How to Destroy Western Civilization - A Review

I believe Peter Kreeft will be remembered well after he stops writing. There may be a lull in popularity of his works, but he will be included in anthologies of thoughtful Christian writers of this era. Indeed, his dozens of volumes published over the last decades are all helpful. Some more than others. But they all reflect someone who has thought deeply about Christianity, culture, and the way human thought has developed over time.

How to Destroy Western Civilization and Other Ideas from the Cultural Abyss is a 2021 volume published by Ignatius Press. It’s the sort of book that a younger author with less of a catalog would not be permitted to publish, but it will sell some copies because it is Peter Kreeft and some people (like me) will buy it just because of that.

This volume is a collection of essays and pieces of writing that all reflect on the general theme of things that are wrong with the thinking of our present age. Kreeft demonstrates his characteristic thoughtfulness alongside his playful wit as he rehearses some of the themes that run through all of his works.

How to Destroy Western Civilization is not the place that someone new to Kreeft should begin. This is a volume that requires a little more context than it contains. The eighteen chapters are really eighteen distinct works. Some of them appear to be works that were formerly addresses to schools, some are online posts that are designed to draw a wry laugh, some appear to be articles or excerpts of works that may have been drawn from (or become) longer works. This potpourri approach to this volume is good for someone who already enjoys Kreeft and understands his work; it would be a challenge for the beginner. This problem is not helped by the lack of any introduction or annotations regarded where any of the works (which appear to be drawn from a significant span of time) were drawn.

That being said, there are some delightful aspects to this concise volume. Chapter Five, for example, is simply a list of internal conflicts within liberalism—by which Kreeft means progressivism. Thus, “Extremism is extremely bad,” is followed by “Don’t trust words,” which comes a little before “Absolutely no absolutes.” His point is well taken, and if it is seen as a caricature, that’s because it’s a little near to the truth for some sensitive souls. We also get an essay on heroes in Chapter Ten, which is an unironic reflection on why our age lacks people and characters that can be looked up to. Chapter Six offers a reflection on what the shift from Socratic logic to symbolic logic has cost our culture because it makes thoughts about the concrete of this world into abstract concepts. The fourteenth chapter helps clarify the problems with some contemporary understandings of freedom.

Kreeft is, in many ways, a man of the Middle Ages, much like one of his heroes, C. S. Lewis. He thinks differently than even many contemporary conservatives because he has feasted more on ancient and medieval thought than on contemporary debates. He is a man within our time, but perhaps more comfortable in another one. This makes all of his books, even this one, well worth reading.

How to Destroy Western Civilization and Other Ideas from the Cultural Abyss

By Kreeft, Peter

Buy on Amazon

Another Sort of Learning - A Review

The Preacher who gave us Ecclesiastes famously wrote, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecc 1:9)

This is true in many arenas, but those who read old books will find it true of controversies, antagonisms, and the general feel of cultural unrest. C. S. Lewis recommends reading old books “to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds.” (Lewis, “On Reading Old Books”) It is by reading old books that we gain a corrective to the characteristic blind spots of our own culture.

I’m not sure if James Schall’s book, Another Sort of Learning, counts as an old book, since it was published in 1988, but it had a revealing effect for me. Schall’s book is worth considering on its own, but it also provides evidence that today’s cultural battles are not really that new. More than thirty years ago, Schall was calling out the same problems that might be the source of concern in The American Conservative, First Things, or National Review today. That doesn’t mean that the concern is not warranted, but rather that we might be better served by recognizing that this election or this court case or this movie may not actually be the straw that broke the camels back. It may be, but that seems less and less likely the older I get. There is nothing new under the sun.

In Another Sort of Learning, Schall writes “about being a student, about reading, about the fact that each of us is called to understand. . . ‘the truth about our lives.’” This is a book that discusses other books that can help shape the mind. It is a book about thinking well, appreciation of the transcendentals, and recommendations of others who are thinking along the same vein.

