My problems with conservatism: an introduction

When one speaks of Conservatism, it pops up in the mind all the ideologies defended by the right wing. But here I don’t only want to criticize “conservatism” or “the right wing political philosophy”, since one cannot speak of a unifying framework of all these, there is many nuances among right wingers, to the extent that my political views have been described as part of the right wing. I firmly refuse any group classification and I consider myself neither left, nor right. I am neither a right wing anarchist, nor a classical liberal. I don’t hold any political stance that is easy describable by the direction toward which it aims pushing its ideas. I don’t think it is possible to conceive a societal arrangement upon which we can build a political theory that its ultimate end is the construction of such a society. Society is interwoven by an endless number of interacting phenomena, and no matter how “apparently” accurate your theory is, you cannot a priori know what the outcome would be if your so called “politics” has been implemented. You might think that if such and such had been implemented, then such and such had to be the outcome, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. Social institutions have been shaped by the spontaneous interaction of individuals and the laws of cultural selection. To have a clear political stance, is already a sort of belief, because it implies that you think some ideas are sacred and should be defended and imposed on society. Suppose for example that I say I am a classical liberal, it follows that all my conclusions must conform to the already established philosophy of classical liberalism and this, in my view, is unscientific, since, I believe, that I don’t know what’s the best for society and I cannot and will never know for sure, and accordingly, in the same way a scientist cannot say that he knows, for instance, that the multiverse theory is a truth -- and all his scientific research blindly pushes only the arguments in favor of his view and dismisses anything that runs against it--,  I cannot hold a view that all my arguments should only support its predefined political stance; the basic and most rational stance – and the wisest indeed – is that I don’t know and I should consider every single issue separately,  neutralized from any a priori ‘political influence’  and then conclude what should be the right thing to do in its regards. I believe that things should be fixed from bottom to up instead of the other way around. Instead of having a political philosophy that says such and such, I prefer pointing out to the flaws of already existing political philosophies and whenever one proposes a politics or whatever social political program, it is my chief task to tell him what he ignores and what he got wrong, my task is like the task of nature, I help selecting what’s best for us. We should concentrate on every single issue and solve it at the most decentralized way possible. For instance, I can know that project x is a waste of resources and that the right way to provide better alternatives for problem y is such and such, because when things are seen by the eyes of a close observer, at least, he can weigh the underlying components much better and he has direct access to both the roots and solutions of the problem. If, indeed, this philosophy is what’s guiding our morality of building a better society, then certainly, without any planned decision coming from above, either from a dictator or elected representatives, we’ll have the right formula for social harmony – whatever that maybe.

The biggest problem facing any political philosophy and probably the source of all conflicts among political groups is “valuation”. To put it otherwise, it is to find an answer to the question: what is the ideal that society should employ its resources to achieve? If we have different ideals – different valuations of social aims – then certainly we will not agree on what should be our best social arrangement.

Conservatives think that there are moral values and traditions that are absolute and therefore preserving them – even by the power of law – is essential. The problem of whether there is a solution to the question of “what ought to be” is not my concern here, but I cannot pass without a quick reminder. It is established in the domain of normative knowledge that there are no scientific answers to the “what ought to be” questions. For the sake of argument, if we take the colors “red” and “white” and attempt to make a value judgment to know which one is better for coloring our home fronts then it is easy to simply assert that it is a matter of taste and it is up to every person to make his own value judgments. When it comes to easy problems like this, it is easy to say that taste is subjective and it is up to the individual, not society, to decide what’s better. But when suddenly we jump to societal issues, conservatives’ fear of change begins to show on the roof. And they conclude, somehow, that individuals don’t know what’s best for them and in consequence they need guidance from above, from an above power that has the wisdom to make value judgments for the rest, since, people are fools and their the value judgments they make for themselves are not in their own interest. This is pretty much the view also held by traditionalists, who think that society needs a sort of transcendental superpower to guide it, a sort of spirit that unifies a desire within their psyches to strive for the overall good of the nation and halts the degenerate morality. What makes a person better qualified to make better value judgments for the others? And how can one ensure that the actions made as a consequence of such value judgments are really better for the overall good of society? This view, in my opinion is exactly conform to the view held by liberals and progressives, because they, too, think they can know what’s better for people and that maybe people always are wrong when it comes to managing their own affairs. In brief: both the left and the right are collectivists who promote group thinking.

If we allow more liberty, conservatives and reactionaries think that, inevitably, people are foolish and will run after the futile ends of mortal life. People are like animals, they are like sheep to be looked after, they need a force, a wise force to guide them, this enlightened soul, somehow, by a divine law, is superior and assigned by god the decrees to monitor its subjects – they think. What a nonsensical idea is that?

Why my conservative friends think if society is left to behave according to its spontaneous order will necessarily degenerate? How do they define such state of being? What if what they view as degenerate morality is a mere adaptation to the ongoing inevitable change in society? Why they think that what worked in a point of time in which the living standards were devastatingly miserable should work in our nowadays world?

If society is arranged according to their view, following the tyranny of the masses by imposing a universal morality and the individual is repressed and smashed under the forces of tyrannical mass oppression – which is very likely to happen –, then should we consider this worth it for the sake of protecting society from ‘la décadence’?

Economically speaking, the right is no different than the left, right wingers believe in a strong military that should be supported by the tax payer regardless of his will and they believe that capitalism is evil and it needs to be monitored from above. They believe that restricting free trade by taxing domestic consumers is good for the nation as a whole – there is nothing more nonsensical than this. Right wingers too, are likely to think that maybe your guns should be taken from you, since you poor citizen don’t know how to use it for your own sake better than your supposed masters. They don’t mind issuing laws against the peaceful exchange of drugs and other substances that are in their view a threat to morality.

As I already said, not all right wingers believe this, there are among them who hold more liberal views than others.