Throughout this paper, I will provide analysis with regard to my own personal public philosophy. In general, the paper details my public philosophy in a way that is concise and places emphasis on individual ideas, prominent thinkers and key influencers-the very elements that inform any notion of good government. By organizing my thoughts around two perennial issues and what my particular public philosophy has to say about them, I hope to provide a nuanced exploration of my political self.
In keeping with the essence of philosophic inquiry, I will employ the Socratic method so that I might be able to build a public philosophy of my own. Ultimately, I will offer a defense of my beliefs by virtue of examining them not simply as the sum of all its parts; but the numerous parts that encompass a belief system that I feel is worthy of my support. I will actively test my beliefs in contemporary conservatism by placing them alongside four of the foundational principles we covered through the course.
These include communities, structure, change and justice to the extent that they can be applied to my belief system. It is important to note that I consider myself to be a mix of classical liberalism, pluralism and contemporary conservatism. These beliefs are informed by my strong and unwavering commitment to a free market that is truly free. In my view, a free market entails increased privatization and lower taxes so that society can finally rid itself from a state-centric approach to defining our cultural values.
I operate from an equally pluralist notion of bicameral orientation in the sense that I see governmental authority as something that ought to be used for both individual and collective purposes, but all applications of authority must be limited to the smallest levels necessary to address problems in the country.
Now that I’ve provided a summary of my basic stances, it makes sense to move into the other ways in which I will illuminate how I arrived at my beliefs. This will be a result of juxtaposing the four aforementioned principles alongside the perennial issues worth of discussion-human nature, ontology and social contract. Firstly, I will delve into the contemporary conservative elements that aren’t necessarily labeled in the conservative vein- but nonetheless allowed me to arrive at my conservatism.
Take the anarchist position on communities, religion specifically, as an interesting point in this regard. In the context of religious religion and freedom of conscious, Emma Goldman will be discussed. It is first necessary to understand that Goldman was both an anarchist and atheist. For the most part, Goldman’s work entitled “The failure of Christianity” is where the tangible themes about religious freedom and consciousness manifest.
As we can see in following quote, Goldman points to her two main views in this realm, “It is precisely this oft-repeated contention that induced me to choose this subject, to enable me to demonstrate that the abuses of Christianity, like the abuses of government, are conditioned in the thing itself, and are not to be charged to the representatives of the creed.”
In addition, she states in Anarchism and other Essays, that we need an anarchist state that frees the human mind from the “dominion of religion.” Ultimately, as both an anarchist and atheist, Goldman would not advocate for a state or government to legislate morality. As she points to The Failure of Christianity, she believes that Christianity has perpetuated a “slave society” and its wrongful efforts to control human behavior.
Ultimately, I view Goldman’s writings and works to be very compelling. Although I see her opinions on Christianity to be shortsighted and jaded, she does make some very sound points in this context. I find Goldman’s points to be quite relatable to contemporary conservatism in the sense that they support the conservative point that communities and structures cannot be overwhelmingly controlled by one singular cultural force.
Communities should be made up of local politics, state agencies, neighborhoods, voluntary associations etc. This has its theoretical roots extending all the way back to the ancient philosophical foundational beliefs regarding the Chinese boxes, for one, or Aristotle’s villages to name another.
Now let’s consider the classical conservative roots that underpin and actively inform my modern conservative belief system found within the writings of Edmund Burke. While I digress, I find this principle to fairly accurately summarize- or provide a microcosm for- my overall conservative principles. I suppose it’s the nexus of sorts between use conservative philosophers like Edmund Burke, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick.
These philosophers do a really good job of defending capitalism in the sense that they cite freedom and opportunity. But they went far beyond the simple platitudes uttered by Reagan-types and moral majority wings of the conservative movement. Instead, thinkers like Burke looked at these issues not in the rigid vacuum in which they were often said to be constructed. Quite the contrary as my next point will display.
As a conservative, Edmund Burke’s conception of justice is multi-dimensional. It is first necessary to understand Burke’s idea of “natural rights.” He views this certain interpretation of “rights” to be uniquely sacred and no sort of public instrument should be implemented to deprive someone of this entitlement. In the same context, Burke believes that rights are only afforded to someone when they obey “God’s law,” contrary to the rights conception of Locke, which views this entitlement to be purely “natural.” In essence, Burke believes God is the framework that provides society with the framework to assign what is just and what is unjust.
Additionally, Locke brings about his theory that “natural right” does not feature any recognition of basic forms of “justice” and, therefore, it should not be mentioned as a “right.” In sum, Burke believes that no natural right exist that should allow mankind to excuse himself from the autonomy of justice.
