(Note: This post has been expanded to include my comments to a related VFR entry.)
If you haven't read this outstanding discussion yet, do go over and read it as the nature of the discussion has taken on a bit of a different complexion. Namely, what is the purpose of Traditionalism?
I'm reminded here of another recent VFR entry and discussion concerning this same topic; the entry in question having spawned from Hermes's excellent entry on the difficulty of being a traditionalist.
Below is posted Hannon's latest comments, with Auster's important reply. Following are my comments to the related VFR entry, The difficulty of being a traditionalist...
Hannon writes:
Another great thread. You are fortunate to have attracted so many brilliant minds who freely give of their thoughts and time. I appreciate their efforts and yours.
Having adopted your view that thought and clever analysis are not enough, that we must improvise modes of action, I found this excerpt from Alan Roebuck to be especially cogent:
"But as social deterioration worsens, non-leftist liberals (and an occasional leftist with integrity) will begin to doubt liberalism only if they hear people articulate a persuasive non-leftist worldview. Otherwise they will blame society's troubles on those who do not share their liberal worldview, or, in the best case, they will simply see a mysterious catastrophe about which nothing can be done." [emphasis mine.]
There can be no doubt that having a conservative foundation, something more unified than what we have now, in place to counter social decline is of paramount importance. It is likewise essential to have a known, traditional philosophy established during any period of history. For me this brings a new and heartening dimension to conservatism--working to establish its ready usefulness and giving it a greater purpose, beyond seeing it only as the defining ingredients of a particular worldview.
LA replies:
Hannon, following up on Alan Roebuck's point, has articulated something very important here. What is the purpose of traditionalism? It is not just to provide a critique of liberalism, though it is that. It is not just to provide us with a basis for personal and spiritual resistance to the prevailing liberal order, though it is that. It is to provide the governing philosophy for a post-liberal Western social order. Therefore the long-term task of traditionalists is to build up such a philosophy and make it an active and living part of society.
Quite a tall order, for a bunch of bloggers and essayists with no institutions, influence, political skills, or anything. But we have no choice but to start from where we are. There are certain things that we know to be true. We know that the reign of liberalism is destroying the West, and we know that the reign of liberalism cannot survive. Something must ultimately replace it. What will that something be? Multicultural distintegration? Leftist tyranny? Muslim tyanny? Neocon global democratism? Some combination of the above? Don't like any of those choices? How about a renewed Western/Christian social order? That's something worth striving for--both for us and for those who come after us.
My comments to the difficulty of being a traditionalist:
Terry M. writes:
I agree with both you and Mark J. And, yes, I tend to be more positive than negative about the future prospects of traditionalism in this country.
As I said recently to one of my friends, I believe firmly that the majority of Americans will eventually realize, by necessity, that liberalism is an untenable political doctrine because it is founded on untruth. If I am correct about this, then the job of traditionalists is not to complain about how difficult it is to be one in today's liberal climate, nor is it to recount the innumerable reasons for the impossibility of a return to traditionalism at this very moment in time. The job of traditionalists is to put forth the reasons for which traditionalism is superior to liberalism now, so that when liberalism begins to fail people, individually and collectively, they will have an alternative to which they can turn, and in which they can put their faith because of the work of traditionalists in long-since exposing the insanity of liberalism which they (liberals) will have finally coming to realize themselves.
It all takes time, and time, or long-term recovery requires patience. And not to thump the Bible at anyone, but we have biblical examples of this kind of thing recounted therein. It was the children of Israel, recently released from Egyptian bondage, who complained that self-government was too hard and that they were better off as slaves than as freedmen. And while we may not be allowed entry into the promised land, it is nonetheless the destiny of our progeny. I have to believe that.
2 comments:
That, my friend, is an awful lot to digest. Definitely, a very, very interesting article and it gives one a lot to think about. I for one, had to look up the term liberalism. For it is one thing, to understand it in the context that others use it and a whole other to get a more concrete definition (as written by wikipedia). I feel, at least to some degree, that I have a better understanding of the term. I also uncovered something, within the "definintion," that I found to be quite disturbing. The term social progressivism came up, in Wikipedia's definition of liberalism and was described as a common component of liberal ideology. Social progressivism says (according to wikipedia) that "Social progressives believe that there is no inherent value in tradition." All I can say is..... WOW!!! I for one, have serious reservations about any person or group, that would allow themselves to be associated with that kind of ideology. I am also hesitant to label anyone as a liberal or consertvative, I like to think of people as humans and not ideologies. However, anyone that follows the ideology that says there is no inherent value in tradition can be suitably labeled an IDIOT!
Populist,
Thanks for all the comments. I won't respond to them all because, as I explained when I put up the recent comments section in the right sidebar of this blog, if I respond to every comment I get to every post, my comments to the comments will dominate that section, which would defeat the purpose.
This comment of yours, however, warrants a reply...
That VFR entry is indeed a lot to devour. But that's rather typical of the depth and quality of VFR's articles, and the discussions conducted of Auster's readership.
I haven't checked out the Wickipedia article on liberalism, but I can recommend another VFR article if you wish to be more informed about what liberalism is in reality. Check out Auster's article, The unprincipled exception defined (which you may find permanently linked in my left sidebar under the section title "Select VFR Articles"), as well as the articles linked up to that one. But I caution you in advance, they are legion. And they're like a bag of Doritos, if you catch my drift.
I can illustrate for you how that liberalism is an irrational belief system fairly easily by something you said in your comments. You mentioned that "Social Progressives" (according to Wikipedia) believe that there is no inherent value to tradition, which you rightly denominate idiocy. But the truth of the matter is that social progressives actually do believe there is a great deal of value in tradition, the liberal tradition of social progressivism. This is a simple illustration of the illogic inherent to the ideology of liberalism, but it's an example we find over and over in the belief system; a common characteristic we consistently find with virtually every element of the ideology. They claim to believe a thing, yet they defeat their own claims within their own arguments. This is the nature of liberalism.
And by the way, human beings are by definition ideological beings. So to "label" a person or a group of persons with an ideological stamp is not to deprive them of their humanity. It is simply to identify them with a particular human belief system. And if the shoe fits [let them] wear it, as they say. ;)
-Terry
Post a Comment