Front Porch Republic has an article by Republican Kansas State Representative Lance Kinzer reflecting on what the history of his home state suggests for "what it means for people to live together in society". Kinzer invokes this localism to shape an alternative narrative for the GOP:
It might point us to a Republican Party that favors limited government not out of a desire for radical autonomy detached from community, but because we reject the idea of an omnipotent state in favor of loyalties that run to our families, our churches and local associations.
It might point us to a Republican Party that favors individual liberty from an understanding that in a genuine community the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens will be made locally and voluntarily ...
It might point us to a Republican Party that favors markets not to make Wall Street rich, but to make families and local communities free.
It might point us to a Republican Party that favors traditional values, not out of some schoolmarmish desire to interpose upon the private lives of others, but from a belief that the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth can not be hermetically sealed from one another.
Okay, it is far from perfect. It does, however, affirm an expression of communitarian values and, in a manner akin to Cameron, identifies the 'big state' as the undermining not merely the individual but rather local communities. The reference to 'markets' requires more significant qualification, with a recognition that 'free' markets can undermine both families and local communities - and thus require regulation.
The authentically conservative belief in the relationship between "the inner order of the soul and the outer order of the commonwealth" has been restated in the recovery of virtue ethics by moral philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre. That said, "traditional values" also requires some unpacking, not least a recognition that Kansas in 1879 is not Kansas in 2009. An example of a sensible GOP reflection on same-sex partnerships can be seen in McCain advisor Steve Schmidt's speech to the Log Cabin Republicans - this is surely the sort of thinking that a GOP wishing to govern diverse communities must embrace.
Kinzer ends by quoting C.S. Lewis, who talked of a social existence in which "one need be neither proud nor lonely". For all of its flaws, Kinzer's vision of the GOP offers a different vision to the big government, national glory and the sovereign individual, libertarian narratives that have dominated recent Republican history. Beyond Empire, Individual and Market, the GOP needs to rediscover the conservative truth reasserted by Cameron - there is such a thing as society.
Monday, 23 November 2009
Friday, 20 November 2009
London and the emptiness of individualism
I am a true provincial. The Lake District. The Scottish Highlands. Northumbria. I can imagine living in such areas. I cannot imagine living in London. But Simon Jenkins' article in today's Guardian suggests that although London "disfigures itself with ugliness", authentic community is experienced even amidst the staggering inequalities and rampant individualism:
"I do not spend my time in the city, as most non-residents do, enveloped in crowds, shopping and fighting public transport (which is not that bad). I see a city of local streets enlivened by corner shops, bustling pubs, children going to school, parks, squares, museums, theatres. It is a place of intense calm, if I want it. More than that, I love the comforting familiarity of a life lived in one place, of the continuity of things and friends, spiced only sometimes by a dollop of change".
"The continuity of things and friends" - that, perhaps, is a necessary requirement of community. And that community can be experienced even in a cosmopolitian metropolis is, perhaps, an enduring testimony to the empty myth of individualism.
"I do not spend my time in the city, as most non-residents do, enveloped in crowds, shopping and fighting public transport (which is not that bad). I see a city of local streets enlivened by corner shops, bustling pubs, children going to school, parks, squares, museums, theatres. It is a place of intense calm, if I want it. More than that, I love the comforting familiarity of a life lived in one place, of the continuity of things and friends, spiced only sometimes by a dollop of change".
"The continuity of things and friends" - that, perhaps, is a necessary requirement of community. And that community can be experienced even in a cosmopolitian metropolis is, perhaps, an enduring testimony to the empty myth of individualism.
Middle East peace and the wonderful world of Sarah Palin
Burke's Corner noted how Rod Dreher's review of Sarah Palin's Going Rouge (again the Amazon link is provided solely for those interested in intellectual self-flagellation) pointed out that Palin "spends seven pages dishing about her appearance on Saturday Night Live, but just over one page discussing her national security views".
Perhaps it is just as well. Andrew Sullivan quotes Palin's considered, thoughtful views on a key issue in the Middle East peace process:
"I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand".
Stick to Saturday Night Live, Sarah. Please.
Perhaps it is just as well. Andrew Sullivan quotes Palin's considered, thoughtful views on a key issue in the Middle East peace process:
"I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand".
