Conservatism's Civil War?

[HammerStone]

Over the past 8 years, I've begun to define my own core beliefs a little more in detail. I've grown up a Conservative, and never really deviated from the path, but I've had no issues voting for a reasonable Democrat or Moderate. I have an independent streak in me and I've recognized the complexity of political opinions. I believe the country was intended to work where compromise was not totally a negative thing, and too many Christians have polarized the other side, even where there may be common ground.

I submit to you an article I came across today through a blog post. The blogger is a Conservative in the veign of Paleoconservatism, the author of this article would seem to be similar. The crash course is that this is old-guard Conservatism without the aggressive foreign policy, it will sometimes align with more Centrist Conservatives, and other times will move more towards the Traditionalist perspective.

So here's the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-a-republican-mind-set-without-promise/2012/09/20/798901f8-0344-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html?hpid=z2

(I recommend the whole thing, but below is the meat.)

Yet a Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class.

A few libertarians have wanted this fight ever since they read “Atlas Shrugged” as pimply adolescents. Given Romney’s background, record and faith, I don’t believe that he holds this view. I do believe that Republicans often parrot it, because they lack familiarity with other forms of conservatism that include a conception of the common good.

But there really is no excuse. Republican politicians could turn to Burkean conservatism, with its emphasis on the “little platoons” of civil society. They could reflect on the Catholic tradition of subsidiarity, and solidarity with the poor. They could draw inspiration from Tory evangelical social reformers such as William Wilberforce or Lord Shaftesbury. Or they could just read Abraham Lincoln, who stood for “an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.”

Instead they mouth libertarian nonsense, unable to even describe some of the largest challenges of our time.

As someone who listened to Glenn Beck, I've begun to question the Randian perspective. Afterall, we are taking our cues (many of us, as Christians) from a woman who founded the philosophical school of Objectivism. The central pillar of this philosophy is that our lives are centered around our own pursuit of happiness:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Paraphrased, it might sound like this: "I, me, my."

My realization is that this is in complete conflict with Christianity. Not slight disagreement on minor points, but a complete polar opposite. Christianity says we need God, as we are totally depraved and unable to turn towards Jesus on our own merit. Even Arminian viewpoints espouse that we need Jesus to do it for us, we cannot save ourselves - all Protestant Christianity marches lockstep in this. Additionally, if our own happiness were the apex of life, then why do (most of us) find happiness in a companion and why is money never enough?

As Christians, we know our only absolute is Jesus.

On top of that, we take our cue from guys like Beck, who are not even Christian! I'm not saying (and please understand this explicitly) that we shouldn't vote for a Mormon or respect them, but many of us Christian Conservatives are building our worldview from a guy who believes in a religion totally different than ours. I mean, we generally assent that Mormonism is a cult, and not a part of Christianity, but we throw that out the window for politics.

I think we are at the point of a struggle. I don't even define it as Neoconservative vs Paleoconservatives anymore. It's a struggle between the ideals that (I would argue) have already strongly influenced many aspects of Liberalism. (And that's not to say there aren't Liberal Christians - it's not an oxymoron.) Conservatism is in a struggle.

What do you think?

 

[Eltanin]

I completely agree with you...

Anymore, people are expected to side with Liberals or Conservatives... Democrats or Republicans... and each side is more worried about the ideologies that they disagree with in the other camp, and separating themselves even farther from that opposite end of the spectrum... And now we are really seeing a trend in the Conservative Republicans to do the same in their own party...

Mind you, I have always classified myself Independent and moderate, but it unsettling to see the political group that tends to keep our financials in check weakening themselves to the point that they won't be able to effectually do what they tend to build their platform on... and I tend to see the platform of the Republican Conservatives as one of Stewardship...

I really wish that Republican Conservatives would just stop preaching morals and values... because Democratic Liberals have morals and values as well... They are just of a different stock... Each individual has determined the morals and values they believe in, but Republicans could appeal to everyone if they quit pretending to play church during their campaigns...

Sometimes I view the Parties as Father and Mother of our country... Where I said the Republicans are Stewards, I see the Democrats as Nurturers... and when the two sides are at such complete odds we aren't balanced... The people are either spoilt or neglected, and not well rounded.

And just as I believe that the parties should be complimenting each other, I think the mechanisms in the parties should balance each other as well... This schism happening among the Conservatives is not helping their cause... Those who have an anger towards the Conservatives are gaining confidence and strength from their infighting...

... And Yes... The equation of Ayn Rand with today's overall view of Conservatism has become quite on par, but it hasn't always been that way, and the minds and hearts of the individuals are a different matter... Ayn wasn't by definition a Conservative, she began the Objectivist movement... A movement that more material minded Conservative found easy to identify with, and many of her ideas fit the mode of Stewardship...

You could say though that Conservative Republicans have already compromised, if they call themselves Christian but endorse Objectivism... Maybe it would be best if Christian Conservative Republicans would start separating the Objective Conservatives by just calling the Objectivists...