Contents

The book is divided into three parts. The first is addressed to college students, pointing them toward what their goal as students ought to be. Schall expresses concern that students seek to answers to the big questions of life, rather than simply learning a trade. The whole of this section is framed around that. In his first essay, “Another Sort of Learning,” Schall commends used book stores for being able to find the right sorts of books that are often not in as regular circulation. A lovely way to begin an engaging book.

The second part of the volume recommends “Books You Will Never Be Assigned.” Here offers to “provide reviews of certain books that I think help us gain some insight into the heart of reality.” These are mainly modern books with an ancient soul. They are the sorts of secondary literature that take the Great Conversation seriously and try to engage it meaningfully rather than demonstrate why it is a foolish attempt. For those with a hefty book budget, these are chapters ripe with suggestion.

Part Three seeks to provide an alternative viewpoint to the most common modern perspective. Schall states, “I want to discuss rather substantive things, both intellectual and spiritual. Here I want to say something about the humanities, about devotion, prayer, something more, again, about permanent things.” Here he again is recommending volumes that pull readers deeper into the idea of reality about the universe, rather than directing them to their own reality.

Conclusion

Another Sort of Learning is a deeply conservative book. Not the sort of conservatism that produces strong tweets or rages against the right enemies, but the sort of conservatism that digs deep into the intellectual realities of the world and seeks to find truth, goodness, and beauty. It is a sort of reactionary perspective that is revulsed by the evils of modernity, looking to the solidity of the past for a conversation of substance.

One of the interesting benefits of reading a book like this over thirty years old is that it skips a generation. The authors that I recognize are mainly the ones still being discussed today, so Schall’s reading lists can point us back to older books of substances that may further help clear away the cobwebs of the contemporary cacophony. There is nothing new under the sun, but Schall provides access to the ongoing debates that doesn’t include the gaps and blind spots of the latest cycle of blogs.

Another benefit of Another Sort of Learning is that Schall describes the same sorts of problems being lamented by thoughtful people today. There is, indeed, nothing new under the sun. On one hand, the continuance of this concern about the loss of the transcendentals is discouraging because we have not made much progress. On the other hand, the continuance of concern on this issue shows that we have not altogether lost the fight. This is an encouraging volume that is worth the time to read. The essays are no worse for being more than thirty years old. Maybe they are even better for it.  Overall, the collection is well-written and engaging, perfect for taking a chapter at a time after a long day at work.

Another Sort of Learning

By James V. Schall

Buy on Amazon

Is Creation Care a Progressive Political Issue?

Concern for the environment in the United States tends to be identified as a progressive political position, and is often associated with deeply contentious issues like abortion, which most Christians rightly find morally repugnant. However, the identification of creation care as a progressive political issue is due more to unfortunate historical accidents than the nature of the issue itself. Outside of the United States, where political divisions are shaped by different forces, political conservatives are more likely to advocate for environmentalism publicly. Often the debate over environmental policy between political progressives and conservatives in the United States is really a debate over the role of government in pursuing the common good.

Conservation and the National Park Movement

The conservation movement in the United States has its roots in Puritan attitudes toward the common good and the value of creation. Communities in New England were built around land use patterns designed to benefit the community and ensure the productivity of the land for the long term.[1] This attitude spread throughout colonies and was later embodied in the conservation movement.

The first national park was created in 1872 when the Yellowstone Act was passed, declaring that a large tract of land in Wyoming and Montana was “reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.”[2] This was a monumental political accomplishment that has politically progressive roots.