Stick to Saturday Night Live, Sarah. Please.
Carson, Conferences and Confidence
While Burke's Corner enjoys the relative anonymity of this blog, I appeared on Northern Visions/NvTv's Blogtalk alongside Alan in Belfast and Chris Donnelly from Slugger. The programme can be viewed here.
The main issues of discussion were the purchase of Sir Edward Carson's uniforms by National Museums Northern Ireland, the management of party conferences and the meaning of 'community confidence' in Northern Ireland's political process.
Carson's uniforms allowed us to explore the forthcoming succession of centenaries (1912, 1914, 1916, 1920) and how our divided community will manage these commemorations. Alan shamefully alleged that party conferences are now carefully managed, sanitised events (to which all party managers will say, "thanks for the compliment"). Chris took us down the thorny road of the devolution of policing and justice powers.
My favourite moment, however, is the point where I get to describe Robespierre as a "tyrant".
The main issues of discussion were the purchase of Sir Edward Carson's uniforms by National Museums Northern Ireland, the management of party conferences and the meaning of 'community confidence' in Northern Ireland's political process.
Carson's uniforms allowed us to explore the forthcoming succession of centenaries (1912, 1914, 1916, 1920) and how our divided community will manage these commemorations. Alan shamefully alleged that party conferences are now carefully managed, sanitised events (to which all party managers will say, "thanks for the compliment"). Chris took us down the thorny road of the devolution of policing and justice powers.
My favourite moment, however, is the point where I get to describe Robespierre as a "tyrant".
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
The woman who takes the Grand out of GOP
The speculation over a possible Palin GOP presidential campaign in 2012 has been fanned by hear Oprah appearance and her book tour. Oprah witnessed the admission that after the infamous Couric interview (when Palin declared - to the shock of the interviewer - that she believed the Constitution guaranteed a right to privacy ... the grounds used in Roev.Wade to overturn all legal limits to abortion), "I don’t blame people for thinking I wasn’t qualified after seeing that interview". Indeed, Ms. Palin, indeed.Then there is the book (the Amazon link is provided for those who may be considering indulging in intellectual self-flagellation). One former (female) McCain staffer described it as "based on fabrications" and a "bizarre fixation". Even better, however, is conservative columnist Rod Dreher's review of the book. It is worth quoting at length:
Sarah Palin is back to tell us that she loves Alaska. And America. And Todd, the First Dude. She loves God, Ronald Reagan, cutting taxes and serving those she calls "ordinary hardworking people." Who's on Sarah's enemies list? The media. Good ol' boys who condescend to her. Elites like the Alaskan gadfly she describes as a "Birkenstock-and-granola Berkeley grad." Oh, and she really hates cynical McCain campaign staffers who, in her view, sabotaged her vice-presidential campaign. That's pretty much everything you need to know about Going Rogue, the former Alaska governor's breezy new memoir ...
The rap on Palin is that she's too shallow and inexperienced for the presidency — a conclusion that early Palin supporters like me came to during the 2008 campaign. Alas, for conservatives in search of a champion, there's nothing in Going Rogue to challenge that conclusion. It's like this: Palin spends seven pages dishing about her appearance on Saturday Night Live, but just over one page discussing her national security views ...
Sarah Palin is selling a personality, not a platform. That's not dumb. She's doing the best she can with what she has to work with. She quotes her father's line upon her resignation this summer as Alaska's governor: "Sarah's not retreating, she's reloading." On evidence of this book, Sarah Palin is charging toward 2012 shooting blanks.
It is shocking indictment of the GOP that as the great hopes placed in the Obama presidency flounder, as Obama's approval rating dips beneath 50%, as a leading Harvard authority on competitiveness ends a recent article with the line "All Americans should hope that the next President and Congress rise to the challenge", how exactly has the GOP allowed a situation to emerge where commentators and the media are allowed to seriously consider a presidential run by this woman?
With the mid-terms approaching, if the GOP is serious about reaching out across the Great Republic to build a centre-right electoral coalition capable of re-taking the White House in 2012, the Party must signal that the this woman has no part to play in its future.
