We, as Conservatives who are ahead of the curve, must begin to educate our fellow Conservatives (and fellow man in general) about the finer aspects of political philosophy. Having a principled (rather than a pragmatic) approach is vital.
Sadly, most modern Conservatives are “issue-based” Conservatives. When one considers only individual issues, they are bound to conflict since they are not adhering to an overarching, comprehensive principle. We must help educate others not to consider individual issues case-by-case, but instead to adopt sound principles and then base their evaluation of a specific issue on its conformance to the principle. Thus, we should focus our efforts on education about the necessity of principles and their application. We will have an infinitely more difficult time combating the endless list of individual issues.
Take, for instance, the various issues related to unlimited Democracy (Majority Rule). It is almost universally agreed that the concept that “Might Makes Right” is an immoral and unethical philosophy. But few recognize that this is the very principle that underpins unlimited majority rule. If we reject the principle, we should reject the practice. If we reject the practice, we rid ourselves of all the problems that go with it.
Once we've convinced people of these principles, we are saved the plethora battles of the individual issues.
The real question then becomes, how do we inject these principles into our society? Most people are far more interested in individual issues than they are in general universal principles. Although it certainly isn't all that can be done, one place to start would be to emphasize the principles at steak in any particular issue. Whenever possible, avoid delving into the specific pragmatic aspects of the issue, and instead focus on the principles in question. Pragmatically, almost any issue can be justified. But when you expose the principles behind an issue, you leave little room for deception or confusion.
Our principal concern should be sound principles!
Sincerely,
Brady Wright
"Most people are far more interested in individual issues than they are in general universal principles," Brady wrote in the above post. This comment reminds me of Joel's statement, "It only takes one thing in common for 'liberals' to unite. It only takes one difference of opinion for conservatives to divide" (from Joel's "In Defense Of A Principled Approach To Law" piece posted in full at this web site).
Re: Brady's remark - "Pragmatically, almost any issue can be justified. But when you expose the principles behind an issue, you leave little room for deception and confusion." This comment reminds me of a little tiff I had once with a friend, PJ. Without naming the specific topic, I'll just say that our disagreement went somewhat like this:
"You broke the rule!" PJ complained, irritated. "That's red! You weren't supposed to paint the box red; that was my rule. You knew this!"
"Well, it's not exactly red," I defended myself, adding, "It's kind of orange-red. You could even say golden since it's goldish-orange . . . It's not really red."
"You're trying to rationalize!" PJ accused. By then, I could tell that we normally like-minded "kindred spirits" had bumped into serious "Rules vs. Rationalization" conflicting views all of a sudden. Baffled, I pondered later over why PJ, so much a lover of liberty and freedom, always insisted on placing so much emphasis on one rule after another, following every one of them to the letter. Government laws and with stuff like that, sure, I could see the wisdom in following those. But applying the same stiff laws in small things, or in personal matters and friendships? Why did PJ, normally a reasonable and wise person, insist--no, demand!--rules everywhere all the time?
Eventually the answer dawned. It was to make the friendship last. To protect it. To keep it fresh instead of wilting and dying. To avoid confusion, doubt, misunderstandings, chaos. To develop trust. To set a firm foundation that wouldn't crumble in the future. But the only way I reached this conclusion was by first using my own life experiences to test "rules vs. rationalizations." Which way had worked best over the years? Try this test yourself to see if you prefer "rules or rationalizations."
Think of things that started out good, then turned sour later. Not the things that, from the beginning, were far beyond your control, but those incidents where something you said or did turned the tide. Then ask yourself honestly, did you act on only emotion during those occasions, or rationalize, leaning on endless weak excuses that caused you to accidentally "go beyond the mark" or distort the truth? Wouldn't life have run smoother, perhaps broken friendships still be in tact, feelings not hurt, disappointments might have remained dreams, certain opportunities not lost if only you'd stuck to a principled set of rules throughout the course? Wouldn't that have been safer in the end than abandoning tough mental discipline that made you cling to solid rules of right and wrong instead of surrendering to wobbly rationalizations that felt right at the time . . . but really weren't?
Next, my thoughts wandered to the "good old days"--America 40-50 years ago. Things seemed less complicated back then. People, while poorer, acted happier and calmer even during tough times. There had been more rules then, and more of us chose to obey the stricter set of standards. But by the mid 1960s, rationalizations sprang up everywhere. It was like we all recognized a red '65 Mustang (or substitute anything here), until someone explained it really was burgundy. Then the next person said it was purple; the next said blue . . . then green . . . yellow . . . white . . . Then another said it wasn't a Mustang at all; it was a white GTO.
This is one reason, I think, why America the Beautiful is now often America the Ugly with her crime, hypocrisy, deceptive and confusing illusions instead of being the real, clear, fresh-faced beauty she once was. America's decline might have begun when someone somewhere--not necessarily a bad or wicked person, maybe it was a good soul--fell into the trap of trying to rationalize and strayed from old, firm, familiar rules. If only America had remembered her roots, her tough rules that made her great in the first place . . . if only rules had reigned over rationalizations, then those "good old days" that felt safe then would probably still be here now.
My friend, PJ, was right, I decided in the end. Rules really are better than foggy rationalizations.
Great points, Eden. What most people fail to realize, though, is that when we no longer stick with sound principles and a personal desire to govern ourselves, we open the door for more and more stifling and unfair laws thrust upon us by big government. Then, we can never go home again. It's too late. Those "good old days" like you mentioned become nothing more than a far off, faded memory instead of something to savor and enjoy in the present or future. So I agree with you--to have and preserve freedom, we must have rules. The "If it feels good, do it" and "I'm OK-you're OK" crowd doesn't understand that freedom and liberty never come without good rules and people who want to be good obeying them and making sacrifices.
It is worth pointing out, however, that these rules were more social norms and voluntraily accepted codes of conduct. They were not, for the most part, rules enforced by the government upon the people. But it has been said before, and is as true now as ever, that only a moral people can remain free.
But we also shouldn't focus on moral principles at the expense of political principles. Both are important, and many well-meaning moralists have inadvertantly supported political causes that were harmful to freedom. Most people are familiar with moral principles, even if they do not accept them as their own. But very few people are familiar with the principles of freedom and liberty. Thus we have people with good intentions who take a wrong turn politically.
Today, we are particularly lacking in principled leadership. Even among those who uphold moral principles, there is a distinct lack of knowledge regarding political principles. Yet, these people are often held up by the "conservative" side as the leaders to whom we should look for guidance in political matters. This is dangerous.
We are already witnessing the possibility of further errosion of the principles of limited government and of freedom of religion by the present promotion of Bush's so-called "faith-based initiatives". Under these plans churches would be given government grants. Many religious leaders support this idea from a pragmatic view that it will benefit churches. But this is a view that is ignorant of the political principles at play. There are pragmatic reasons to oppose it: churches will become dependent upon government grants and will eventually be compelled to comply with federal mandates regarding doctrine and practices if they wish to continue to receive their grants -- thus creating pressure on churches to conform to the mandates of the State. But more importantly, there are principled reasons to oppose it: The forcible taking of someone's property through taxation and subsequent redistribution to purposes other than universal government services (such as police, military, courts, etc.) is wrong in principle. In fact, it is theft, or what Frederic Bastiat called "Legal Plunder"[1]. Even if we did not have pragmatic grounds to oppose such legislation, and even if it was a wholesale benefit to churches, it is still wrong in principle. Much like how if I tell a lie, but nobody gets hurt, it is still a lie.
I believe it is time that we had political leadership that is politically principled, as well as morally principled.
[1] www.bastiat.org