Perhaps I was raised in an overly-Confucian manner, but Conor Friedersdorf’s latest sets my head a-buzzing with questions and my stomach a-churning with unease.
Of course, insofar as an administration must work as a team toward common ends, its employees should be loyal so long as they are working under the president. But once their job ends — and especially once the president leaves office — maintaining loyalty for its own sake does nothing for the country…
The most obvious questions with which to start would include:
1) Is Conor really telling us that loyalty to an abstraction (“the people”) is preferable to loyalty to a person (“the President”)? As a conservative, does he think that the former is even a well-defined concept? Possible given human nature? Desirable? Let’s ignore, for now, the fact that “the President” is in some ways just as damnable an abstraction as “the people”, Bennett doesn’t use that language — almost certainly on purpose.
2) I’m assuming that Conor doesn’t use the standard of “loyalty so long as we are on a team” in his private life, so is the change in stance here entirely a result of consequentialist concerns? Does the good of providing future historians with material outweigh the bad of craven betrayal even whilst craven betrayal remains bad, or are we shifting to a whole new set of rules?
3) Conor mentions “maintaining loyalty for its own sake”. I’m curious as to whether he thinks that that’s ever an accurate description of why people are loyal to one another.
I’m curious to hear Conor’s answers. I was on board when, back at Culture 11, he criticized loyalty to the conservative movement. Now that he’s criticizing loyalty to people, I’m about ready to jump off this boat.
September 25th, 2009 | 5:14 am
I especially like #3.
September 25th, 2009 | 8:45 am
We gave our kids a little talk the other day about loyalty, and about the sort of loyalty they could expect from us and what we expected out of them. Happy to discover that this means I might be raising them in an overly-Confucian manner.
September 25th, 2009 | 10:28 am
Loyalty works better for me as “fidelity” which emerges as a potentially transcendent condition actualized (for example) within the relationship with God, the wife, children, grandbabies, and friends on a higher level and gummint, work, ect on a lower level.
Loyalty, fidelity, allegiance, fealty and devotion are words that ultimately depict an important element of the proper relationship between creator and created predicated on a mutual and loving self-revelation.
September 25th, 2009 | 2:31 pm
I’m right with you Will.
September 25th, 2009 | 5:26 pm
Great post, Will.
I have to say that as Conor’s old boss at Culture 11, I’m wondering if I have to worry about him putting out a tell-all book (or, at least, blog post) about me. ; )
September 25th, 2009 | 5:44 pm
Regarding #1:
I’m no more an abstraction than a Bush or an Obama. Me and a few hundred million close personal friends are “the people’.
If you insist on seeing “The People” as an abstraction, then so is “America”. My loyalty to my nation will always exceed my loyalty to an employer. This is no contest – and I certainly don’t need caveats like “so long as they are working under the president”.
Of course loyalty is a virtue, it’s just a question of how you order those loyalties. I doubt any President is going to be picking me up soon, because I’d sell them out in a New York Minute if loyalty to that “boss” conflicted with my loyalty the good ol’ abstract US of A.
September 25th, 2009 | 6:09 pm
The length of time that loyalty is due depends on the relationship. You should be loyal to friends and family for life. You should be loyal to an employer for only so long as the employment lasts.
Was President Bush his friend or his employer?
September 25th, 2009 | 6:22 pm
“Is Conor really telling us that loyalty to an abstraction (”the people”) is preferable to loyalty to a person (”the President”)?”
“The People” is not an abstraction. It’s an actual group of people. There are over 300 million of us.
September 25th, 2009 | 6:24 pm
While we are referring to moral concepts from the East, it may be useful to contemplate the Indian scripture, the Ramayana. Here Lord Rama exiles his wife, the queen, and puts her through a trial by fire, because the people have lost faith in her fidelity. Though he knows her to be innocent, he still chooses to banish her because all the gossip is impinging on his ability to govern. The idea is that there is a greater dharma for a ruler than personal, even familial loyalty.
In a democracy, we all share this dharma, as we all share the responsibility of rulership. Therefore, since getting a clearer sense for the governing style of Bush could be a key factor in our evaluation of future candidates, the greater dharma may well be to tell us how it was.
September 25th, 2009 | 6:26 pm
Personal loyalty, especially within collectivist concerns like government operation, seems to me to be a particularly un-post modern concept. So this troubles me from the outset.
And personal loyalty, rather than institutional loyalty, does seem to be the cause of much of the vitriol on both sides of this debate. No one had any such compunction while examining the very personal lives of the prior administration, nor would they, as Conor suggests, have any problem examining the current occupant should the opportunity arise.
From a post modern perspective, it comes down not to personal loyalty, but stakeholder awareness. Defense in honor of such a “damable abstraction” as the office of the President seems just as silly as using it as an excuse to attack it.
A book such as Latimer’s may inform “historians,” it may also inflame partisan rancor, and inform future administrations. It may also make Latimer a bit of coin. But it’s most important function may to enable the government stakeholders, we the people, a window into when and how mistakes were made, and inform us as to the character of our leaders. This is not unimportant in an open ‘democracy.’