Seven pages dishing about her appearance on Saturday Night Live, but just over one page discussing her national security views. Palin is single-handedly capable of removing the 'Grand' from the GOP.
Monday, 16 November 2009
The Crash, economists and the recovery of virtue
On Comment is Free Dean Baker highlights the fundamental weakness behind attempts to reform the regulatory system for the financial sector:
"We got into this crisis because of a serious failure of the regulators and, more importantly, the economics profession. The failure to come to grips with this reality both means that much of the regulatory reform effort will be misdirected and that we will have done little to prevent the next crisis".
The economists, Baker is clear, bear a hefty responsibility for the economic crisis. He tells us this by means of a parable:
"we have a case where the fire engine showed up at the burning building and then just went home. It may be the case that the equipment was old, but they still could have put out the fire if they had tried. It's a good idea to get new equipment, but if the firefighters are not prepared to actually put out the fire, this effort will have been pointless. That appears to be the story of financial reform thus far".
All that said, Baker's suggested solution - "fire the regulators" - is not satisfactory. Why should we think that the next cadre of economists will be any less prone to misreading the market than their predecessors? Baker's reliance on a high priesthood of economists also avoids the wider cultural issues to be confronted in the aftermath of our Great Crash. Regulators did not cause the crisis - they just didn't see it coming.
Which leads us to the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking today to the TUC. Rowan Williams outlined the danger of leaving our economic life to the economists:
"Now more than ever, we need to be able in the political and economic context to spell out with a fair degree of clarity what our commitments are, what kind of human character we want to see. Politics left to managers and economics left to brokers add up to a recipe for social and environmental chaos. We are all a bit shy, understandably so, of making too much of moral commitment in public discourse; we are wary of high-sounding hypocrisy and conscious of the unavoidable plurality of convictions that will exist in a modern society. Yet the truth is that the economic and social order isn't a self-contained affair, separate from actual human decisions about what is good and desirable".
The economy "isn't a self-contained affair". For authentic human flourishing, the Market requires a cultural context, a public "moral commitment". That context, says Williams, has traditionally been understood in European culture in terms of the 'virtues' - a shared sense of moral commitment that orientated the Market towards the common good:
"I realise that the word 'virtue' is hard for many to take seriously. But it's high time we reclaimed it. We have no other way of talking about the solid qualities of human behaviour that make us more than reactive and self-protective – the qualities of courage, intelligent and generous foresight, self-critical awareness and concern for balanced universal welfare which, under other names, have been part of the vocabulary of European ethics for two and half thousand years: fortitude, prudence, temperance and justice ... there has always been a recognition that the four pillars of ordinary human virtue were not a matter of special revelation but the raw materials for any kind of co-operative and just society. Without courage and careful good sense, the capacity to put your own desires into perspective and the concern that all should share in what is recognised as good and lifegiving, there is no stable world, no home to live in – no house to keep".
The recovery of virtue ethics has been one of the most significant developments in moral philosophy over recent decades (owing much to Alasdair Macintyre). Williams' speech reminds us of the potential of virtue ethics to provide our society with a shared moral discourse that can shape and civilise our economic life - giving us a house to keep rather than a market in which to merely exchange goods and services.
"We got into this crisis because of a serious failure of the regulators and, more importantly, the economics profession. The failure to come to grips with this reality both means that much of the regulatory reform effort will be misdirected and that we will have done little to prevent the next crisis".
The economists, Baker is clear, bear a hefty responsibility for the economic crisis. He tells us this by means of a parable:
"we have a case where the fire engine showed up at the burning building and then just went home. It may be the case that the equipment was old, but they still could have put out the fire if they had tried. It's a good idea to get new equipment, but if the firefighters are not prepared to actually put out the fire, this effort will have been pointless. That appears to be the story of financial reform thus far".
All that said, Baker's suggested solution - "fire the regulators" - is not satisfactory. Why should we think that the next cadre of economists will be any less prone to misreading the market than their predecessors? Baker's reliance on a high priesthood of economists also avoids the wider cultural issues to be confronted in the aftermath of our Great Crash. Regulators did not cause the crisis - they just didn't see it coming.
Which leads us to the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking today to the TUC. Rowan Williams outlined the danger of leaving our economic life to the economists:
"Now more than ever, we need to be able in the political and economic context to spell out with a fair degree of clarity what our commitments are, what kind of human character we want to see. Politics left to managers and economics left to brokers add up to a recipe for social and environmental chaos. We are all a bit shy, understandably so, of making too much of moral commitment in public discourse; we are wary of high-sounding hypocrisy and conscious of the unavoidable plurality of convictions that will exist in a modern society. Yet the truth is that the economic and social order isn't a self-contained affair, separate from actual human decisions about what is good and desirable".
The economy "isn't a self-contained affair". For authentic human flourishing, the Market requires a cultural context, a public "moral commitment". That context, says Williams, has traditionally been understood in European culture in terms of the 'virtues' - a shared sense of moral commitment that orientated the Market towards the common good:
"I realise that the word 'virtue' is hard for many to take seriously. But it's high time we reclaimed it. We have no other way of talking about the solid qualities of human behaviour that make us more than reactive and self-protective – the qualities of courage, intelligent and generous foresight, self-critical awareness and concern for balanced universal welfare which, under other names, have been part of the vocabulary of European ethics for two and half thousand years: fortitude, prudence, temperance and justice ... there has always been a recognition that the four pillars of ordinary human virtue were not a matter of special revelation but the raw materials for any kind of co-operative and just society. Without courage and careful good sense, the capacity to put your own desires into perspective and the concern that all should share in what is recognised as good and lifegiving, there is no stable world, no home to live in – no house to keep".
The recovery of virtue ethics has been one of the most significant developments in moral philosophy over recent decades (owing much to Alasdair Macintyre). Williams' speech reminds us of the potential of virtue ethics to provide our society with a shared moral discourse that can shape and civilise our economic life - giving us a house to keep rather than a market in which to merely exchange goods and services.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Church and King Toryism, for a postmodern age
Cranmer gets it exactly. The ease with which David Cameron 'does God' without falling into the political and theological dead ends of the Christian Right (or, indeed, the Christian Left), is very, very Anglican. What is more, however, it speaks of that ancient alliance between traditional Toryism and the Established Church.
As Cranmer puts it:
"Mr Cameron is perfectly Anglican. His moral compass has not sprung out of thin air: it is consistent with the moral tone of three centuries of Tory-Anglican fusion".
Cameron's traditional Tory sense of obligation reflects that "Tory-Anglican fusion", a fusion that flourished in the face of the effects of the Industrial Revolution, as Tory squires and Anglican parsons sought to promote a vision of a society bound together by ties of mutual obligation rather than the impersonal, individualistic marketplace of the utilitarians and the Manchester School.
Cranmer suggests that Cameron's rediscovery of One Nation Conservatism - what Burke's Corner has termed 'conservatism with a soul' - perhaps owes something to that Tory-Anglican fusion:
"We live in a 'spiritual' age: it is not fond of orthodoxy, but it demands appreciation of that which lies beyond the carnal and material. In order for Conservatism to regain its compassion, he [Cameron] understands that 'heart' and 'society' need to be re-injected into the brand".
If so, some of Cameron's detractors on the Right have really missed just how traditional is his version of Toryism.
As Cranmer puts it:
"Mr Cameron is perfectly Anglican. His moral compass has not sprung out of thin air: it is consistent with the moral tone of three centuries of Tory-Anglican fusion".
Cameron's traditional Tory sense of obligation reflects that "Tory-Anglican fusion", a fusion that flourished in the face of the effects of the Industrial Revolution, as Tory squires and Anglican parsons sought to promote a vision of a society bound together by ties of mutual obligation rather than the impersonal, individualistic marketplace of the utilitarians and the Manchester School.
Cranmer suggests that Cameron's rediscovery of One Nation Conservatism - what Burke's Corner has termed 'conservatism with a soul' - perhaps owes something to that Tory-Anglican fusion:
"We live in a 'spiritual' age: it is not fond of orthodoxy, but it demands appreciation of that which lies beyond the carnal and material. In order for Conservatism to regain its compassion, he [Cameron] understands that 'heart' and 'society' need to be re-injected into the brand".
If so, some of Cameron's detractors on the Right have really missed just how traditional is his version of Toryism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
