That joke will probably be on me
Firstly, you’ll have to excuse the title. Knowing the limited readership of my blog, I wanted a title that might actually attract some of the more conservative of you here on JU.
Secondly. What is the point of this article? Well it’s not really an article as such; it’s more of a curious exploration, an attempted mapping of JU’s conservative topography. I want to know what it is to be either conservative/right-wing. What beliefs and opinions are necessary, and to what extent is this political leaning an integral part of your personality? Is it something that happens within a communicative context, as a reaction to what you hear and see, or is it a set of a priori beliefs that interact with world events and attitudes; is it a philosophy that guides your reactions to the world, or a philosophy that is a reaction of a reaction to the world? (That sounds kinda funny, but what can you do, thoughts and questions often don’t get along all that well with the written word)
Personally I have come to think of the Right as a three pronged fork – economic rationalism, social conservatism and the idea of benevolent international intervention.
The first sees politics as a way of constructing and setting up a series of economic institutions that protects the ability of business to operate in an unfettered and truly Global fashion, seeing this as the only way that economic prosperity can be obtained for the greatest number of people, not necessarily all people. Other than this initial thrust (and this thrust is still in the making, the movement, the idea, still being young) the government should not intervene, other than in times when such a system is under direct threat, in times of economic or socio-political crisis. The market will dictate in a way and with an efficiency which is impossible for the individual mind or small collective, given the complexity of the modern world, where resources should be allocated and how they should be used. This extends to almost all facets of life – even healthcare, education and the care of the more needy.
The second sees politics as a way of shoring up the moral order that has taken our civilisation millennia to formulate and implement through the workings and refinements of philosophical, scientific and religious systems. It espouses the ideal of tolerance, but not the ideal of an equal footing for all philosophies and world views, one must triumph so that the social order remains stable, so that there is security in what has taken us so long to build and what has been proven to work in the past. Other points of view can exist but they must always remain at the level of the individual or small, politically non-partisan groups. I find this one tougher than the other two as pluralism and legitimacy has always been hard to reconcile, we always find ourselves receding to a moral infinity, a line without end or resolution.
The third sees politics as a way to both defend your own country and its borders, but also as a way of defending alliances and interests overseas. With a world that is so interconnected, to not intervene would be foolish and self defeating. In past lessons, to not act on foreign shores is to invite that threat onto your own. A proactive defence is the only defence and to involve yourself politically with the world and its institutions must necessarily mean that your military must be willing to follow.
Now you know my very simple framework for understanding the Right and I am aware that it’s somewhat unsophisticated and conventional, but, what I would like to know, as well as the questions asked at the beginning of this post, is if this is sufficient, or if it is too simplistic and if it will lead me astray when dealing with those that are hung to the Right rather than Left or Centre?
As a note: I know I should probably revisit some of the threads that have exploded on JU recently, but time is pressing and the amount spent on this has already cost enough.