that breed and support terrorism. I'm also earnestly believe in the dictum that the government that governs best governs least, and while recognizing the need for safety nets for the neediest, non-needs-based programs like Social Security are horrible and unrealistic.

Does this particular collection of views bely my inherent irrationality? I plan on voting for Bush this Fall. If I just think a bit harder will the light of reason shine upon me and sway my vote?

We’re way off in the weeds here, and I'm not going to go around this one again. I will say, though, that if you did feel that one platform or the other really was less intellectually sound, I doubt any concern for the appearance of snobbery or for avoiding insult would stop you from saying so.

Okay. I didn't think we were that far off the subject.

I strongly argue my particular opinions, but I don't impugn those I disagree with by implying that they aren't thinking.

I certainly understand the rationale behind many of the views contrary to my own. Those who are incapable of understanding the opposing view, or ascribing such views to people as equally reasonable as themselves, are engaging in what Benjamin called "intellectual claustrophobia".

He's right.

I don't have the context for Clinton's comment, but the claim he is making (in isolation) seems to be somewhat less strong than Agre's.

Agre is saying something which seems awfully close to "the intrinsic core of Republican doctrine is antithetical to thinking". Clinton may merely be saying "at this particular historical moment, I believe that our platform is more intellectually coherent and will appeal to most people if they think it through, so a good strategy for us would be to move away from theatrics and empty rhetoric and encourage reasoned debate".

That's not the same thing. Agre is saying that there is *in principle* no rational argument for conservatism. Clinton is merely saying he thinks his side can win the debate.

It's the difference between saying, in regards to a challenge to play basketball, "shit, i ain't playing with you, waste of my time", and "hell, i can take you -- let's go".

I'm interested in your arguments for Bush, Derek, off topic though they may be. You do realize that Bush has greatly increased the size of the federal government, while Clinton shrunk it? And that Kerry (to the dismay of the left) does not actually seem less hawkish with regard to our enemies than Bush? (Unless, of course, you consider France and Germany our enemies...)

Ben, is Agre saying it's irrational, or just that it can't be rationally derived from small-d democratic premises?

(And would you two mind taking that last one off-line, or at any rate somewhere else?)

On the other hand, I find Holbo's takedown of Frum rather specious -- he seems to willfully misread "let us make sure people are rewarded for their own efforts, and punished for their mistakes, for that will give them the incentives to grow to become responsible, capable, and adult" as "let us terrorize and impoverish people because it will make them subservient". Since everything after that misreading depends upon it, the post seems to me to be pretty much bunk.

He argues that Holbo does not mean what he says, but From doesn't seem to have much interest in spending an ounce of exegetical effort to correct his own misunderstanding about what Frum is saying.

He seems to go a great deal further than saying it cannot be logically derived from democratic principles. I don't have time to hunt up quotes now, but my reading was that he is saying that the goal of conservatism is to produce and preserve aristocracy, and that since by definition the majority of people, if properly informed, will not rationally support this, in a democracy conservatism's only recourse is obfuscation -- and thus the point of all conservative politics is to defeat reason.

Actually, I agree with him about a certain kind of pro-aristocratic politics, which you see overtly in places like Spain and Italy, and covertly in much American conservatism. I just think it's silly to maintain that this maps one-to-one with the Republican party.

Oops, the conclusion of the penultimate comment should read:

"He argues that Frum does not mean what he says, but Holbo doesn't seem to have much interest in spending an ounce of exegetical effort to correct his own misunderstanding about what Frum is saying."

Which is a little ironic, in a post about the necessity of reading carefully...

The whole thing kind of breaks down for me when he starts talking specifics. I think he's mostly right about most of the motivations of most of the people who constitute most of the intellectual core of the GOP, but extending from that to arbitrary Republicans is like extending from the Democratic Leadership Council to Will Shetterly.

Holbo’s main argument, it seems to me, is this: Frum’s core belief is that the goal of policy should not be to provide for the general welfare but to build character. As for what sort of character — I think what you’re reading as responsible, capable, and adult, Ben, is what Holbo’s reading as subservient. I’m not sure that’s actually a misreading so much as it’s a strongly different spin.

I'll just butt in here to add that, although I enjoyed skimming the article a lot, Mr. Agre appeared to miss quite a bit of the heart of conservatism. Of course, sentences such as "Conservatism has opposed rational thought for thousands of years" are designed to provoke controversy rather than thought, as is perhaps much of the essay. But for the most part, Mr. Agre seems to start from the point of view that a reverence for inherited institutions, values, symbols, and rituals means on the face of it a disdain for reason and for the masses.
I agree with Charles Rossiter (as I talk about at length on my Tohu Bohu) that conservatism is a mood or a worldview rather than a list of policies, or even a philosophy. It's a reluctance to give up or even aggressively question the inherited institutions, values, symbols, and rituals. A discomfort with doing so. A sadness at the idea that they won't continue to be inherited forever. The particular institutions, values, symbols, and rituals to which American Conservatives (and in particular the Republican Party) have this attachment are not those discussed by Disraeli and Gladstone, much less by the Pharoahs. Like it or not, Conservatives change, as the world changes.
Of course, I'm no conservative myself; I have a tempermental ambivalence towards the institutions, values, symbols, and rituals I inherited myself.

      ,
-V.

Benjamin writes:
That's not the same thing. Agre is saying that there is *in principle* no rational argument for conservatism. Clinton is merely saying he thinks his side can win the debate.

Just a different interpretation, I guess. When I heard Clinton's remark, I took it mean very close to what Agre is saying.

If you want to discuss Bush's policies, to respect David's wishes, you can either wander over to my site or post something on yours if you like.

As for the designation of conservativism as a reverence for inherited institutions and stalwart adherence to the status quo, that's a pretty narrow definition of conservativism as a modern political ideology. Certainly that's one aspect of it, and one I find incredibly distasteful (I'm very much in favor of social and ideological dynamism).

I think the distinction between social and fiscal conservativism is a useful one, and not one that Agre draws.

When he says things like "Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years." If one associates fiscal conservativism with free markets, low taxes, and small government, how are such policies undemocratic?

In an earlier post, I think David talked about the silliness of conflating a country's economic system with its political one. That seems to be exactly what Agre is doing with the notion of conservativism