*Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump* Book on conservatism and [[Reactionary Ideology]] in contrast to [[Revolutions]]. > [!quote] On Being Conservative, Michael Oakeshott > To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ^oakeshott # Thoughts It crystalizes the [[Reactionary Ideology]] well. I've independently thought of many ideas mentioned in the book but Robin structures them to tell a cohesive narrative. The main thesis of ==reactionary ideology being distinct from the establishments and progressivism== - is compelling. The rest of the book explores the genealogy of reactionary ideology of the Europe and America. # Topics ## Conservatism > [!quote] to defeat a revolution, you must become the revolution. * Fundamentally defined as a reactionary ideology. This contrasts with *traditionalism*, inertial opposition against change. * By definition, conservatism can only exist in the presence of progress, forming a competitive symbiosis. * the author explicitly groups all similar movements - conservatism, reactionary, counter-revolutionary together. * reactionaries and revolutionaries shares the contempt towards the [[Ancien régime]]. They both agree that it is corrupt and incompetent. They acknowledge that the cat's out of the bag and one cannot simply rewind history. Reactionaries differ from here - they want to create a new order that resembles the hierarchies of the ancien regime, with renewed vigor and intellectual framework. ## [[Burke]] [[Edmund Burke]] plays major role in the book as the founder of conservatism. * Two works - *Reflections on the Revolution in France* (*Reflection*) and *A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful* (*Sublime and Beautiful*) are frequently referenced. * *Sublime and Beautiful* forms a aesthetics framework, *Reflection* pushes the reactionary program. * *Thoughts and Details on Scarcity* has the line on homogeneity of labour compared to the irreplaceable value of capital allocation. ### Sublime and Beautiful > [!quote] > "Lions, tigers, panthers, and rhinoceroses are sublime not because they are magnificent specimens of strength but because they can and will kill us." The sublime-beautiful distinction is more philosophical but it is foundational. ## War and Violence > [!note] *Warrior Nobles* and *Capitalist Entrepreneurs* Somewhere between Burke to Hayek, entrepreneurs elevated as the warrior nobles of the society. Burke was suspicious of the newly rising capitalists. Pursuit of profit simply didn't have the gravity of the *high politics* ([[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]]'s *grosse politik*) - the matter of war and peace. Hayek and Rand elevated entrepreneurs beyond the outdated warrior nobles. The cold war equated the both struggles into one, as the pursuit of capitalistic endeavor is seen as a struggle against the opposing ideology of communism. In the battlefield of economic ideology, a capitalist is a military general. This changed when the cold war ended, sending the conservatives into disarray [^clinton] Lamenting ennui, materialism, and decadence resulting from a long peace is not uniquely reactionary (the *hard times create strong men...* meme is universally recognized), so as some belief of "trial by fire" both for individuals and the society. [[September 11]] attack is the most recent incident, but very little has changed - we've not reverted back to the *high politics*. Robin connects it with the [[#Sublime and Beautiful|Sublimity]] of violence - "Violence, is one of the experiences in life that makes us feel the most alive, and violence is an activity that makes life, well, lively". Many other examples of this - Nietzsche's *what doesn't kill you make you stronger*, Scalia's *duresse oblige*. [^clinton]: [[Clinton Presidency|Clinton]]'s vision of "post-war world", where economic problems are the most potent existential threat, is telling. ## Hierarchy Justification of the power and hierarchy, [[Slavery]]. - the world as we know of it will will "fall apart" without the status quo hierarchy. - the ambivalent relationship between the conservatism and freedom-equality. - the argument in defense of hierarchy becomes more obscure over time, to stay up to date with the political language of the day (ex: cannot say "negro" out loud; needs to be articulated as states' rights, religious freedom, ...) ### Ever-present hierarchy Question around the reactionary ideology's strategy to mobilize the masses. - unless one is a king or a pauper, they are positioned somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy, always having someone to command. This is one's current privilege. - one can appeal to the loss aversion mentality, and remind of the loss of power in the equality, no matter how small it is. A large plantation is materially different than a common farmer, but they can empathize as slaveowners. - In a strictly hierarchical society (by race or by sex), a large portion of the society is in a dominant position simply by being a man or white ("every white is an aristocrat compared to a negro", "every husband is a master of his own home"). Fear of that loss can is a major reactionary catalyst. > [!quote] > Their thinking, in the words of one Tennessee farmer, was that “the minute you put it out of the power of common farmers to purchase a Negro man or woman . . . you make him an abolitionist at once. ### Meritocracy and justification of hierarchy The upper class always need to justify the hierarchy, and attribute to some merit on why they sit at the top. These include: - Frankish