Comments on: Olde Tyme Hardcore

By: Conservative Readings During Christmas » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:20:09 +0000

[...] that the semester is almost over, a brief follow up to the discussion about the place of conservatism in the university……reading this piece about Donald Livingston and the Abbeville Institute got [...]

By: C. Jag

C. Jag — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:52:40 +0000

Since you mentioned Novalis, I would suggest Hölderlin, as well. Here are some others that I cannot categorize: Shestov’s Athens & Jerusalem, and H. L. Mencken’s writings in general.

By: Carl Scott

Carl Scott — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:13:28 +0000

Fun and useful stuff, all. Next up, I would hope, reading lists on courses on contemporary liberal thought, which necessarily must include Recommendations For Manageably Editing Rawls’ Corpus So As To Not Drive One’s Student’s Insane.

And, we eagerly await Goldman’s list of the most conservative punk songs, with PG-rated lyric samples included, of course!

By: Kevin J. Jones

Kevin J. Jones — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:12:52 +0000

Kalb’s work strikes me as only two or three notches below Tocqueville in gravity, and two or three notches above someone like, say, David Horowitz. His attempt to analyze egalitarian liberalism is certainly more theoretical, and more radical, than the average radio host polemic.

If your course lacks intellectual conservative works critical of contemporary multiculturalism, feminism, and sexual radicalism, I think you’re doing a disservice both to your students and to conservatism.

It’s a minefield, I know, but these are where students are most likely to uncritically affirm leftist orthodoxies and despise conservatism.

By: Samuel Goldman

Samuel Goldman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:27:56 +0000

Kevin: I haven’t read Kalb. But it looks like the kind of pop philosophy that students could read on their own, if they’re interested in that sort of thing. My goal in this, or most any course, is to emphasise material that I think is difficult of access, whether for theoretical or historical reasons. That’s where students and I can help each in other understand through reading and discussion.

A course in conservative public policy ideas would, I think, be excellent–it’s a subject lot of people are thinking about following Irving Kristol’s death. But I’m really not qualified to teach that material with the rigor it deserves.

John, you’re right that the plan has a Europe to American (Tocquevillian?) trajectory. And it certainly would be interesting to go back to Europe towards the end. But there probably won’t be time, alas.

By: Kevin J. Jones

Kevin J. Jones — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:58:08 +0000

I suggest Jim Kalb’s new book The Tyranny of Liberalism, or an excerpt from it.

Conservative “best of” lists tend to be too theory-oriented. Policy is the true battleground, and you’ll attract more controversy in the study of present-day proposals.

The writings of Allan Carlson on family policy and feminism would make a good addition, since he often combines theoretical critiques with concrete policy recommendations. His recent essay in praise of anti-pornography and anti-contraception crusader Anthony Comstock would certainly challenge your students.

On foreign policy and its relationship to a culture of self-government, Andrew Bacevich’s _The Limits of Power_ could be a good source.

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:46:21 +0000

John, I very much appreciate your explication of Voegelin’s project which is rather dramatically revealed in his essay “in Search of the Ground,” where in response to Leibniz famous query responds, “…there is no answer, because the ground from which things are what they are, and are at all, is a transcendent divine Ground; there is no answer except in the symbolisms of theology or of a myth or of a metaphysics of transcendent divine Being or something like that…”
All of which points to the oft overlooked importance of Schelling (and his philosophies of myth and revelation) and his ability to rise above the “din of parochial confusions” and to bring philosophy back to its primary task which is the quest for reality “within and beyond its phenomenon” as it presents itself symbolically within the order of human history.
And, while I have no knowledge of Strauss I do agree with you that Voegelin “moved beyond conservatism in terms of reactions to 1789,” in his desire to place “common sense” as the intrinsic foundation of a classical philosophy devoid of ideology, a classical philosophy of sufficient strength to overcome the gnostic ideological doctrines so popular in Europe during his lifetime.

By: John

John — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:55:29 +0000

So what would the punk say. He would have been lazy, but he surely would have smelled bullshit. And at this point our punk friend is looking for someone to recognize him. Our friend is probably smart enough that whatever recognition he receives is part of a making what makes one real some sort of flesh beating the s**t out of an another. Somehow, it all points to violence, but I like the fact that I can take the conversation to a point that thinks about alternatives of life.

By: John

John — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:12:43 +0000

I am not a good writer–there are “nots” and “its” missing in the above, which makes what I have to say nonsensical.

By: John

John — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:45:16 +0000

And regarding your shift from Europe to America and its relation to Tocqueville, perhaps Lawler’s suggestion of Solzhenitsyn is appropriate insofar as he offers an alternative to the mixed bag of American and Russian futures presented by Toqueville and Hegel and Heidegger. But then this becomes a game of who has the last laugh, and the modern philosopher Hobbes already tells us that no one will leave the party first for fear of being laughed at by those who remain. So conservatism is either part of liberalism’s party insofar as it yells stop to 1789′s momentum, or it must fear liberalism’s laughter and is somehow ashamed. So any class on conservatism must ask what the principles of conservatism are. What principles withstand liberalism’s ridicule?

And then if you are concerned with visions of order, then surely Voegelin becomes important here. He presents not merely a vision of order but provides an inquiry into the history of order as the order of history. This sounds like a riddle, but it is an attempt–vis a vis the texts available (sanskrit, hebrew, greek, roman)–to provide a historico-phenomenological account of the experience of order coming into the luminosity of consciousness, and the various modes into which that ordered consciousness comes into being.

But then one must question this question of the importance an order in history itself, and this brings us back to Strauss. Why must one be concerned with various modes of opacity and lucidity–compaction and differentiation–as they appear in history. I must live my life, and there are fundamental questions which can’t be ignored regardless of the times one lives in. For instance–does my restlessness indicate an incapacity to be a philosopher as one who is in need of nothing though being self-sufficient, or is it an indication that philosophy as self understood is inadequate to the desires and demands of self-sufficiency that can only rest in thee (God)?

Either way, with Voegelin and Strauss we have moved beyond conservatism in terms of reactions to the events of 1789. So let me suggest Strauss’ review of Schmitt’s “Concept of the Political” as at least an attempt to get out of this conundrum. He calls Schmitt–of all people–a liberal, and in so doing he opens thought to alternatives that cannot be simply called conservative or liberal. This may be the most truly conservative position, apart from Solzhenitsyn’s suggestion of the “howl” of existentialism beneath modern culture or Walker Percy’s Love in the Ruins.

All of this is just thoughts. Sam’s class still looks exellent–sorry for my rant.