The early conservation movement was identified with political progressives––a political movement that was concerned with supporting human ingenuity around the beginning of the twentieth century––especially with the public advocacy of conservationist Gifford Pinchot, a Presbyterian and the head of the Federal Forestry Division. Pinchot’s vision of conservation was largely utilitarian. He wrote, “The first great fact about conservation is that it stands for development. . . . Conservation demands the welfare of this generation first, and afterward the welfare of the generations to follow.”[3]

Pinchot’s democratic, instrumental hope for the conservation movement was directly and publicly opposed to John Muir’s vision for the preservation of lands, untainted by human development. When dealing with the Pinchot’s proposal to construct the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite, Muir wrote, “These temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have perfect contempt for Nature, and, instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar.”[4]

The very public debate between Pinchot’s Conservation movement, which was rooted in the progressive politics of his day, and John Muir’s Preservation movement, that opposed the utilitarian understanding of nature, puts the political fault line in a different place that it falls in the early twenty-first century. One danger in assigning labels like “conservative” and “progressive” to historical causes is that issues change, allegiances shift, and ethics that are not grounded explicitly in Scripture tend to morph over time. Muir’s radical conservative attitude toward preservation of nature unspoiled by humans sounds more like a contemporary progressive position, while Pinchot’s perspective tends to align with a more conservative position today. But both positions might be deemed too progressive for some contemporary political conservatives.

Environmentalism and Progressivism in the Late Twentieth Century

The apparent division between pro-environment progressives and conservative opposition to some forms of environmentalism in the United States grew much clearer in the 1970s. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford biologist wrote his famous book The Population Bomb, which argues that the growing population of the earth was overburdening the ecosystem and would result in ultimate destruction of the environment and negative consequences for all of life.[5] Ehrlich explicitly tied hope for Earth’s future to availability of contraception and legalization of abortion.

In 1970, environmentalism was still a bi-partisan concern. The first Earth Day was co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats. Republican Richard Nixon’s administration, better remembered for the corruption of the Watergate scandal, is considered to be one of the most environmentally positive administrations, marked especially by the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[6]

Because of the broad concern for the environment, Nixon also commissioned the Rockefeller Commission in 1970 to study the relationship between the rising population and American prosperity. The resultant report, Population and the American Future, published in 1972, would help cement environmentalism as a progressive political issue in the minds of many American Christians because it made recommendations including government opposition of “legal, social, and institutional pressures that historically have been mainly pronatalist in character,” and “enabling individuals to avoid unwanted childbearing, thereby enhancing their ability to realize their preferences.”[7] Practical recommendations for implementing the Commission’s lofty sounding recommendations included open advocacy for legalization of abortion, government-funded distribution of contraceptives, and even capping the number of children per family. Understandably many orthodox Christians reacted negatively to these suggestions.

Nearly simultaneously, the culture wars over abortion were ramping up in the United States, with the Supreme Court handing down the contentious Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states. The overt connections between support for abortion and advocacy for the environment converted an issue that was largely a prudential argument over how natural resources would be preserved and utilized for the common good into a hotly disputed political weapon that has come to represent a sharp progressive-conservative divide in American politics.

A Two-Party System and Political Division

The relationship between political progressivism and environmentalism is exacerbated in the United States by the established two-party political system. Though there is some variation within each major party, the platforms created by the parties tend to divide along fairly clear lines. Because socially progressive anti-natal policies, such as advocacy for abortion on demand and government mandated access to all forms of contraceptives, have become associated with environmentalism in the United States, right-leaning politicians have tended to oppose many of the pro-environmental proposals Often the basis for rejection of supposedly “common sense” environmental legislation arises because of differences of opinion about the role of the government.

Despite political rhetoric arguing that politicians who oppose particular environmental regulations are advocating for dirty water and an increase in global warming, conservative U.S. Senator Ben Sasse’s statement sums up the basis for opposition: “Everyone wants clean water but the bureaucrats at the EPA were out-of-control, writing new laws to regulate puddles and ditches from Washington. Nobody cares more about land and water than Nebraska's producers but nobody here at home voted for these absurd regulations.”[8] While not free from his own politically-charged language, Sasse notably frames his approval of the repeal of the regulations as disagreement over the nature of governance not the goal of the regulations.

The two-party system in the United States and the radical divergences between the worldviews advocated by both parties helps explain how a fundamentally conservative issue—the proper care and use of the environment––has become the field of unique concern for political progressives.