September 25th, 2009 | 6:26 pm
There’s a difference between loyalty and fealty. The idea that if you’ve worked for the President of the United States, or anyone else, that you’re not allowed to give people an accurate portrait of that service and what you observed, that you’re only only to be either silent or complimentary…that’s not loyalty.
Mike
September 25th, 2009 | 9:27 pm
[...] Will Wilson at Pomo Con [...]
September 25th, 2009 | 10:38 pm
The people is a real abstraction (as opposed to false), but while this is true it is a thing to which it is difficult to be loyal to. Shared location, peaceableness, and a place to transact business may constitute something, but nothing demanding loyalty. Loyalty points toward something beyond these things. This thing is usually called community.
Loyalty is a regard, faithfulness, love, perseverance and duty towards that which is one’s own. One’s own self, one’s family, one’s school, one’s ethnicity, one’s nation–these things imply a tradition worthy of being preserved.
Speaking of the people tends to abstract beyond what is one’s own–even if it is in principle a community (or rather I should say a community of 300 million). What is it that makes that 300 million a people to whom one could speak in terms of loyalty? It would be that to which one recognizes as what is one’s own. It is possible without dilution, but it points at a real but abstract thing. Apart from that thing there are too many local things to which one is loyal.
This raises an important distinction between loyalties of the household and loyalties of the city. There is further what we call personal loyalty–either friendship or loyalty to particular others born of the accident of household, neighborhood or community, i.e born of the necessity of being born. Friendship implies the sense in which the things of friends are in common–one can choose one’s friends to a certain extent, but you cannot choose “where you been” as it were. What is in common is what is worthwhile to be loyal to regardless of the degrees of concretion or abstraction. What are the reasons which support such a visceral loyalty, or is it dumb habit?
What is loyalty’s basis–nature or convention? Do the conventions (both accidental and based on choice) perfect one’s nature in that one is capable of being loyal to something other than what is one’s ownmost, i.e., one’s self? Or is it entirely artificial and based on a poetic construct?
I saw an interview with the guy who wrote the speeches for Bush–the guy who has written the tell all book. Anyone with any sense can tell the guy is a creep. One needs no FBI background check to look at this guy and see he weird. Sure he went to an Ivy League, but this is utter stupidity. Let me relate something Voegelin said that I learned from Bob Cheeks–something to the effect that one has no obligation to be stupid.
Regarding the tell all book’s author, one could rephrase the Talking Heads–he’s crossed-eyed and painful.
September 26th, 2009 | 3:05 am
[...] “Is loyalty a virtue?” [...]
September 26th, 2009 | 9:21 am
In modern moral development theory the evolutionary spiral begins at the lowest level, with loyalty to self interest and proceeds to loyalty to kith and kin, and at the highest level to loyalty to the general welfare above all, ahimsa, as it is known in Eastern thought.
I have long felt that the political thinkers who prize personal loyalty above the general welfare have a limited view, the result of being at a lower level of moral development. At this stage, cronyism of the sort that seemed rife in the Bush administration makes some sense.
September 26th, 2009 | 10:16 am
Is loyalty a virtue? I’ve always thought that it was one of the handmaidens of the virtues but not a virtue in and of itself.
One can come up with any number of scenarios where a person is loyal to a wicked man. This is not admirable. (Note: This is not saying that this is what is going on here.)
If he is lying? Then that deserves rebuke.
If he is telling the truth? Then we know things that we did not know before. Maybe, eventually, we’ll get a clear picture.
And if we’re too close to the issues at hand, perhaps our descendants will be able to use the primary sources and put together a narrative that eludes us due to our perspective.
September 26th, 2009 | 10:24 am
John, dude, about this: “Let me relate something Voegelin said that I learned from Bob Cheeks–something to the effect that one has no obligation to be stupid.”
Thank you for your kindness. You’ve made my day, perhaps week (month, year?). I am just delighted to know that I was able to pass along one of Voegelin’s most important and insightful truisms to someone who understands and appreciates his wisdom.
September 26th, 2009 | 3:07 pm
Here’s what it boils down to – if Latimer had valuable information on laws broken or national security issues he should have reported them to the proper authorities. If all he has is gossip and slander, then he’s an opportunistic SOB. There is no loyalty to “the people” here, only loyalty to Latimer making a buck.
September 26th, 2009 | 4:59 pm
@E.D.: That’s a perfectly legitimate argument against Latimer’s behavior. Will’s post is not.
September 27th, 2009 | 4:21 am
“Was President Bush his friend or his employer?” Larry Geater
I think this is a good point, well at least in the sense I was going to make it when I read the post.
Seriously I’m not sure I’d value loyalty to an employer once I’m no longer the employee unless the person became “more than an employer.” If you have to be loyal to just anyone who hires how would you switch jobs? Do you wait until your boss dies or ask him/her to allow you to move elsewhere?
September 27th, 2009 | 2:02 pm
Will,
I’ve tried to address your questions here: http://theamericanscene.com/2009/09/26/loyalty-cont-d
Cheers,
Conor
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:10 pm
[...] Previous installments in this saga may be found here, here, here, and finally here. Comments [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact