What Conservatives Value
I read one of the most asinine things I've ever read in my entire life in "Why I am a Liberal" so, I felt it necessary to respond to such asinine nonsense with facts and reality. Ultimately, the differences that distinguish leftism (including both liberalism and Marxism) and the right are ultimately the questions over human nature, inequality, the natural order and where morality comes from. I urge everyone to read the post I cited to get a better idea of what I am responding to. Trigger warning: I will NOT hold back my moral outrage and political opinions for you. If you want to listen to how lovely the world of purple unicorns and gumdrops is, be my guest. I am not here to entertain you. That said, this is my first My Take, so if it seems a little disorganized, then there's a good reason why. Now, let's begin.
Pragmatic vs. Utopian
The most obvious difference between Conservatism and Leftism is basically the view of pragmatism or utopianism. The left believes that the current form of society, and former forms of society were all evil patriarchical, imperialist, colonialist, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, and slave-holding hell holes which ultimately have to be destroyed or replaced by a leftist utopia, wherein all of these problems will have been eradicated. I'll quote from a couple different authors to drive this point home. First, Russell Kirk, the famous American Conservative.
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted.... Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise... Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away....
The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress... at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.
Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old....[1]
In summary, Conservatism is not anti-gay, anti-woman or anything of the sort. Rather, Conservatives are pro-tradition. For the simple reason that tradition works, whereas, faced with a new reform or revolution, often times goes in the wrong direction and ends up causing more harm then good.
Compare, then, to the left's position and perspective of the world. Sylvia Pankhurst, was a labor and communist activist who worked to save poor people in Ethiopia. This is what she said.
Under Communism all shall satisfy their material needs without stint or measure from the common storehouse, according to their desires. Everyone will be able to have what he or she desires in food, in clothing, books, music, education and travel facilities. The abundant production now possible, and which invention will constantly facilitate, will remove any need for rationing or limiting of consumption.
Every individual, relying on the great common production, will be secure from material want and anxiety.
There will be no class distinctions, since these arise from differences in material possessions, education and social status — all such distinctions will be swept away.
There will be neither rich nor poor. Money will no longer exist, and none will desire to hoard commodities not in use, since a fresh supply may be obtained at will. There will be no selling, because there will be no buyers, since everyone will be able to obtain everything at will, without payment.
The possession of private property, beyond that which is in actual personal use, will disappear.
There will be neither masters nor servants, all being in a position of economic equality — no individual will be able to become the employer of another.
All children will be educated up to adult age, and all adults will be able to make free, unstinted use of all educational facilities in their abundant leisure.
Stealing, forgery, burglary, and all economic crimes will disappear, with all the objectionable apparatus for preventing, detecting and punishing them.
Prostitution will become extinct; it is a commercial transaction, dependent upon the economic need of the prostitute and the customer’s power to pay.
Sexual union will no longer be based upon material conditions, but will be freely contracted on the basis of affection and mutual attraction.
The birth of children will cease to be prevented by reason of poverty.
Material anxiety being removed, and the race for wealth eliminated, other objects and ambitions will take the place of the personal struggle for individual material existence; since all will benefit from the labour of all honour will be done, not to the wealthy, as at present, but to those who are skilful and zealous in the common service.
Emulation in work will take the place of emulation in wealth.
With the disappearance of the anxious struggle for existence, which saps the energy and cripples initiative, a new vigour, a new independence will develop. People will have more courage to desire freedom, greater determination to possess it. They will be more exacting in their demands upon life, more fastidious as to their choice of a vocation. They will wish to work at what they enjoy, to order their lives as they desire. Work will be generally enjoyed as never before in the history of mankind. [2]
Which summarized is to say, we want liberty, equality and fraternity as we define it. The problem with leftism is that there is no end to the amount of alleged liberties, rights, lack of equality and lack of democracy that one may or may not have. Whenever someone is aggrieved, then we need to say that they are not equal, or are not given equal rights as everyone else, and then we need to reorder society in order to give them those rights. And since, as Kirk mentioned, progress in one area is regression in another, then we have to take rights, liberties and opportunities from one group and then give it to the group which is feeling disenfranchised. That is immoral and evil. Especially if we're looking at the means by which leftists have attempted to do this throughout history. Hint: It involves the guillotine, firing squads, artificial famines, political assassinations, mass extermination, genocide, purges, and labor camps.
