I wrote recently (http://cellasreview.blogspot.com/2003_07_06_cellasreview_archive.html#105752435459542429) that “The poetry of real conservatism is that it will only defend things feeble and fading — and manage to preserve something of them … . And the great virtue in this poetry is the forlorn tocsin of the conservative, rung out against the tyranny that approaches. Any decent and brave man can castigate the abuse of power as it stands before him: it takes a visionary or a prophet — or a poet — to castigate the tyranny that has not yet arrived.”

Is this something like Mr. Auster’s “beautiful losers” idea?

To answer his question about what mainstream conservatives will do, I think it is fairly clear what they will do: go on defending the status quo, even if it grows monstrous. They will be “conservatives” in the most dreary and debased sense of the word — conservating a thing simply because it exists.

“Beautiful losers” is an allusion to Samuel Francis’s book of that name. It means people fighting for the good lost causes.

Posted by: Paul Cella on July 9, 2003 11:30 PM
“what mainstream conservatives will do, I think it is fairly clear what they will do: go on defending the status quo, even if it grows monstrous. They will be “conservatives” in the most dreary and debased sense of the word — conservating a thing simply because it exists.”

ditto :<)

Ok, Mr. Cella and Abby, does that mean the mainstream conservatives will drop their core rhetoric about America—America as the land of individual rights, where race and ethnicity don’t matter, where it doesn’t matter who your parents were? It seems to me they will have a real problem maintaining both sides of their accustomed message: celebrating the current order, and celebrating the American Creed which has now been officially thrown out by the Supreme Court. If they keep doing the first, they must give up the second; if they keep doing the second, the must give up the first. Either choice seems like a disaster from which their ideology cannot recover.

I wouldn’t underestimate the capacity of men for holding contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time. Mainstream conservatives will cling to the pieties of equality before the law and ordered liberty even as they are cast into ruin. How long the irreconcilable will be assimilated by creative polemics is difficult to judge: we must not similarly underestimate the polemical genius of many of these guys.

Mr. Auster’s “unprincipled exception” idea (if it originates with him) is a conceptual tool here of outstanding explanatory power and subtlety, as was demonstrated in his letter to Prof. Volokh below. It acts as a pressure-release valve, as it were, by which to ease the cognitive dissonance or internal contradictions.

I got a thoughtful e-mail from a reader who feels I’m exaggerating the badness of the decision. Here is our exchange.

Correspondent:

I think you’re still misconstruing and overstating the effect of Grutter. To be clear: I believe the decision was unquestionably wrong and counterproductive. But what the decision says is that certain race preferences are permissible, while none are mandatory. So, for example, California’s Prop 209 stands, other jurisdictions can pass similar bans on race preferences or simply decline to enact race preferences, and the many jurisdictions that have no race preferences currently are free to maintain that policy. Obviously the Grutter decision saved, perpetuated and promoted many bad policies in many jurisdictions, but it leaves undisturbed in many jurisdictions a status quo that is consistent with traditionalist goals and sensibilities. (Lawrence is a different story.)

LA:

Thank you for your thoughtful note. It’s possible you’re right and I’m overestimating the impact of this. However, my concern is not that there will be an immediate institutionalization of race preferences all over the country; we ALREADY HAVE THAT. My concern is that for the first time this malevolent idea has been placed in the Constitution. That step in itself—not to mention the irrational and arbitrary nature of the reasoning that made up the decision—represents a profound violation of our political order. The point in my blog entry was that as things stand now, we cannot say that we are a country of individual rights. What, then, is the nature of the political order we are now living under?

However, your qualifications are welcome, in showing that there is more wiggle room than I may have immediately seen. Even if this dreadful ruling remains in force, it can be gotten around in all kinds of ways at state level. I repeat, though, that at the Constitutional level, the level at which this country represents itself to itself, we are now an officially race-preferences society. Which in my opinion throws our society into a crisis.

In reply to Mr. Cella’s question, the “unprincipled exception” idea originated from something Mr. Kalb said in conversation during one of our monthly traditionalist discussion groups in New York City. He said the liberal American system, even from the early days of the Republic, forces leaders to be incoherent and inconsistent. I questioned him on what he meant by that, and this idea of the unprincipled exception emerged, which Matt and I then developed in further threads and articles at VFR. If you do a search, you’ll find several places where it’s discussed.

