Driven to Conservatism
It’s an odd climate in which to coin such a post title, but a few things I’ve observed have been rattling around recently.
The ongoing economic crisis seems to drive people to more conservative tactics, which aren’t necessarily safe (i.e. retreating to currency in the name of liquidity doesn’t seem like a very sure bet…). The fall of UK retailer Woolworths seemed like a strangely obsessive thing for MCVUK to keep reporting on, until I understood that also meant distributor EUK had gone down and may drag some major publishers and high street retailers down with it. Noone knows at present how far that cascade will go, but things could look very different in a year.
The past few months have been incredible; I never expected anything to get close to the Jehovah’s Witness belief in Armageddon I was raised with and later renounced, but this financial crisis is exactly the kind of disaster porn they get off on. Really, a $50 billion Ponzi scheme? Banks still playing hide the toxic debt? Bailouts for the hard line laissez-fair? I’ve been watching with rising incredulity, fascination and a tiny dash of schnadenfreude for over a year but feel unqualified to commentate. My favorite quote on the lot, from a friend: “I’ve seen an unusually high number of bankers with broken legs on the Docklands Light Rail recently”. I guess they’re jumping out of windows…
Today, I see this list, linked by John Robb.
Any form of crisis seems to drive a conservative response by means of insecurity. For instance, as a single young man with an unusual degree of philsophical detachment and inquisitiveness, I tend to be very liberal about my sex life (up to and including monogamous commitment). However, almost inevitable social/sexual crises drive me from wanting/accommodating more flexible, negotiable models of relationships to more traditional ones. Seeing that list on Amazon, I wonder if present circumstances resound so deep as to cause sections of society to largely renounce products of pop culture where they haven’t before?

December 17th, 2008 at 4:26
Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
December 17th, 2008 at 12:40
I’m talking about conservatism as a behavioural twitch, not a political or ideological position.
I find nothing compelling or reasonable in your assertions.
December 19th, 2008 at 0:51
Furthermore, I find your belief that present circumstances are some kind of divine punishment absolutely fucking mental.