conquerer nobles (vs the conquered Celtic) theory - Burke’s preference of capital over labor; labor is indistinguishable commodity whereas allocation of capital is a creative endeavor - [[Friedrich Hayek|Hayek]]’s avant-grade capitalist - [[Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy|Schumpeter]]’s entrepreneur - Rand’s creative geniuses driving the innovation (and others are "moochers") - Scalia's view on games and competition. Games and competitions are objective trial, the last man standing in an arena is rightfully superior to others. ## Christianity Once again, ambivalence. * [[On the Genealogy of Morality|Master-Slave Morality]] * Christian ethics yielding socialism > [!quote] > "Nietzsche had long been wise to this insinuation; one source of his discontent with religion was his sense that it had bequeathed to modernity an understanding of what morality entailed (selflessness, universality, equality) such that only socialism and democracy could be said to fulfill it." (Corey Robin, The Reactionary Mind) * Rand's lifelong atheism, denoting Christianity as the “best kindergarten of communism possible.” * However, the conservative movement since Nixon mobilized the Evangelicals and religious freedom. ## Revolution As conservatism is defined as a reaction against progress, the book details what conservatives see, oppose, and learn from revolutions. ### Revolutionary *Content* vs *Form* Revolutions have *revolutionary content* - constitutionalism, emancipating slaves, universal suffrage and *revolutionary form* - intellectual frameworks, passion of participants, protests, militant actions. Robin argues that conservatives, even as an enemy of the revolution, are in awe by the revolutionary force. In fact, the conservatives lament the corruption and lethargy of the status quo that gave birth to and cannot compete against the revolution. > [!quote] > [[Carl Schmitt]] formalized Sorel’s contempt for the weaknesses of the ruling classes into an entire theory of politics. According to Schmitt, the bourgeois was as he was—risk-averse, selfish, uninterested in bravery or violent death, desirous of peace and security—because capitalism was his calling and liberalism his faith. With this in mind, reactionaries push for a reactionary content while benchmarking the revolutionary form. These include: * Intellectual framework (Hayek, [[Ayn Rand]]) * Charismatic leader (Goldwater, [[Reagan Presidency|Reagan]], [[Trump Presidency|Trump]]) * Structured organization and zealous following ([[The Federalist Society|FedSoc]], The National Review) * **Language of the left** (really, language of the revolution) > [!quote] > More recently still, David Horowitz has encouraged conservative students “to use the language that the left has deployed so effectively in behalf of its own agendas. Radical professors have created a ‘==hostile learning environment==’ for conservative students. There is a lack of ‘==intellectual diversity==’ on college faculties and in academic classrooms. The conservative viewpoint is ‘==underrepresented==’ in the curriculum and on its reading lists. The university should be an ‘==inclusive==’ and intellectually ‘==diverse==’ community.” > [!TODO] quote from [[The Sympathizer]], referencing the usage of the word *vanguard*. > [!note] > I used to call the above as *linguistic inflation*, where words are losing all meaning. ## Hobbes Robin's characterization of the *reactionary* made it clear why both the royalists and parliamentarians were hostile to Hobbes. He was against the parliamentarians, but instead of defending the old regime he created a new edifice for the new breed of conservatism. Thus a simple question like "was Hobbes a liberal" is tricky to answer. With this in mind, the phrase *an enemy of an enemy is a friend* does not hold. Reactionaries and Revolutionaries are both the enemy of the ancien regime, but they are diametrically opposed against each other. # Per-Chapter Summary Part 1 presents the author's framework. Part 2 outlines the European history of conservatism, from Hobbes (the first reactionary) to Hayek. Part 3 moves to the American development, from Rand to Trump. ## (1.1) The Private Life of Power * French Revolution and [[Edmund Burke]]'s interpretation is the other side of the revolution - the genesis of conservatism. * treatise on unwritten obligations on top of existing hierarchies (husband-wife, employer-employee...). *Implicit consent*. * Reaction against a mere suggestion against hierarchy. "Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes". * Equality vs Freedom; it's the "Freedom to many" that conservatives are against. * Projecting personal power on hierarchical power, vice versa (on slavery) * conservatism only exists as a reaction against something else; it cannot exist without its enemy. * defining conservatism as a reactionary movement that's different than *traditionalism* * [[#^oakeshott|Oakeshott Definition]] * Conservative arguments, becoming more abstract over time; in the beginning everyone knew that it was a euphemism against something else (ex: against negros); but as time went on, the abstract argument persisted. * [[#Meritocracy and justification of hierarchy]] * (Woolf describes the same in *A room of one's own*) * The "warrior and businessman" as a twin icon. ## (1.2) On Counterrevolution * Burke and Maistre * counterrevolution doesn't bring back the *ancien regime*, but restores something new. * Mobilizing the masses * Admiration towards the enemy (i.e. revolution), and disdain towards the [[Ancien régime]]. * Admiration towards