It’s more beautiful to win, don’t you think? Obviously everyone around here takes the New York Times & co. a little too seriously if this kind of defeatism has so deeply set in.

For the record, I don’t think there’s anything beautiful about losing. I happened to use in passing the expression from Sam Francis’s collection of essays and I also put it in quotes, which perhaps suggested ironic distance from the idea. Then I was asked the source of the expression, so I explained.

As for the charge of defeatism, the fact is that serious conservatives have undergone a tremendous series of defeats over the last couple of weeks. Unlike some mainstream conservative sites, which always find the problem to be somewhere “out there” on the left and never with America itself, we are sensible of the fact that America itself has just taken significant new steps to the left, altering, as it were, the very ground we stand on as Americans. By recognizing and trying to understand what has happened, we are the ones who are dealing with it realistically.

Also for the record, let it be known (if it was somehow overlooked) that a large preponderance of VFR contributors are orthodox Christians, for whom despair is a very grave sin; and for whom anticipation of the final triumph of the risen Christ is a matter of faith.

“the fact is that serious conservatives have undergone a tremendous series of defeats over the last couple of weeks”
If you were to read Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in the Michigan Law School case, you will see brilliant words of a black conservative who not only clearly sees the truth now, in the face of a bunch of BS, but a vision of the future and the way things ought to be. You think these words are lost on the young, impressionable minds of law students who see the chaos and decay around them? The leaders of the future? In the words of Rumsfeld, “Truth has a way of reaching people’s minds and hearts”.

You cannot see the trees through the forest. I dare say that you WANT to be the beautiful losers. It is much more dramatic and fulfilling to be one the voice of truth drowned out in a symphony of madness than a muttering old drunkard who refuses to move and insists that it is the world, and not himself, that needs changing.

His disciples said to him: On what day will the kingdom come? It will not come while people watch for it; they will not say: Look, here it is, or: Look, there it is; but the kingdom of the father is spread out over the earth, and men do not see it.

“and for whom anticipation of the final triumph of the risen Christ is a matter of faith”

His disciples said to him: On what day will the rest of the dead come into being, and on what day will the new world come? He said to them: What you await has come, but you do not know it.

I think Daugherty is confused and is just striking out without thinking clearly what he wants to say. He attacks my response to the Grutter decision as being too defeatist, while praising Justice Thomas’s. But Thomas was just as negative about it as I was. He obviously sees this as a terrible event, in which America is going off the rails.

He doesn’t say anything to the effect that “America is going off the rails”, but rather attributes this horrible decision to the machinations of a group of “willfully blind” judges.
Of course he agrees that it is a bad ruling, but while he is sure of the negative effects of the ruling, he ends his opinion extremely confident that affirmative action will be ended once and for all by the time the 25-year time limit expires. The point being, at least we can see the end of the road for this type of thinking.
The fact that it is an extremely well-spoken and well-educated black man completely ripping apart the arguments for affirmative action reinforces the reality that the end of the road is indeed near for that type of racially divisive thinking, and people DO notice that.
The liberalism permeating today’s society is the end product of the post WW-2 rebellion against conservatism. Look at the age of the liberals who head most of the institutions. They are approaching their 60’s. With both sides preaching an attitude of mistrust and skepticism, the upcoming generations are very skeptical, and a search for truth naturally leads one to conservatism. Period.
The Supreme Court Rulings are temporary by their nature, and legislature will strike down all Affirmative Action in due time. The lefties are on the way out. As long as Hillary never becomes president, we should make it out of this temporary nightmare (it is a nightmare, but it is temporary) alright. At least we’re not forming a super-union government with Canada or legalizing marijuana. I do worry about how far the rest of the West will sink, but I feel safe as an American.

Just as an aside on the Grutter decision, I note that Ward Connerly is starting a petition drive in Michigan to overturn racial preferences. Note also that the Republican party is leading the opposition to the proposed amendment.

Daugherty is all over the place. He attacks me for being too defeatist, but his basis for saying that is that even though the Grutter decision is indeed very bad, it’s really good news because it shows that the days of race preferences are coming to an end! This is on the same intellectual level as a column at Tech Central Station by Marian Tupy of the Cato Institute who said that the institution of a statist socialistic European Union means the last gasp of socialism!

Here are some further replies by a friend to the suggestion made by another correspondent that I was exaggerating the badness of Grutter:

“It’s the making of diversity as a compelling state interest, a constitutional priority overruling the 14th amendment that is the worst part, I think.

