This is something I enjoyed reading recently called "forgetfulness." It isn't about politics, not really, the full essay has more to say about the flaws in evangelical theology than it does about politics. At heart, though, it's really about the attitude with which agrarians look at the world. It was still in my mind when I wrote the first question on this week's CYB.
I’m struck at the vanity of those impious folks infatuated with their ability to improve the situation without having first served a long apprenticeship under the tutelage of the old. Proudly ignorant—they believe freedom from apprenticeship guarantees spontaneity, relevance, creativity—they enforce forgetfulness.
...
Rationalism detests catholicity, hates its patterns and rhythms, loathes its embarrassed insistence on a long obedience and formation over a complete life. How much better is enthusiasm (!) coupled with a new technique (!!) so as to make something relevant (!!!).
...
And so we Old Believers are assaulted by the vain, the haughty; those who do not think it noble to tend the graves of the long-departed, repair venerable walls, or enrich the ancient soil. They sell their inheritance cheap, and cheapen what they will pass on.
...
We live always in dependence on those who’ve trod before us to make straight paths. And now we forget, and many among us—many who lead us—insist we forget, so that we may be free to forge ahead. Never fear, they know what to do, we are told, for they have a new plan. And the generosity of the dead—the constant nourishing of the present through the gifts still provided—is brushed aside. Thoughtlessly, carelessly, as a matter of no import, as forgetfulness is enforced.I suppose this would fit almost as well with our old friends the Traditional Conservatives, too.
Full essay at The Front Porch Conservative
This excerpt is, of course, more inline with the most traditional of conservatives, but I think the underlying theme present in the text is actually a good description of the overall thought process of modern conservatives. The liberal agenda, though admittedly good in intention, seems to use no historical context of any sort in policy. While it is easy for non-conservatives to call Republicans "haters" perhaps due to a seemingly lack of care for true social justice and swift utilization of military power to impose American will; it must be understand that conservatives tend to believe that we are in fact on a path that has been created for us. Our job is to thrive on this for mentioned path, and we follow those who precede us, because we have the fortune of seeing the results of the labor. "If it ain't broke dont' fix it" is the conservative motto, and regardless of person opinion, the liberals are responsible for the burden of proof in reference to policy change. Following the path paved for us (regardless of the origin of that path, whether it be religious based or not) is imperative for the conservative movement. Change and progress are synonymous in modern political jargon, but true conservatives realize that conservation of believes is a form of progress that does not require change.
ReplyDeleteDavid C. Tate
This is a very traditional view of conservatives. Conservatism and and the republican part has a long traditional in America. They can trace their roots back to the revolution. They do have a rich history to pass to each generation. But they too often look to the past for the solutions to present problems. The ones most guilty of this are the Orgionalist interpreters of the constitution. I have no issue with preserving the past and keeping history alive. That's why we have museums and historic Willamsburg. We old solutions do not solve new problems. The Constitution is a living document. We are on the apex of time and take advantage of what we have. I am young, have an iPhone, drive a hybrid car, and like new things. Old traditions and old ideas do not appeal to me. I don't believe in "if it ain't broke don't fix it" I believe in "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why, I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"
ReplyDeleteI ask, why is the burden of proof on the liberals? That's putting the blame on somebody else. Just because traditional conservatives take the "we don't change" attitude does not remove them of the burden to prove that traditions are good.
The one tradition we can all agree on is that America is great.
This blurb reminds me a little Berry's essay. In it lies a quote: "Industrialists are always ready to ignore, sell, or destroy the past in order to gain the entirely unprecedented wealth, comfort, and happiness supposedly to be found in the future." His discussion can be related to the same aspects of society that affront the "Old Believers" mentioned above: that people have become haughty, proud, and lacking humility, a virtue that Berry feels is paramount to the agrarian view. Instead of following an example that worked well in the past, the system is quick to apply its own fix.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Berry, before anyone can realize it, problems that were once manageable now inflict irreversible damage: (Could it be?: "They sell their inheritance cheap. And they cheapen what they will pass on"?)
It is true that things that worked in the past might not be pertinent in the present. It is also true that the world (and especially American society) is very different from what it used to be. However, like Berry mentions in his essay and as often referenced in political debate, society has indeed developed problems, and several of them persist. Naturally, we seek a remedy.
If these maladies exist currently, what has happened to cause them? Was there any surfacing of similar problems in the past?
It cannot be entirely due to external forces. It is important to judge honestly if what we have done has caused problems. We must have the humility also to adapt a solution from the past, if the past model proved just.
Quinn Kelley