I think the reason the struggle we see is so apparently violent is because Conservatism has for so long been so solid and unbendable, and based on tradition. With the issues we face in this day and age, and how fast everything is moving, no group has time to corroborate an organized stance on every subject... Now we see individual ideas starting to surface, and the blame for disagreement ensues... Conservatism has always been about the way things have been done, and now we have so many things going on that weren't done before... How do you set a precedent for new tradition if there is nothing to base it on...

Liberalism has always been broad and all encompassing... Accepting... Nowadays, we see that we might be expected to accept the unacceptable...

I think most people can see pros and cons with both Conservative and Liberal ideologies.

I would feel more hope for our society if Conservative Republican and Liberal Democrats would quit focusing on how they disagree and start focusing on where they can find common ground. I think it will have to start by Conservatism accepting the differences within so it can address the differences without.

 

[aspen]

Over the past 8 years, I've begun to define my own core beliefs a little more in detail. I've grown up a Conservative, and never really deviated from the path, but I've had no issues voting for a reasonable Democrat or Moderate. I have an independent streak in me and I've recognized the complexity of political opinions. I believe the country was intended to work where compromise was not totally a negative thing, and too many Christians have polarized the other side, even where there may be common ground.

I submit to you an article I came across today through a blog post. The blogger is a Conservative in the veign of Paleoconservatism, the author of this article would seem to be similar. The crash course is that this is old-guard Conservatism without the aggressive foreign policy, it will sometimes align with more Centrist Conservatives, and other times will move more towards the Traditionalist perspective.

So here's the article: http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z2

(I recommend the whole thing, but below is the meat.)



As someone who listened to Glenn Beck, I've begun to question the Randian perspective. Afterall, we are taking our cues (many of us, as Christians) from a woman who founded the philosophical school of Objectivism. The central pillar of this philosophy is that our lives are centered around our own pursuit of happiness:



Paraphrased, it might sound like this: "I, me, my."

My realization is that this is in complete conflict with Christianity. Not slight disagreement on minor points, but a complete polar opposite. Christianity says we need God, as we are totally depraved and unable to turn towards Jesus on our own merit. Even Arminian viewpoints espouse that we need Jesus to do it for us, we cannot save ourselves - all Protestant Christianity marches lockstep in this. Additionally, if our own happiness were the apex of life, then why do (most of us) find happiness in a companion and why is money never enough?

As Christians, we know our only absolute is Jesus.

On top of that, we take our cue from guys like Beck, who are not even Christian! I'm not saying (and please understand this explicitly) that we shouldn't vote for a Mormon or respect them, but many of us Christian Conservatives are building our worldview from a guy who believes in a religion totally different than ours. I mean, we generally assent that Mormonism is a cult, and not a part of Christianity, but we throw that out the window for politics.

I think we are at the point of a struggle. I don't even define it as Neoconservative vs Paleoconservatives anymore. It's a struggle between the ideals that (I would argue) have already strongly influenced many aspects of Liberalism. (And that's not to say there aren't Liberal Christians - it's not an oxymoron.) Conservatism is in a struggle.

What do you think?

There is a reason Ayn Rand's philosophy was incorporated into modern Satanism by Anton LeVay - it is completely " I " centered. I truly believe it is the antitheses of Christianity. Contrary to radical liberal beliefs - Christian extremism has not hijacked the Republican party; instead it is, ' I AM ism '. Corporations are considered people; the rich are not blessed, but deserve their over abundance of wealth; the poor are lazy and will eventually be culled - all of it is scripted from the pages of Atlas Shrugged. None of it has anything to do with Christianity - it is most certainly antichrist.

It has gotten so bad that anything less than this Rand fantasy is considered to be communism! The worst part about it is that her 'survival of the greediest' ideology has bled into all aspects of government - the Democrats are just as seduced by the power of greed and money as the Republicans.

Thankfully, our hope is not found in the governments of this world. We have the hope of Christ - which has the power to transform the hearts of the world, if not the principalities.

 

[HammerStone]

I echo your statement Aspen about where our hope is found!

I came across this article today, and it's another slant on what we are talking about here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/brooks-the-conservative-mind.html

But there was another sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now. This was the traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic social teaching. This sort of conservative didn’t see society as a battleground between government and the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.

Because they were conservative, they tended to believe that power should be devolved down to the lower levels of this chain. They believed that people should lead disciplined, orderly lives, but doubted that individuals have the ability to do this alone, unaided by social custom and by God. So they were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.

This conservative believes in prudence on the grounds that society is complicated and it’s generally best to reform it steadily but cautiously. Providence moves slowly but the devil hurries.

The two conservative tendencies lived in tension. But together they embodied a truth that was put into words by the child psychologist John Bowlby, that life is best organized as a series of daring ventures from a secure base.

I think the bolded quotes describe where I fall on the spectrum, and I'd say many Americans would feel the same way. We're not looking for a idyllic and perfect life necessarily, but simply for a stable environment of society where hard work does pay off, but that if things get bad, there is some sort of help. The sad part is, you're kinda either pushed toward the help no one (those screams of "let him die" still haunt me from one of the debates) or help everyone regardless of the system going broke and drawing everyone else under.

