The A Yeoman Farmer Series Part IV:

is inadequate if not bordering on incompetence masked by rhetorical eloquence.

The choice is a false one. America can continue without change to its regime, its

functioning liberal democratic society, its political institutions and norms and one can

demand that there is a need for change within all three without conservatism being

wrong. Yet, it is not whether one is wrong about America, it is that if you do not see

the problem as the author sees them then you are wrong about conservatism and

everything else.

You are:

Wrong philosophically

In a word, you are not a conservative. How we came to this moment is uncertain or

how no one else saw it not clear, but conservative philosophy is wrong for not seeing

that a fundamental change is needed. Except for being a Never Burke conservative,

he does not explain what that means to be philosophically wrong.

wrong on human nature

What is not clear is what this means. Human nature is not fixed nor is it fluid.

Instead, it is something, like philosophy itself, in that we are still working to discover it

which is why you can see dramatic changes in regimes or changes in politics based

on what we understand about human nature. It does not mean human nature has

changed or is changeable to know that our understanding of human nature develops

as we contemplate what it means to be human. However, that type of argument or

understanding is not presented here since it would get in the way of the political

argument.

wrong on the nature of politics, and

This statement seems redundant since if you are wrong about human nature then

you must be wrong about politics if it is to determine the best way to live as humans

since it is predicated upon a shared or agreed understanding of human nature. As

mentioned above, that understanding of the nature of politics cannot be fixed for it is

then political philosophy is at an end. If that quest is at an end, then we are now

transported into sectarianism.

wrong in its policy prescriptions

Finally, this seems superfluous since the failure of philosophy, human nature, and

the nature of politics would mean that any policy prescription would be wrong.

Except that it isn’t which gets us back to a deeper secondary question, again

unanswered and unasked by the author, in that we only see hints or a shadow of it or

rather its negation makes us aware of its presence. The author never explores the

relationship of thought to politics or how political philosophy informs political theory

for policy prescription especially as they appear only to be needed to resolve or

apply what is already agreed or already implicit in the system. If politics or political

thinking does not require philosophy or political philosophy, then the author should

discuss that since it seems to be a fundamental element of whether conservativism

is right or has something to say or whether the American experiment is even

possible. But, we never get to see this work. Instead, we are told why we are wrong.

Why?

Here we are doubly disappointed. The author does not explore such questions, as

we would expect that if you are to disagree and be wrong about the fundamentals of

political life, philosophy, human nature, politics and policy prescription then

something must exist to demonstrate this but the evidence for his argument is

disappointing in its superficiality and shallowness. The evidence that you are wrong

is that:

first, few of those prescriptions are in force today.

Our philosophy is wrong, our understanding of human nature is wrong, our

understanding of politics is wrong because few of those prescriptions are in force?

How does that follow? How can you draw such a sweeping conclusion from such

meagre evidence? The public do not like us and did not vote for us so everything is

wrong. Our policy prescriptions were changed, not all so some must have worked,

but most and therefore we are wrong not that the policy prescriptions were wrong or

poorly supported. It seems laughable but here we are and it gets worse because

some conservatives seem to disagree with other conservatives about what

conservative prescriptions are best.

Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with

conservative assistance.

What this suggests then is that the policy prescriptions that were badged as

conservative might not have been truly conservative but served a faction and

therefore were not rooted in anything enduring except for what that faction wanted.

However, that is not possible because this problem is caused by the ever-present

bogeyman—the Left.

And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away

from what we all understand as conservatism.

Page 4 of 5 | Previous page | Next page