Values and Merit Matter
Alright, let's talk about what makes Conservatism moral and leftism immoral here. As you read from Sylvia Pankhurst, to the leftist, there is no such thing as evil. At least, not when it relates to the disenfranchised. The disenfranchised are always good, no matter what actions or worldviews they hold that might be malicious, terroristic, vile, depraved, perverse or otherwise. It's only the oppressor who is evil. It's those white cis-gendered, probably Christian, males, conservatives and the rich people who are evil. It's not the people who are disenfranchised, they are not responsible for their actions because evil was done to them by the oppressor class, so they only behave as a reaction or as a result of oppression. That's what Islamic jihad, black crime apologists, "LGBT" advocates, feminists, SJWs, the poor, welfare recipients, communists etc. have in common. Nobody is to blame for evil within those communities but the outside oppressor force, any crimes committed within those groups or with relation to those groups is only and can only ever be the result of the oppressor class oppressing that group and as a result leading them to commit evil deeds.
However, the right sees evil as evil. When a jihadist rapes a girl, sells her into slavery and burns her alive when she is disobedient, that act is evil. It is not because of a super oppressor force oppressing jihadists that makes them evil, it is their actions. Their values and the actions which come from their values merits whether or not that person is respectable and good, or despicable and evil. The problem is that the left sees all values, cultures and people as equal. They cannot distinguish between their moral anger at the inequality in the world and the actual reality that the existence of inequality is a good thing, keeping evil down and allowing good to flourish, even if it isn't perfect as it exists today.
Leftists imply that merely by existing you are worthy of respectability, rights, equality, liberty etc. etc. Conservatives believe that what you do and what you believe merits whether I should give you rights or respect. Just because you are LGBT, Muslim, black, or communist doesn't entitle you to respect. If you believe in evil ideas or commit evil actions then you are not worthy of respect. In fact, even if you're a decent person you're still not worthy of respect. NOBODY is worthy of respect from ANYONE.
This is one of the reasons the right advocates religious values over secular values. The reality is, everyone left up to their own devices can come up with any number of different value systems which are at odds with other value systems. This is why we need a common cultural, religious etc. heritage so that we can all agree that something is evil. Take Islam, for example. In Islam, raping non-Muslim slaves is legitimate. Now, I know leftists love to attack the Old Testament, which is fine. However, no Christian or Jew is behaving in accordance with the Old Testament in the way Muslims behave in accordance with Islamic texts. There is nothing Muhammad did that ISIS does not do today.
The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)
"O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
Furthermore, most people in the West find murder and killing absolutely deplorable. However, according to Islam, Muhammad laughed and giggled when he saw people die in front of him.
Aamir bin Sa'd radiyallahu anhu says, My father Sa'd said, "Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam laughed on the day of the Battle of Khandaq till his teeth showed." Aamir radiyallahu anhu says, "I asked why did he laugh?" he replied, "A Kaafir had a shield, and Sa'd was a great archer. The kaafir protected himself by swaying the shield from side to side covering his forehead. (Sayyidina Sa'd radiyallahu anhu was a famous marksman, but the kaafir did not let the arrows get him). Sa'd radiyallahu anhu took an arrow (and kept it ready in the bow). When the non believer removed the shield from his head, he quickly aimed at the kaafir and did not miss the target, i.e. the (enemy's) forehead. The enemy immediately fell down, his legs rising into the air. On that Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam laughed till his mabaraak teeth showed." I asked, "Why did Rasoolullah sallallahu alaihe wasallam laugh?" He replied, "Because of what Sa'd had done to the man." [3]
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
In Islam, Muhammad is seen as the perfect man. In Christianity, Jesus is. Jesus never raped anyone, nor did he condone the killing of anyone or laugh about it. This is why ISIS does what it does. Leftists want to blame all of the oppression in the world on capitalists, white conservative cis-gendered men and the Western world rather than on the actual cause of oppression, which are a) what values you have and b) the result of the natural state of inequality in the world.