the warrior and entrepreneur class. * However, a bit of ambivalence towards the entrepreneur class. * Appeal to loss and loss aversion. ## (1.3) The Soul of Violence * Mixed relationship with violence. * [[#Sublime and Beautiful]] - Worshiping *Sublime violence*; the myth of the warrior class. * "what doesn't kill you makes stronger". War and violence as a trial by fire to form an individual (and a society). * Contempt towards the corruption, lethargy, and materialism of today compared to an idealized past. * Hierarchy * Examples of 9/11 and "rule of law" ## (2.4) The First Counterrevolutionary * [[#Hobbes]] * Ancien regime frameworks - divine rights or constitutional monarchy * Hobbes's counterrevolutionary program angered royalists and republicans alike. * again, adding to the "counterrevolution is a form of revolution". * Comments on Leviathan * Confusing *liberty* and *sovereignty* * freedom = freedom of "motion". * one cannot act against one's will (the example of being threatened by a robber) * more restriction there are, more free we are. ## (2.5) Burke's Market Value > [!thought] > This chapter's a bit difficult; in fact, I'm really confused by the meticulous detail on the second half, where Burke's confused between ranking labor, capital, and old aristocratic values. > * Burke and [[Adam Smith|Smith]] * [[Labor Theory of Value]], contrasting Burke and Smith. * labor vs capital, subjective vs objective value. * Burke as a proto-[[Austrian School|Austrian]] economist, but the ideas are in its primacy. * Once again, focus on hierarchy. Burke slowly coming to terms with the new economic class defining hierarchy. * Burke, his debts, his pension, criticisms of hypocrisy Burke's argument against labor; how labor is homogeneous and fungible. > [!quote] the example from Burke's *Thoughts on Scarcity* > ... that any given five men will, in their total, ==afford a proportion of labour equal to any other five== ... among such five men there will be one possessing all the qualifications of a good workman, one bad, and the other three middling, and approximating to the first and the last. So that in so small a platoon as that of even five, you will find the full complement of all that five men can earn. Taking five and five through the kingdom, they are equal. > [!thought] > This mentality of "linear vs exponential impact" is seen in Taleb and [[Paul Graham|PG]] and is as old as the reactionary beliefs. ## (2.6) In Nietzsche's Margins - [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]]'s lament - War cleansing bourgeois decadence - Lament against Christian / slave mentality ([[On the Genealogy of Morality]]) - Economics, philosophy, and the question of value - [[Austrian School|Austrian]] school; - [[Friedrich Hayek|Hayek]] and [[Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy|Schumpeter]] - Hayek's articulation of morality of value and economical choice. Economical choice hints at the underlying ethics. (akin to how [[Utilitarianism]] is econo-ethical system). - This is a worthwhile programme to elevate economics from the "frivolous choices" compared to the "life and death" choices of the high politics. - [[Carl Schmitt]] - [[Marginal Theory of Value|Marginalism]] - demand driven view, thus consumption choice is ultimately defining value - Against labor theory of value - Schumpeter’s entrepreneur, founder, and medieval feudal lord - Capitalist as avant-garde of taste (either by shipping new product, or by being an early adopter) - Hierarchy of entrepreneurial genius over the ordinary; freedom for geniuses ## (3.7) Metaphysics and Chewing Gum > [!thought] > The author is quite unfair to Ayn Rand, calling her "neither a novelist nor a philosopher". Though some habits, such as quoting from *John Galt* as if he's a real person (and not herself), is insufferable. On [[Ayn Rand]]: * Misinterpretation of Aristotle, "A is A" * Rand, Kitsch, Hitler * Nietzsche's slave mentality * Rand's geniuses, "exceptional man" like Roark and Galt [[Ayn Rand]]'s inversion: > [!quote] > "Rand believed that this meeting of heaven and earth could be arranged by other means. Rather than remake the world in the image of paradise, she looked for paradise in an image of the world" ## (3.8) The Prince as Pariah * Conservative as an underdog, victim-mentality. "Grieved and entitled", "victim and victor" * [[Barry Goldwater]], [[Nixon Presidency|Nixon]] * appropriating the left's language * segregation, private schools, and "religious freedom" * against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ## (3.9) Remembrance of Empires Past * Era of Clinton and Bush * end of cold war, "free market" is apolitical. * [[September 11]] as a biblical punishment for "free market decadence" after the cold war - both from the conservatives and liberals. * [[September 11]] didn't rejuvenate the nation as the conservatives hoped for. ## (3.10) Affirmative Action Baby - Antonio Scalia - Game and competition (golf case - *PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin*) - Contrasting Scalia's *Originalism* and his love of Jack Bauer (24). ## (3.11) A Show About Nothing * [[Trump Presidency|Trump]] * Ornament over monumental * inconsistencies, whether this is the nature of conservatives or not. * Market as a game * Profit and gambling, Keynes * glorification of market, and trump’s destruction of it * On Trump-Hitler comparison, and why this is not a good one ([[How Democracy Ends]] covered the similar topic) # Literatures * [[Edmund Burke]] * [[Friedrich Hayek|Hayek]] * The Road to Serfdom * The Constitution of Liberty