Global Conservation and Conservativism

Outside of the United States there tends to be a smaller divide between political conservatives and progressives on the issue of the environment. The Tories, more properly known as the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, have made green politics a vital part of their center-right platform in the twenty-first century, with Prime Minister Theresa May proposing a twenty-five year plan to improve the environment.[9] The need to build coalitions between a plurality of parties to form governments reduces the binary nature of politics, as is found in the United States, opening up opportunities for cooperation despite disagreement in a way that is much more difficult in the US.

Similarly, in Germany the conservative Christian Democratic Union has agreed to work for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other environmentally concerned policies, based on a need to form a coalition with Social Democrats, another significant political party. This pattern tends to repeat itself across Europe.

These examples raise a question about the nature of conservatism. What someone describes as conservative or what gets branded as conservativism may vary depending on the political issues involved, the sponsorships of the media outlet, and the period in time. Definitions matter as does clear thinking about the issues at stake and the actual goal of environmental policy.

Roger Scruton’s Environmental Conservativism

Sir Roger Scruton offers a particular model of conservative environmental thought. While serving at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, Scruton offered the world a thoroughgoing conservative environmental philosophy in his book, How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservativism. According to Scruton,

A conservative environmental policy does not aim at a healthy environment but at other things, which have a healthy environment as their effect. . . . The aim is to establish the conditions under which people manage their own environment in a spirit of stewardship, and in such a way as to facilitate the political actions that may be necessary to accomplish what the “little platoons” cannot embark on.[10]

There is little doubt of Scruton’s politically conservative bona fides. His conservative ideas about aesthetics, politics, and social organization were the cause of political outcry among political progressives when he was named to a voluntary position on a board of a U.K. government housing committee.[11] He advocates for limited government, a free market, and the rule of law, all of which are trademark issues of the traditional conservative movement.

Scruton’s argument is not simply that conservative thought can tolerate environmentalism, but that they are “natural bedfellows.” He writes, “Conservatism and conservation are two aspects of a single long-term policy, which is that of husbanding resources and ensuring their renewal.”[12] This represents the sort of conservativism that directly opposes forms of progressivism that radically revise human institutions and are often instrumental in policies that have long-term negative consequences for human flourishing.

Environment and the Role of Government

In part, political progressives in the United States have tended to latch on to environmental issues because they seem to be solvable with an expanded government. The EPA that Nixon created during his presidency was intended to solve legitimate, widespread concerns like the extreme pollution of rivers, such as the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969. It was one of several rivers to be so extremely polluted by industrial waste, but served as a rallying point for Earth Day in 1970 and for much of the environmental movement in the late-twentieth century.

Political conservatives, while rightly concerned for clean air and water, have observed the expansion of federal bureaucracy into issues of local concerns, as Ben Sasse observes in the quote above. Much of the contemporary rhetoric about potential solutions for climate change from political progressives has involved significant increases in centralized government regulation over individual decisions. According to conservatives, such centralized control over environmental decision often neglects to evaluate the burden of regulations, passes the cost of compliance to those least able to bear them, and fails to account for localized factors that might impact implementation of regulations.

There is clearly more to the discussion of the role of the government than this post includes. However, it is clear from this brief discussion that much of the opposition among political conservatives to environmentalism is due to differing ideals for the implementation of policies that support the common good, rather than a different goal.

Summary

Creation care is not fundamentally a progressive political issue. In fact, it should be a primary concern and more naturally belong within the platform of political conservatives. Instead of seeking common ground and developing a shared vision for the common good, many political conservatives have mistakenly abandoned advocacy for the environment because it has become associated with progressive political causes like the continued legalization of abortion on demand and the growth of a centralized bureaucratic-style government.

[1] Mark Stoll, Inherit the Holy Mountain: Religion and the Rise of American Environmentalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 54–76.

[2] National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_1c.htm, NPS.gov (accessed 12/31/2018).

[3] Gifford Pinchot, The Fight for Conservation (Garden City, NY: Harcourt Brace, 1910), 42.

[4] John Muir, The Yosemite (New York: Century, 1912), 262.