Come to find out, I come from a historical tradition of Anabaptists, and as I've grown old, I've come to respect that viewpoint more. However, when I see "render unto Caesar" in the Bible, I view it as a directive from Jesus to be responsible citizens. I think detaching ourselves totally from the world is something Christianity has done in everything else but politics and I don't know that the result is any better than modern Christian Conservatism's struggles in politics. I think we are called to be examples, and that can mean a life even in politics.

I feel like Christian Conservatives have taken up two very specific hills to die on, if you'll permit me the war metaphor. The first is the economic hill. The Bible talks about money A LOT but the Bible talks about Jesus more. Like the Randian perspective outlined above, some have taken up taxes, programs, and dollars as the most pressing issue. It is noble in the sense that no group should be free to pillage another economically. Yet, it's left us rallying around corporations are people comments. I'm all for the ability to succeed and fail in life, and yes corporations are made up of people, but the most important thing in the whole equation is the person. (Let alone the eternal perspective that the most important thing is Jesus.)

On the other hill, Christian Conservatives have taken up the social issues. However, they picked the wrong part of the hill to defend. I go back to what Aspen said. We see some things very different - Aspen will tell you that - but we both see that transformation of the heart (only that which God can do) is the way to change. Instead, Christians Conservatives have generally reverted to a you cannot do this mindset that's enabled larger culture to caricature us. We're left defending bad ground. Instead of telling people about Jesus, we're shouting no and voting down measures. It's polarized to "us" vs "them" and that's all she wrote.

I guess my rhetorical question here is how do we abandon some of these positions without compromising the Word of God? How can we educate people?

Obviously it starts with prayer, but no Biblical character ever just sat by and waited on God to do everything. Again, I don't believe God calls us to that.

 

[Brother James]

Ayn Rand's foundational philosophy is atheism. Without any other God or god in my life, of course "I Am" the god of my own life, rather than another man.

Corporations are not "considered people", they are entities created to allow people to pool their capital to engage in an economic activity together. They are give the legal rights of "personhood" in that they can enter into binding contracts, etc. Capitalism was only able to produce the immense prosperity that it has for so many people because of the creation of corporate entity laws.

Employer/employee relationships are good things, by the way. They offer many opportunities for glorifying God when the relationship is working properly. Both parties benefit. For example, let's say I have a job sewing shirts. I can honestly seek the good of my employer and seek to sew as many shirts as possible for him along with attention to quality (compare 1 Timothy 6:2). He can seek my good because he will pay me at the end of the week for a job well done. In every good business transaction, both parties end up better off than they were before. In this case, I have more money at the end of the week than I did before and my employer has more shirts ready to take to market than he did before. And so we have worked together to produce something that did not exist in the world before the week began. Together we have created some new "wealth" in the world. You see, God can be glorified through non-selfseeking behavior and we can stil benefit each other without Rand's atheistic Objectivism. By allowing the employer to be a corporation, pools of money come together to build the factory and buy equipment. Only the money invested in the company is at risk. The owners of the company stock cannot be sued for their personal homes, property, money, etc. That has worked out very well.

The issue that I see so often is that many people equate business with sin. It is considered "dirty" somehow, and at least morally/ethically neutral, if not sinister and evil. I disagree. I believe business can glorify God. God commanded man to subdue the earth. That was an instruction to bring wealth and prosperity forth from the earth. Sin has corrupted everything for sure, but we still must strive. If Adam could somehow be brought forward to today, what would he think when he saw someone turn on a water faucet? Would he think it was evil? No, I think he would praise and glorify God for giving people the knowledge and skill to extract metal from the earth to make pipes, and harness electricity and machinery to pump the water into homes, etc. There is nothing evil about work, productivity, and even the creation of wealth. Those are things God wants us to do. In fact, the Bible does not view positively the idea of not being productive and working, taking early retirements and being idle, etc. God made us with a desire to be productive, to make or do something useful for other people. We provide for ourselves, our families, our communities, etc. through our work. Teh desire to increase the production of goods and services are not in themselves greedy or materialistic or evil. These desires represent God-given desires to accomplish and achieve and solve problems.

 

[Axehead]

This may explain why Jesus and His Apostles and the Early Church stayed out of politics and just concentrated all their focus and energy on the will of the Father with regards to the Gospel.

1Th 2:4 But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.

2Ti 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

Luk 8:14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

1Co 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.


Axehead

 

[Brother James]

Why do you suppose God put us in a situation where we have a say over how we are governed if He didn't want us to excercise that say? Do you believe a Christian should remain silent when there are two political options for the governance of the country, one that is in keeping with God's instructions to us and one that is not? Should Christians have kept their mouths shut when the government allowed some men to own other men as property? Now, Jesus certainly didn't come to change the politics of the Roman Empire, He came to change men's hearts. But we still have to live in the world until God calls us home.