There is some truth in the frequently cited maxim that were it not for the French Revolution, there would be no conservative movement to speak of. A decade or so earlier, it would not have occurred to anyone to believe that the institutions which for centuries had defined the parameters of European civil and political life needed any conservation. Yet now, with the threat of extinction looming, arguments in their justification had to be found, no less complex, sophisticated, and compelling than those put forward by the philosophers.
Two geniuses founded the movement. Edmund Burke and G.F.W. Hegel both rejected the familiar irreconcilable conflict between despot and dogma on the one hand, and enlightened reason on the other, and attempted to show instead that the two were infect in harmonious accord. "What is rational is real, and what is real is rational," is Hegel's memorable phrase. Modern European history was inherently progressive, they argued, moving as it inexorably was toward Protestantism in religion with its corollary of the separation of church from state and constitutional monarchy in government. Both men admired the American Revolution and loathed the French Revolution.
As it turned out, these arguments, though undoubtedly brilliant, were far from compelling. For one thing, it was hard to believe that the Europe of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries--the science of horrendous wars, unruly and unstable nation states, and modes of government more bestial than anything seen for centuries, if ever--was a particularly rational and progressive place. Second, there was something terribly uninspiring about justifying the existence of institutions on the grounds that they were able to meet the requirements of their enemies. (After Burke and Hegel came thinkers who seized on the most recent political fashion--the welfare state, the mixed economy, demand management, Vatican II--to show that revolution was not really necessary since institutions were readily adaptable to satisfy even the most intemperate critic.) On the contrary, if we are to have religion, went the cry, then let it be truly religious! If we are to have a monarch, then let him rule and not merely rubber stamp. If we are to have free enterprise, then let it be free and let it be enterprising. Finally, it occurred to some that perhaps these institutions were not worth the trouble of trying to justify. Perhaps conservatives could join forces with the radicals in an orgy of nihilistic destruction. Given these attitudes, it is hardly surprising that until very recently, most conservatives had long resigned themselves to living with the "inevitable" collectivist, egalitarian future. Looking back on a decade that has seen the triumphs of free market politics on every continent, as well as the dramatic collapse of self-confidence within the socialist movement, such conservative pessimism seems rather quaint.
Collectivism
Quaint it may be, but it is also all too understandable. Far too many conservatives had chosen to counterpoise to collectivism and egalitarianism doctrines that appeared to reject the modern world altogether. Instead of opposing socialism with capitalism, they spoke dismissively of the latter as being inimical to harmonious social relations. Instead of opposing equality with inequality based on merit, they chose to oppose it with inequality based on rank. Instead of opposing the dogmas of dialectical materialism with the ideal of free, critical inquiry, they opposed it with he warmed-over clichés of
...
Read Full Article
|