[5] Paul Ehrlich, Population Bomb (New York: Ballantine, 1968).

[6] Byron W. Daynes and Glen Sussman, White House Politics and the Environment (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2010), 66–83.

[7] Commission on Population Growth, Population and the American Future (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1972), 78.

[8] Senator Ben Sasse, https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/sasse-praises-unwinding-of-waters-of-u-s-rule (accessed 12/31/18).

[9] Her Majesty’s Government, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/693158/25-year-environment-plan.pdf (accessed 12/31/18).

[10] Roger Scruton, How to Think Seriously About the Planet (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 376.

[11] Dan Sabbagh, https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/nov/06/sack-roger-scruton-over-soros-comments-demand-labour-mps, Guardian.com (accessed 12/31/18).

[12] Scruton, How to Think Seriously About the Planet, 9.

The Crunchy Con Manifesto - A Proposal for Actual Conservation of Something

Conservativism is in crisis in the U.S. The term has become altogether too closely aligned with a form of political populism that has little to do with conserving anything of value. For many people on the political left and the political right, conservativism has become largely about listening to angry men in cowboy hats and pretty women in tight t-shirts rail against immigrants, gender revisionists, and “liberals.” Often there is also implicit support for large businesses which are always good for America (especially when they support grifters on the right), except when they lobby for socially progressive policies and for one of the groups that the cowboy hats and tight shirts are angry at. Other than moving society in the United States back to some apparently great condition that is never defined, only reminisced about, there does not seem to be a coherent theme to what passes for conservativism.

In truth, both conservativism and liberalism, as they are used (but rarely defined) in popular discourse are forms of social progressivism. “Liberalism” focuses on achieving atomistic individual freedom to enable people to pursue whatever sexual goals they have and free them from the economic need to do work that aids society. This is often, seemingly paradoxically, pitched as part of the goal of economic collectivism (e.g., socialism) and moral totalitarianism (e.g., attempts to outlaw Christian sexual ethics). On the other hand, “conservativism” tends to be focused progress toward individual freedom to pursue economic goals and social structures that more closely relate to some earlier ideal, which are rarely defined beyond a desire for neighborliness. The progress of conservativism is achieved through lack of government regulation on the economy and fighting against social outgroups that themselves feel as if they are fighting for a place to exist.

Of these two forms of progressivism, I have a decided preference for the “conservative” form. There are obviously destructive elements in contemporary political liberalism that only willful ignorance of economics, history, and basic philosophical anthropology can overlook. However, similarly obvious blind spots exist on the political right, as well. My chief grievance against political “conservativism” as it is often presented is that there is nothing that it is trying to conserve. It is just progress in a different direction toward a goal that is just as undefined as the goals of the left.

As I’ve been exploring this dilemma of political homelessness, in part through the work of Patrick Deneen, though there are others, I discovered a book that Rod Dreher wrote in 2006 that presents a better vision of conservativism, in my opinion. At least, it forms a different starting place for dialogue about what conservativism ought to be aiming at. His book, Crunchy Cons, is a valuable book for those dissatisfied with where the GOP has gone, but completely appalled at the corrosive politics of the DNC, as well.

There are ten articles in Dreher’s “Crunchy-Con Manifesto” that I will quote in their entirety here. (After all, Dreher is the king of block-quoting other articles online, so he can’t mind too much if I take a couple of pages from his book.)

A Crunchy–Con Manifesto

1.       We are conservatives who stand outside the contemporary conservative mainstream. We like it here; the view is better, for we can see things that matter more clearly.

2.       We believe that modern conservativism has become too focused on material conditions, and insufficiently concerned with the character of society. The point of life is not to become a more satisfied shopper.

3.       We affirm the superiority of the free market as an economic organizing principle, but believe the economy must be made to serve humanity’s best interests, not the other way around. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4.       We believe that culture is more important than politics, and that neither America’s wealth nor our liberties will long survive a culture that no longer lives by what Russell Kirk identified as “The Permanent Things”––those eternal moral norms necessary to civilized life, and which are taught by all the world’s great wisdom traditions.