In layman’s terms, Burke believes in an overarching institutional mechanism to allow for equal justice to coincide with natural right. But, on the other hand, this governing body should not attempt to perpetuate a sense of equal political power and, most importantly, the idea of “good sharing” should always include merit and individual advantage.
As someone who has many friends that leans to the left, I will indulge the counterpoint that views Burkean philosophy as very wrong. It is clear from reading further into Burke that many of his ideas have had great on modern institutional development. As a traditional conservative, I feel like modern conservatives should take a lesson out of Burke’s sense of compassionate conservatism. This Burke writing puts it into context saying, ”They have a right to the fruits of their industry, and to the means of making their industry fruitful. They have a right to the acquisitions of their parents; to the nourishment and improvement of their offspring; to instruction in life, and to consolation in death.” (Burke)
This brings me into another principle that I consider to be worthy of discussion; citizenship and representation. Compassionate conservatives- a term coined by George Bush- operated from a deeply moralist and rejected many of the central philosophical foundations constructed by titans of their profession like Nozick and Burke. People have to participate – including faith-based services, charitable organizations, with federal organizations helping if other resources have been exhausted- and that makes sense. But the evangelical and compassionate conservative wing goes wrong when they offer simple solutions to complex societal problems.
This manifest itself even more severely when the concept of change is brought up. On second thought, change is a concept that, in basic terms, refers to the many differences between our modern political life and what we value as just and good government. As Dr. Paul Schumaker points out in The Political Theory Reader, change addresses “the gap between our normative political principles and the problematic conditions in which we find ourselves…Any of our principles regarding community, citizenship, structure, rulers, authority, and justice might be insufficiently realized, and so we want those changes that will achieve our principles.” (PTR, 335)
Whereas conservatives like Barry Goldwater address this “gap” in reactionary terms guided by constitutional imperatives and “tradition,” liberals see change as necessary to combat the numerous social ills and inequalities that develop over time. By making this into a zero sum game, conservatives reject the foundational ethic of their belief system. And this foundational ethic is the very notion of good government that even the most self-avowed of open minded liberal can’t poke holes into.
It’s the simple reason that Conservative doctrine benefits from normative legitimacy on the grounds of authority and change. Conservatives hold that true capitalism, affirmed by incentive and the invisible hand of the market, will inevitably improve one’s condition in society by virtue of the natural talents afforded to the individual. It is also important to reference a libertarian conception of justice due to its many similarities to contemporary conservative ideology. Robert Nozick, in the Entitlement Theory, frames justice in terms of, “the process that leads to the distribution is the determinant for whether the distribution is just or unjust.” (Nozick 3)
While I am a fairly staunch conservative, allow me to address a few of the 2017 realities- i.e, Trump belligerent nativist realities- that are hijacking the school of thought that burke and nozick crafted. No wonder people resort to name calling and lack of empathy. It is a result of the institution in which perpetuates this norm.
Amy Guttmann provides an all-encompassing perspective on the elite painting nationalistic military endeavors as infallible in saying that “Democracies have fought both aggressive and defensive wars by encouraging nationalist impulses among their citizens. People have rallied around a wide variety of nationalist identities in support of tyrannical regimes.” (Gutmann, 2004, 4)
Furthermore, the Wolfe explanation of the elite framing issues under a “narrative of crisis” points toward a very sad reality. This strategy of fear mongering is the exact way in which totalitarian regimes of the 19th and 20th century took complete control of the citizen’s life.
For instance, many of the Russian and central European Jewish writers of this period presented themes in which discussed, “the fear of impending social doom and dread of inevitable death haunt them, and they search for individuality in the face of a terror-ridden society and a seductive nationalistic option.”(West, 2000, 100) Though drastic “Wolin-esque” implications of this nature might be radical in the modern U.S. context, they are still important as a frame of reference to the dynamic nature of democracy as often influenced by past and future totalitarian structures.
Ultimately, citizens using, “their words to fight” is forged out of the institution in which one lives under. Though identity is very much a reflection of one’s deeply held personal views, it is also greatly influenced by the elite’s ploy to segment and divide the population. This strand of populism that seeks to frame issues as a narrow understanding of morality is one of the main hindrances to a deliberative democracy.
For democracy to thrive, the United States must arrange in some sort of basic Rawlsian original position while at the same time understanding the importance of narrowed identities and individualism architected by Nozick and Burke. In doing so, this shrunken way of perceiving the world will be replaced with an overarching conception of justice which understands various backgrounds and seeks to empathize and understand them.
Ultimately, the central aim of this paper was to provide a rationale for the way that I think, in basic terms. I hope that I made it obvious to the reader that my contemporary conservatism was actively questioned by placing them alongside four of the foundational principles we covered through the course. These include communities, structure, change and justice to the extent that they can be applied to my belief system.