It seems the Right finds it hard tolerating genuine dialogue on timely issues. Therefore, important topics receive a prefabricated "correct position," or are simply avoided, instead of being addressed by principled debate. Any deviation is treated with utter suspicion, or outright contempt. This ought not be, and must change if Conservatism hope to reassert preeminence. This presumes a movement based upon a core of sacrosanct principles, of black and white areas, but also much gray zones demanding debate.
Today's article was suggested over reception of a previous essay--
last week's piece stating the US should have given Osama bin Laden a trial instead of simply shooting him unarmed. The piece elicited bitter denunciations, as if there was only one possible "Conservative" position. While exhilarating to receive such emotional responses, no genuine debate emerged. The experience revealed how we lack a basis for dispassionate argument--being education, experience in principled disagreement, and the foundation for genuine dialogue--a spirit of charity. This is the topic of today's piece.
I. Introduction: The Seven Liberal Arts, Virtuous Life & Freedom of Conscience
A. History of Western Education
Our unique European Western worldview developed when pagan ideas cross-pollinated with Christian doctrines for those seeking the "Good Life" within God's Kingdom. The Classical cannon from ancient Greece and Rome was deeply influential. For example, Saint Augustine was profoundly moved by the
writings of Plato. Latin authors became a bedrock of early Church education, enlarged during the
Renaissance, defined as a fixation on the Classical thinkers, seeking a return to ancient ideals.
Charlemagne, aka Charles the Great, believed education the key to a great kingdom.
He asked the Church to provide this. The concept of the university was a natural outcome of this development, the first being the University of Bologna in Italy, the second Oxford in England. But the earliest university-like groups were already staged by the Church in the 6th century, just as Rome was collapsing.
B. Seven Liberal Arts
Later, Medievalists developed a core curriculum--the
Seven Liberal Arts. Says
one source,
Educators during Europe's middle ages mounted a systematic effort to reassemble the identity of Western Christian civilization, embodied in the seven cornerstones. The first three, known as the trivium, were grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Later, the quadrivium was added, which included arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. The trivium equipped students with tools to learn how to learn, and the quadrivium allowed a place for those tools to be applied for exercise and development. Mastering all seven was intended to produce people who could approach the world and its questions boldly.
C. Capitalism & Eduction
Fascinatingly, the rise of modern education is
tied to early capitalism, as the need for an educated populace in England was tied into a merchant class. Latin was spoken between the various trading communities in Europe. Logic and Rhetoric were emphasized as foundational for all other learning. Thomas Aquinas expands on this from Aristotle:
Order of learning is as follows: First boys should be instructed in logical matters, since logic teaches the method of the whole philosophy. Secondly, comes instruction in mathematics, which neither requires experience, nor transcends the imagination. Thirdly, they should be instructed in natural things, which, even though they do not exceed sense & imagination, nevertheless require experience. Fourthly, in moral matters, which require experience & a mind free from its passions.... Fifthly, in sapiential & divine things, which transcend the imagination & require a strong intellect...
D. Devolution of Western Education by Leftist Dewey
Modern Western education pales in comparison to how the Medieval mind was trained. How ironic we scoff at the ignorant "Dark Age"! This degradation occurred from socialist progressives like John Dewey, to make the average person more easily manipulated by propaganda into default-leftist belief, as we observe everywhere today. The main reason Westerners cannot freely debate issues, or strongly articulate beliefs, is the very tools necessary were deprived us as children. After generations, we no longer even remember what we used to have.
The foundation of genuine education was always training in logic in order to understand facts, arguments, ideas and the general world, to avoid believing false ideas and uphold true ones. Yet today, mindless university automatons can only regurgitate trite Politically Correct doctrines.
II. Modern Conservative Movement & Political Parties
A. Movement Ideology
Many Conservatives consider themselves simple folk just believing in "reality." But what
is Conservatism? And is there just "one right Conservative choice" in all possible situations?
All genuine ideological movements demand a core set of values considered sacrosanct and beyond reproach, handed down from a holy book, or some sage. Examples include Conservatism, influenced by Edmund Burke and the Bible; or modern liberalism delivered by Karl Marx, etc. These ideologies are sometimes accepted by faith but can also be tested by logic, history and science.
B. Conservative & Liberal Decision Making
Conservatism is a virtue-based movement with an intellectual core. It forms a community grappling with issues by application of essential precepts. One source might be the Ten Commandments, for example. Contrast this with the inevitable leftist leadership model of arbitrary decisions making for emotional reasons. The two visions could not be further apart. This explains why anti-war Obama killing Osama didn't draw any outcries.
What liberals/socialists/communists/progressives/leftists have are policy goals to be pursued at all costs, such as "getting rid of poverty," etc. Such impossible ventures create the left's "church," its sacraments and its holy endeavors. Leftists often have no personal standards and yet constantly scream at the "hypocrisy" of those on the right.
To the contrary, the Conservative approach takes time and effort for debaters who work their way through trenchant topics. If Conservatism does claim to be a movement of ideas, who comes up with these? No one owns the Conservative movement. First, it is not a religious set of beliefs, although it can quite logically be drawn from such. Yet to confuse the two is to damn both. Instead, Conservatism is a political undertaking. As such it is meant to be somewhat expansive and accommodating within reason. It seeks the good life for as many as possible, yet should never choose results over all else.