5.       A conservatism that does not recognize the need for restraint, for limits, and for humility is neither helpful to individuals and society nor, ultimately, conservative. This is particularly true with respect to the natural world.

6.       A good rule of thumb: Small and Local and Old and Particular are to be preferred over Big and Global and New and Abstract.

7.       Appreciation of aesthetic quality––that is, beauty––is not a luxury, but key to the good life.

8.       The cacophony of contemporary popular culture makes it hard to discern the call of truth and wisdom. There is no area in which practicing asceticism is more important.

9.       We share Kirk’s conviction that “the best way to rear up a new generation of friends of the Permanent Things is to beget children, and read to them o’ evenings, and teach them what is worthy of praise: the wise parent is the conservator of ancient truths. . . . The institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

10.   Politics and economics will not save us. If we are to be saved at all, it will be through living faithfully by the Permanent Things, preserving these ancient truths in the choices we make in everyday life. In this sense, to conserve it create anew.

Having sent a salvo against mainstream “conservativism” on the beginning pages of his book, Dreher goes on to journalistically explore people living out particular aspects of this manifesto. They tend to be (but are not exclusively) theologically conservative within their faith tradition, live within a large nuclear family, and community focused. Most significantly, the people Dreher interviews are focused on achieving a positive goal, not simply attempting to escape some negative restriction.

For those seeking an alternative response to contemporary political options, Crunch Cons may be the beginning point for future exploration. This is the book in which Dreher introduces the concept of the Benedict Option (I have not yet read his book), which he explored more fully in the hotly debated volume by that name. Although some of the content is dated, this book remains a good counterpoint for the GOP/DNC binary we seem to be stuck with, and may inspire a positive shift toward a conservative movement seeking to actually conserve something important.

Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature ... America (or at least the Republican Party)

By Rod Dreher

Buy on Amazon

Love Your Enemies - A Review

Publishing tends to go in trends, which is not unexpected since contemporary events tend to drive the topics of discussion and publishers are attempting to gain revenue by producing quality content that deals with the themes everyone is discussing. One of the recent, recurring themes is the divided nature of our political climate. Ben Sasse’s book, Them, is a recent entry on the subject. Arthur Brooks, former president of American Enterprise Institute, has recently published the fruit of some of his research on the topic in a book entitled, Love Your Enemies.

Brooks is an economist who has spent his academic career researching happiness and charitable giving. His recent books have dealt with the idea of compassion and social healing, as in his book, The Conservative Heart. The message that Brooks comes back to is that having an ideological bias does not require despising the other side. In fact, this book highlights the reality that holding others in contempt is a recipe for continued discord and personal unhappiness. Brooks sets out in Love Your Enemies to show the science behind finding common cause and engaging in respectful dialogue. This is needed not just for personal happiness, but to help heal the bleeding wounds in the American civic culture.

The book opens by describing the culture of contempt. Brooks makes the case that this is not just a culture of disagreement, but that an essential characteristic of the political wrangling is that it hopes for the destruction of those who hold opposing views. Our political opponent is not just wrong, but also morally evil. This attitude has taken over the culture because of the popular misconception that seeking the obliteration of those that disagree is the only possible solution. In Chapter Two, Brooks shows that this just isn’t true; nice guys do not finish last necessarily, whether in love or politics.

Our political discord is significant because it largely inhibits any progress toward a common vision of good. This leads people that want action on some front or another to see authoritarian leadership as the only possible way to achieve results. It is no accident that the abuses of power in recent presidents (Bush, Obama, and Trump) are increasing in magnitude and divisiveness.

Finding a way to respect people who disagree ideologically is needed, so Brooks explores some of the concepts of moral structures, drawn from Jonathan Haidt’s remarkable book, The Righteous Mind. This research is invaluable because it helps unlock the reasons why people come at moral questions from diametrically opposed perspectives. While this doesn’t lead to agreement, it at least enhances understanding. This understanding will, in turn, help readers to begin to deconstruct irreconcilable ideas about identity, so that we can recognize the goodness that comes from identity and differentiation, but also avoid the trap of making personal identification the only significant aspect of our interactions.

