Why I am not a
Why I am not a neocon
A while back the redoubtable Mark Byron wondered about my self-labeling and requested (or at least suggested) a “Why I’m not a neocon” post. Well, here it is:
I consider myself a conservative. I grew up that way and although I have increased my knowledge and perhaps my sophistication, I still feel comfortable with that label. I was not “mugged by reality” rather I simply filled in the gaps of my knowledge and understanding of why I thought the way I did. I had a strong upbringing in evangelical Christianity and I never felt tempted by left-wing ideas or causes – Grand Rapids Michigan was never a hotbed of radicalism, after all it is the hometown of Gerald Ford. I was raised reading C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, not too mention heavy doses of the Bible and Christian history, theology, and apologetics. I started reading National Review when I was sophomore in High School and began my intellectual development with that classic conservative magazine. Reagan was the hero and people like Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter were the enemy. Bill Buckley and his staff were my guide to the battles past and present.
My conservatism was always rooted in a defense of Western Civilization, a focus on beating back the leviathan state from corrupting the mediating institutions that made America great: the family, the church, voluntary organizations, etc. My undergraduate education at a Christian liberal arts college reinforced this view. I found myself defending conservative politicians and arguing against “liberal” ones. My conservatism was intuitive and instinctual for the most part but it grew political and eventually intellectual.
The turning point was when I spent nine months in Washington, D.C. I was studying at The Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University. I lucked into a job at the Heritage Foundation. Here was the mother load of conservatism. When doing inventory in the bowls of the Heritage building on Massachusetts Ave. I found Russell Kirk. Here was a scholar I could relate to. He was from Michigan, a historian, and a writer of great talent and imagination. His writing expressed in philosophical and historical plain language what I believed – I too wanted to defend the “permanent things.” Reading Kirk only peaked my interest and soon I went on to study as many of the classics of the conservative revival in the first half of the 20th century as I could get a hold of – Besides Kirk and Buckley, there was Weaver, Hayek, Chambers, Meyer, Burnham, Kendall, etc. I even dipped into Voegelin, Oakeshott, Santayana, Roepke, and Strauss; surveyed Burke, Tocqueville, and the Federalist Papers. I read T.S. Elliot, Evelyn Waugh, and Irving Babbit. I felt at home in this particular milieu. Mixed into this eclectic group one can find a lot of agreement and a lot of quarrels but I also always saw myself as conservative. I still do.
So that is a quick rambling and likely incoherent explanation for why I consider myself conservative. Too sum it up let me quote Russell Kirk yet again. Here are the six principles of conservatism Kirk uses to introduce his classic The Conservative Mind:
1) Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.
2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders an classes, as against the notion of a “classless society.”
4) Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all.
5) Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters, calculators, and economists” who would restructure society upon abstract designs.
6) Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration rather than a torch of progress.
So there you have it Mark, conservative and proud of it – no neo, paleo, or other prefix needed.