“It is the willingness to counter discrimination against one or maybe two groups to favor two others that is bad. It is the unwillingness to condemn discrimination against whites and perhaps Asians.

“Also, it’s establishing the idea that proportional representation of all groups in every area is what we should have and should strive for. That means the end of America.”

My traditionalist friend (Lawrence Auster), you, among few conservatives, have got it right! Homosexual liberation IS compatible with the present, real political order. So are racial quotas. So is abortion on demand. Why are we surprised when the Supreme Court supports our national reality? We can argue that it shouldn’t be that way, that it used not to be that way, but…

How are the mainstream conservatives going to cope with it? By denial, of course. And by getting caught up in the 9/11-War on Terrorism patriotism. And putting all their political eggs in the Bush basket, then closing their eyes and crossing their fingers.

We traditionalists will not be well received by mainstream conservatives, since our clear-sightedness will tend to collapse their belief in a political order that no longer exists, driving them into further denial. To them, clearsightedness about our current national condition will appear unduly pessimistic, almost anti-American.

“To them, clearsightedness about our current national condition will appear unduly pessimistic, almost anti-American.”

Sounds like a disclaimer before a Noam Chomsky lecture, Arie. Right-wing extremists are no better than left-wing extremists (I believe the VFRers are the former). You all need to mix a teaspoon of reality into your ten cups of principles. Give it a little flavor, maybe even make something edible.

Traditionalist — that’s the new term I’m looking for. Conservative no longer cuts it, now that the word has been hijacked and co-opted into meaningless irrelevance, or worse.

Thank you Mr. Raymond and the rest here. I am a Traditionalist. It feels good to have a name to put with principles again. :-)

Posted by: Joel on July 13, 2003 11:46 PM
“I am a Traditionalist. It feels good to have a name to put with principles again. :-)”

now that you know what you are again, could you please tell me exactly what are the principles of a traditionalist?

i have my own ideas of what the principles of a traditionalist are, but you appear to have a better grasp of the term.

>Thank you Mr. Raymond. It feels good to have a name…

You’re very welcome, Joel. I’m glad the word gives you an identity. I wasn’t the first to apply the term to myself. You’ll see Lawrence Auster use the term a lot on View from the Right.

I used to call myself a “constitutional convervative”. I subscribed to the political principles set forth by Barry Goldwater in 1964, having read all his books and major campaign speeches. It used to be called “Americanism”. For quite a few years, this philosophy has not had any political expression nationally. Now with neos and paleos, and the whole movement splintering, I just say I’m an American traditionalist.

Kind regards.

And thank you again, Mr. Raymond. :-)

The meaning of ‘Traditionalism’ as I take it finds greater clarity with each daily perusal of this site. I think we both refer to the positions so articulately rendered by Mr. Auster, who seems to be a singular voice amidst so much chaos, positions rooted in timeless principles. But while we learn more of its application, it seems to speak to something that we all recognize, even as it carries a sense of something lost.

P Murgos’s post in “Why Mainstream Conservatives Fail” also rings true in this context.

When I was younger I used the term “Washingtonian” to express my aspirations of personal character to strive toward, and something that seemed to carry over into political principle — honor, duty, morality, and reverence of God. But the term would suffer from too much subjectivity today, relative to the ignorance that most of the public has concerning the General’s life and achievements.

“Traditionalist” has a timely relevance to it for the times we live in. I had of course seen the term used before, but when I read your post its usefulness and applicability suddenly became very clear. :-)

On July 14, Abby asked a very valid question: what does a traditionalist believe?
I would refer her to several works that stand out in my mind. One is good for its brevity and simplicity: The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. It’s a small paperback that’s still in some large library systems. It’s available for a very low price from Amazon.com.
If you wish to investigate the issue deeply, you can read The Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. You can read this landmark work free online with comments at www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist.
In a delightful way, you can infer what Americans used to believe by reading The McGuffey Readers, available in some libraries and from Amazon.com. For $30-40 for the entire set, all parents should have these. Compare public education then with today.
Or, if you want to see Americanism embodied and lived, instead of fragmented into principles, do as Joel did and study the life of George Washington. Get an older text. Perhaps Joel could recommend one.
When you do, you will experience something akin to culture shock. Our hedonistic, consumerist, politically correct society has skewed our vision. In the works I mentioned above, you’ll see that reason, truth, morality, and the public good really meant something. People died for those things! In the words of Martin Luther, “Let goods and kindred go / This mortal life also / The body they may kill / God’s truth endureth still…” This is what American traditionalists believe.