Hobbsian Realism vs. Leftist Internationalism
The difference between the left and the right with regard to international relations is basically that of Rousseau vs. Hobbes. Rousseau believed, in his famous adagé that, "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." In other words, people are completely fine on their own, it's just society and the evil oppressor class which makes people behave with malintent and it's the oppressor class which oppresses everything! The Hobbsian view, that Conservatives hold to, says that evil is in fact part of the natural order. Evil will always exist, and in fact to counter evil we need a strong force in society to do so. That's what the government is for, oppressing evil. Oppression is a good thing, it forces evil to turn tail and run. In fact, leftists know this all too well themselves. It was Mao Zedong who said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Leftists and right-wingers both understand that to make change in the world, to do politics requires force and violence. The only difference is that the left pretends it's on a noble crusade for equality, freedom and rights whilst doing so. And, that the left piles up more dead bodies when it does so compared to the right.
The left's view of international relations can be summarized in the following way, if we give everyone freedom, rights, equality etc. then they'll love us and each other and we'll make peace on Earth! The right's view is that international relations is a tough thing, however we MUST use force, whether we like it or not, to maintain civil society. If we didn't, every society would end up like Syria and Iraq are today.
Religious Values Are Superior to Non-Religious Values
The left, because it believes all values are equal, also believes that we can make up our own values and make society run perfectly smoothly. Of course, history tells a different tale. The most extremist, violent and terroristic regimes on the planet have been non-religious and anti-religious. There's a good reason for this, as a former atheist it has been my experience also, that if there are no religious values in society, then different values will take their place. Positivism, scientism, Marxism, nihilism, etc. will take the place of any religious values in society once you get rid of religious values. Always.
Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We are going to destroy all enslaving and degrading capitalist institutions and re-create them as free and humanizing institutions. The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the sun of socialism is rising. It is our duty to build the new nation and the free republic. (Eugene V. Debs, Canton Speech)
The Ontological and Natural Reality of Inequality & Hierarchy
The left believes inequality is evil, and must be overcome by whatever means necessary. This is why the original liberals in the French Revolution cried loudly about liberty, equality and fraternity, while brandishing the guillotine against their enemies and butchered them brutally if they didn't give them their liberty. In other words, it's not 'give me liberty or give me death' which is the conservative axiom, but 'give me liberty, or die' as the leftist equivalent.
The right, on the other hand, understands that people are not equal, and do not have equal abilities, proclivities, determination, ambition etc. And so, equality is impossible. A sociologist Charles Murray estimated that 97% of all inventions between 500BC and the modern day have been created by white cis-gendered males. Black people commit more crime per capita than any other group. Asians make more money in any given society than other ethnic groups. Women make less than men because women choose different careers than men, the latter are more likely to be disagreeable, open-to-experience and take risks. That's why men go into engineering and women go into nursing. People with higher IQs correlate with higher paying jobs. Jews have a vast number more Nobel prizes than Muslims do. I don't even think a single Muslim has produced a Nobel prize. All of this is an attempt to illustrate that people are NOT equal. They never will be. That's not something we should whine and complain about, we just have to accept it and move on. The only thing you can change is YOURSELF, you cannot change society, the world, the universe, the whole population and subject them to your ideology.
Family is the most obvious element of the ontological reality of inequality. The male parent and female parents operate different roles in the family, while the children obey, and have no choice to. Children are entirely dependent on the parent, and therefore are entirely unequal with their caregiver.
Alright, that's why conservatism is right. Leftism attempts to make reality into something that it isn't, and in doing so destroys the fabric of society and makes more problems down the road than it purports to solve. A few quick confessions, I was an atheist and I was a Marxist Trotskyite and as much as I used to deny these criticisms of my ideology as "not true communism" etc. the truth is that leftism ALWAYS leads to these types of outcomes. The conservatives are RIGHT about human nature, and their critique of the left I learned that, which is why I left the Socialist Party in the United States. As I said before, this is my first My Take and I also want to mention that I planned to type MUCH MORE than this, but I couldn't because of the 20,000 character limit.
Most Helpful Opinions