Brooks also deals with the importance of stories, noting that personal stories help to break down divides, emphasizing the humanity of the individual. As Brooks notes, stories motivate compassion, statistics convince the already converted. He goes on to deal with the popular (particularly on the left) misconception that competition leads to division. Brooks astutely notes that competition nearly always requires cooperation: this is true is sports, where the rules of the game are an essential bedrock that enable the competition to exist. Politics, too, would benefit from more competition. The polarization of the two major US parties is largely due to the fact they do not have to compete for geographical regions, but can head for extremes to please the tail ends of the ideological spectrum. Brooks then concludes the body of the book by arguing that he really wants healthy disagreement in society, because it is the best way to hash out ideas and pursue the common good.

Based on his research, Brooks closes the book by proposing five rules to help undermine the culture of contempt, which I will cite here, because they are so helpful:

Rule 1. Stand up to the Man. Refuse to be used by the powerful.

Rule 2. Escape the bubble. Go where you’re not invited, and say things people don’t expect.

Rule 3. Say no to contempt. Treat others with love and respect, even when it’s difficult.

Rule 4. Disagree better. Be part of a healthy competition of ideas.

Rule 5. Tune out: Disconnect more from the unproductive debates.

Love Your Enemies is not an epoch shaping book, but it is a timely, important discussion of a major problem of our day. This is a book that should be read by people on both sides of the political spectrum, because no one (besides the cable news networks and our global political adversaries) are really happy with the status quo. The best way out of the eternal cycle of bickering we are presently experiencing is for a critical mass of individuals to begin to adopt some of the principles Brooks outlines in this book.

Love Your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt

By Arthur C. Brooks

Buy on Amazon

Note: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Thoughts on Contemporary "Conservativism"

I recently witnessed a media “conservative” criticize the San Francisco airport for having a compost receptacle beside their recycle bin and regular trash can. She also noted that she does not go in for sorting trash beyond a simple recycling bin and that her desire to sort trash goes down “exponentially” when there are more options offered. When I asked her why she didn’t like to sort trash, she replied that she shouldn’t need a PhD to separate her trash.

This was a Twitter discussion, so I left it at that point without raising the logical question why one would need an advanced degree to separate trash into a few receptacles. That really wasn’t her point anyway.

If I may be so bold as to read beyond the actual words in this individual’s comments, I might suggest that what she really meant was that she didn’t want to be inconvenienced by having to sort her trash. That answer would have had a bit more validity, but it raises some interesting questions about the nature of popular conservativism.

True Conserativism

The heart of legitimate conservativism is that it takes a long time to build good things and very little time and effort to tear them down. Therefore, we should be careful in making sweeping changes—even when we have good intentions—because we may unwittingly destroy something that is good, true, and beautiful in a hasty attempt to make “progress.”

Photo credit: Mayberry Health and Home Used by CC License.

Based on that definition, which most thoughtful conservatives that I know share, environmental stewardship is a thoroughly conservative ideal. If we presume that the ecosystem is a natural good and that we all benefit from minimizing disturbances to it, then it takes little to jump from the notion that we should value the nuclear family to the idea we should value the created order. Both have their roots in nature, both have observable positive impacts on the world, both are worth conserving.

But preserving the family and conserving the environment take work. It is inconvenient to invest time into raising children. Before conservative became being “anti-progressive” it was supposed to be about conserving that which is good, true, and beautiful. If you’ve ever spent time dealing with historical artifacts, conservation is always exceedingly inconvenient.

In other words, when it is functioning as a distinct approach to life, conservativism is not about convenience, which is typically self-centered. Rather, it is nearly always concerned with something beyond the self, which is typically inconvenient.