thanks arie raymond,

I haven’t read goldwater’s book or the life of george washington.

i’m a pretty simple soul though and prefer my principles laid out in a nice concrete fashion where I don’t have to do analysis in determining the foundational principles.

the problem with the federalist papers is that they are based in previous theory, it is the previous theory that i am after. reading the federalist papers in searching for principles is akin to trying to determine euclid’s definitions and postulates from his propositions. i’m better off starting off with a “a point is that which has no part” and moving on from there. the fedralist papers also assume previous enlightment principles which i’m not sure all traditionalists would be willing to accept, i know i am less than willing.

give me a nice simple beginning like a soul is the principle of life, as aristotle begins his de anima with, i can understand that principle.

Regarding Washington, here are some thoughts I posted last year that had been triggered by Flexner’s excellent biography.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001210.html

i’m a pretty simple soul though and prefer my principles laid out in a nice concrete fashion where I don’t have to do analysis in determining the foundational principles. Posted by Abby at July 15, 2003 03:30 PM

OK, Abby, I’ll do your leg work for you. I’ve searched the Internet and added some things of my own. I believe these principles represent traditional Americanism:

The God of the Bible is the Creator of Nature and humankind.
The universe is a moral one, in which good and evil exist. Moral decisions made by human beings are important.
All Government is evil, including the United States government, albeit a necessary evil (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution). Therefore, the less and more diffuse the Government, the better. This concept radically contrasts with today’s inverse notion that Government is the source of all social good and the bigger the Government, the greater the good. (Does this notion sound like “Compassionate Conservatism” That’s one reason I shy away from the term “conservative”.
All human beings are of equal worth before God.
The best state for human beings is one in which they manage their own affairs, made decisions affecting their own lives, and accept responsibility for their actions —all consistant with living in society. Only a moral people are capable of sustaining free republican government. (If people cannot properly manage their own lives, they cannot manage society.)

I believe the above premises are fundamental and more are derived from them, such as…

Enumerated powers, meaning that the federal government should enjoy no powers not expressly authorized by the Constitution, or implied by powers so authorized
The ability of future generations to change the Constitution based on presently unforseen circumstances
Federalism (a sharing of power with the local and the national)
The separation of powers within a system of checks and balances, to limit and diffuse governmental power and to keep evil minimized
The rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men, also to minimize evil
The sacredness of individual, God-given rights, including:
the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the right to acquire and control property; freedom to defend oneself from evil and tyranny and to bear arms; freedom of religion; freedom of speech
(Note that rights come from God, not from man, Government, or any other earthly agency. They are not “human rights” they are “God-given rights”. Government’s function is to protect these rights.)
People should be free to engage in commerce with a minimum of state interference
Different functions for church and state: Government is to punish wrongdoers; the Church is to redeem and transform wrongdoers (sinners)
Growth and progress is a proper objective of man’s material existence; therefore, individuals should be free to develop their God-given talents in whatever way they wish. (Patents and copyrights protect the labors of inventors and authors., who benefit society.)

This list is not all-inclusive.

thanks arie raymond,

that was very kind of you

An observation:
“All Government is evil, …”

That is only traditional if one’s tradition happens to be gnosticism or liberalism. It is not Christian tradition.

Mr. Raymond’s list is a combination of Christian traditions and classical liberal traditions, which in general form the basis of the paleoconservative world view. As such it necessarily degenerates into other more extreme forms of liberalism via the Hegelian process we’ve discussed before. For example, the Christian tradition of subsidiarity, when combined with liberal political equality, results in democratic federalism — one of the now fossilized jurassic steps leftward in the dance of political modernism.

Liberalism is a fundamentally erroneous part of our political intellectual tradition. It has to be completely jettisoned in order for the concrete enduring things to survive. Blood, sword, and cross! Christendom or death!

Arie’s definition of American traditionalism is easily the best I have read so far at VFR, and it is one that makes a great deal of sense to me. More so because it it includes the specifically American (and I would argue Protestant) values of limited government and individual liberty.

“Blood, sword, and cross!”

Fat lot of good a sword is going to do you against the Islamo-fascists AKJ47’s.

A metaphor is like a simile, but all dressed up for the ball.