C. Defining Conservative Versus Liberal
1. Conservative Essence
Consider a rough analogy for Conservatism. The movement is similar to classic Natural Law theory in a number of ways. First, it agrees with the biblical theory of morality. Second, it's never at odds with logic or reason. Third, it accepts ancients who helped lay a foundation such as Cicero, Seneca, etc. Fourth, it desires to be modern by applying right reason to new situations and then measuring the results. In this sense, it is also scientific in its analysis.
Overall, Conservatism is realistic and can only be said to "conserve" the past when shown to be an accurate view of life. It accepts Thomas Sowell's Tragic Vision, which accepts that in this sinful world, not everyone will have perfect health or attend the Ivy League, so we must try to make the best of life for as many as possible. Large government is opposed for its natural tendency towards tyranny in sinful, human hands. So rule of law, and the protection of Life, Liberty & Property, as Locke sagely advised, are its core.
2. Liberalism
Modern liberalism is code for socialism, a pie-in-the-sky worldview demanding "equality" for all without any regard for the damage done. It is anti-historical--refusing to accept the judgment of the historical record when it doesn't agree. Leftism is superficially "spiritual," but deeply opposed to the Bible. Socialism tends naturally towards communism. It is meretricious and anti-intuitive--seeking to take property from the productive and give it to the slothful, so it punishes virtue and rewards vice. And it is both highly illogical and anti-scientific, in that it is demonstrably false in theory and affect. It is anti-human as it seeks to extinguish the natural freedoms of mankind and replace them with nonsensical state restrictions. It always fails when exclusively applied.
III. Important Debates: Historic & Current
A. Historical
Consider a few classic examples of historical debates.
1. Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Religion was a result of centuries of Protestant debate by thinkers such as John Owen, and his student John Locke. Do any delude themselves that such a suggestion was wildly popular when it was proposed? If religion were still restricted today, is it likely Conservatives would be on the cutting edge demanding all beliefs be equally protected?
2. Freedom of Speech
If speech was not currently unregulated, would Conservatives be loudest demanding the right--even if they were in power? The story of the development of Freedom of Speech is not as simplistic nor inevitable as one might suppose. If not for Milton's Aeropagitica or the Zenger trial, this notion might never have been enshrined.
B. Current
1. Classic Economics v. Keynes
Are economies really created by printing and spending money with no direct connection to anything of value? What are the dangers of doing this if the underlying premise is not true?
2. Free Speech & Political Correctness
Are Free Speech and Political Correctness mutually exclusive, or is one preeminent? Further, what
is Political Correctness? What happens if PC triumphs over Freedom of Speech and the Press?
3. Freedom of Religion, Islam & Fundamentalist Terrorism
Are all religions equal? Does Freedom of Religion block public policy choosing one religion over another in all cases? Or is Freedom of Religion blind to beliefs, even if they seem to lead to terrorist activities?
4. Family Planning, Abortion & Gay Marriage
Is calling Abortion "Family Planning" fair when it destroys developing members? Will children be effected when raised by single sex couples? Does it even matter? Do future children have rights?
5. Citizenship & Rights of Foreigners
Do non-Americans have the right to become citizens as soon as they materialize inside the US? If so, what is the theoretical foundation of such a concept?
IV. Why The Future of Conservatism Depends Upon Scholarship, Debate & Free Speech
It is truly shocking the lack of public knowledge on most important topics. Unfortunately, this often includes Conservatives. What is needed in such an appalling state of public affairs? Following are simple suggestions for improving public debate on essential issues.
A. Principled & Enlightened Argument:
Conservatives must labor to develop our knowledge base of right principles and then struggle daily to sharpen these, including finding core principles from which all our other beliefs and actions flow.
B. Educated: Conservatives Must be Better Informed
Conservatives must be better informed than opponents. If we are better adjusted to reality, it won't matter if we can't apply it in each particular setting. For example, the right opposes Keynesian deficit spending. Yet we must be able to prove how it failed in the past.
C. Courageous: We Must Regard Truth as Better Than Popular Esteem
Conservatives often experience rude attacks by the ignorant rabble. But we must remain vigilant and unfazed in our commitment to defend our core beliefs--even if this means being called racist, anti-science, fascists, etc. To paraphrase Burke, evil flourishes when good men stand for nothing.
D. Charitable & Patient:
A person engaging in debate without charity achieves nothing given they will never persuade their opponent. The main question: How do we know we are right about any particular position? This demands principled debate, meaning fairly summing up your opponent's position and not insulting them while seeking error. It is made possible by extending to others freedom to express their positions without scorn or censure. And in the experience of using fair debate tactics, we might even find ourselves being persuaded to their position, even against our wills.
V. Conclusion
We must stop pretending we instantly know everything without effort, that our "instincts" which are frighteningly warped by the media, can tell us immediately the difference between good and bad. Writer Dorothy Sayers was concerned about this same phenomenon. She commented in
The Lost Tools of Learning:
Is not the great defect of our education today that although we often succeed in teaching our pupils "subjects," we fail lamentably in teaching them how to think: they learn everything, except the art of learning.
Yet, with some effort at learning facts, trouble at doing logic, and principled debate with other seekers, we can humbly hope to find some truths to build our lives around, and charitably help others do the same.