Selfish Anti-Progressivism

Progressivism as a political movement often claims the mantle of selflessness. When it comes to economics, they typically favor a large, centralized government, which necessarily restricts individual freedom. They claim that this inconvenience is necessary to do the selfless good of ensuring some other good is provided—the poor are cared for, emissions are regulated, people are paid a particular amount of money per hour. Often these are legitimate goods that are being pursued at the highest level of bureaucracy available.

At its best, conservativism recognizes legitimate public goods, which are often also celebrated by progressives. However, when they are functioning to conserve the good, true, and beautiful, conservatives have a longer timeframe of concern; they look to pursue future good without creating perverse incentives or undermining existing goods unnecessarily. For example, true conservatives see caring for the poor as a good and necessary goal, but recognize the perverse incentives that permanently subsidizing able-bodied people creates; they tend to remain outside of the workforce and can form a permanent lower class, among other dangers. Thus, blind redistribution of funds is viewed by many conservatives as unjust and ultimately unhelpful because of its long term deleterious effects on society, including those who are the target of the assistance.

However, the position that the federal government is not the proper source of support from the poor must be accompanied by localized efforts to do the same if a conservative is to be consistent. That is, conservatives must engage in the inconvenient practice of engaging with the poor to help them. This is, in fact, the most effective means of poverty alleviation, but also the most difficult. It is the most consistent with conservative principles. One reason for conservatives to resist efforts to create a federal universal basic income is that it is primarily a means for progressives to claim to solve the world’s problems as conveniently as possible; give the poor a steady stream of checks so that we can otherwise ignore them. Regulate the companies producing merchandise to the maximum extent possible, because it would require too much work for consumers to make wise spending choices regarding the environment, employment practices, and product quality of companies they buy from. The convenience is found in gaining a clear conscience with as little effort as possible. Progressive political ideas tend to buy personal convenience at a high cost to the public purse.

Anti-Progressive Convenience Seekers

Unfortunately, in reaction to the high cost of progressive political ideas, anti-progressives have begun to label themselves as conservatives, including the person I interacted with about composting her garbage. In this case, at least, she is opposed to something she perceives as progressive simply because it is inconvenient. In fact, observing her public social media presence, she makes her living as a media persona by claiming to be conservative while really simply being anti-progressive.

Anti-progressives are convenience oriented like many progressives, but without the concern for a clear conscience. They argue there should be less federal welfare because of the freeloaders; they ask, “Why should my money be used to support those that didn’t work for it?” The poor are to be despised as inconveniences. The environment is to be used for convenience without concern for the long-term effects. Convenience is the main aim. One shouldn’t be bothered by having to separate leftover food from a plastic bag, that is entirely too inconvenient.

Many of those who brand themselves as conservative these days are really just anti-progressives who are seeking maximum personal convenience. Those who are true conservatives—those of us concerned with conserving and pursuing the true, good, and beautiful—would do well to differentiate ourselves from media personalities whose goal is to maximize liberal tears and garden variety convenience-seekers whose goal is to maximize their bank account balance and minimize their support for their neighbors.

Resist Bad Alliances

True conservatives are not simply anti-progressive. That would be too simple and too convenient. No, true conservatives are pursuing the common good in a decidedly high-effort, inconvenient manner. True conservatives will be willing to entertain an inconvenience such as sorting one’s trash, as long as it contributes to the true, the good, and the beautiful, whether the idea came from a progressive or not.

If we are pursuing the common good, we will likely be confederated with strange co-laborers at times. It is a good thing to link arms with people in a common cause, but we should be careful about becoming too closely associated with people that hold views ultimately contrary to ours. Confederation—a loose association, typically temporary and for a common cause—is a much healthier approach on many issues than formal alliances. We can build a community park with anyone in our community who has a similar vision for a shared public space, regardless of their position on euthanasia, eugenics, or human sexuality.

At the same time, we should be very careful of making close alliances with people who don’t hold the same positions we do for approximately the same reason. That leads to the sort of confusion we have today with self-centered, convenience-seeking, anti-progressives masquerading as conservatives.