Shawn wrote:
“…(and I would argue Protestant) values of limited government and individual liberty.”

At the risk of restarting the religious wars around here, it should be pointed out that it was Protestantism that gave rise to a divine right of kings with the Christian religion as a department of the State under the absolute monarch. The structurally federalist stage was a bit retro in that it revived feudal subsidiarity to some degree in reaction to the absolute Protestant monarch. Federalism is a synthesis of democracy and feudalism, and while it could be argued that it was an improvement over the Protestant absolute monarch it was more the handiwork of deists and apostates than Christians of any sort.

Of course if we don’t want to face the facts about our past it won’t be possible to repent from its errors.

I too like Arie’s summary of American traditionalism. It shows the genuinely traditionalist aspects of the American system, which paleos and traditionalists are often prone to dismiss, seeing the American founding as predominantly and decisively liberal.

But I would say that the traditionalist picture of America is not balanced or complete if one doesn’t mention all the liberal aspects of the founding that undercut the traditionalist aspects which Arie expresses so well. Also, for all the greatness of the American founding, it was not adequate, and so a genuine traditionalism needs to go deeper than that.

Matt wrote: “The structurally federalist stage was a bit retro in that it revived feudal subsidiarity to some degree in reaction to the absolute Protestant monarch. Federalism is a synthesis of democracy and feudalism …”

Very interesting!

Now Matt and Shawn, stay away from those religious wars!

Posted by: Arie Raymond on July 16, 2003 04:19 PM
“All Government is evil, including the United States government, albeit a necessary evil”

Posted by: Matt on July 16, 2003 06:18 PM
“That is only traditional if one’s tradition happens to be gnosticism or liberalism. It is not Christian tradition.”

although the idea that government is a necessary evil may come out of enlightment rationalism, it doesn’t follow that the state, in contrast to government, is a necessary good. although the state can be, and usually is, a good.

Posted by: Matt on July 16, 2003 06:18 PM
“the Christian tradition of subsidiarity, when combined with liberal political equality, results in democratic federalism”

very nice insight.

I could relate in a way to abby’s statements about trying to acquire a better grasp of foundational principles. I recognized recently my own lack of grounding in Western Civ. — especially after visiting VFR.

I picked up my Shakespeare volume, but after combing the introduction I felt that it would be preferable to have some background in the same sources the Bard relied on. So last month I took on the Iliad, and last week finished the Odyssey, and this week hit Plato’s Apology and Crito. Next up is more Plato, Thucydides, Aeschylus, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero…

The Great Conversation is long and very demanding, but what a way to spend one’s time! perusing and enjoying the legacy that is ours, at least for a little while longer. In a few years, I hope to better understand the discussions here when folks refer to Hobbesian this and Hegelian that.

And the better to keep up with Matt. ;-)

One quick note on the government: good or bad exchange. I think the parameters might better be considered: bad or worse. When dealing with how best to regulate the affairs of depraved and sinful mankind, that’s the real question.

When Nebuchadnezzar stated in Daniel 4 that, “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over them the basest of men,” he spoke from personal observation. ;-)

In Judges, (under a limited governmental structure the Lord had established,) we still are twice informed that, “there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” as the book relates a cycle of idolatry. But the Monarchy still had its own problems that led to final judgment and captivity.

Still, pre-diluvian man apparently had no government, and we all know how that ended.

The basis for government I think really started after the flood when God instituted capital punishment for murderers, (which has not been rescinded,) and the Scriptures make clear that government is instituted by God. Good enough for me — but until Christ Himself is reigning on earth, it remains at best the lesser of 2 evils.

I have a college professor friend who will be impressed that VFR helped inspire Joel to embark on a reading program of the Great Books. :-)

Along the way, don’t miss the origins of Western Christendom, not just the beginnings of Christianity, but the beginning of a distinctly Western Christian as distinct from Classical culture in the Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman empire. A great gap in modern “great books” programs is jumping over the Dark Ages and the even the High Middle Ages, and the role of the Germanic tribes in joining their own cultures with the Church and thus producing something entirely new.

joel,

add in plato’s meno. read aristotle’s de anima, nicomachean ethics and politics, physics books 1&2, and books 1&2 metaphysics along with st. thomas’ commentary on all of the above. actually read all of aristotle and st. thomas for that matter, but most important, use st. thomas’ commentary when reading aristotle. use the loeb edition. also add in st.thomas on kingship.