18 Comments

A wonderful and personal statement on true conservative principles, Damon. I wish there was more of a desire for this kind of conservative thinking in American politics today. It is the kind of conservatism I grew attached to during graduate school, when I was surrounded by those on the left advocating for revolution and upheaval.

Expand full comment

Thank you for explaining your liberal conservatism. I have found myself moderating from being "progressive" to just being very liberal. For example, I understand and support Trans rights, but I don't consider it to be the major issue of our times. I think the Rights freak out is ridiculous, but I also think the Left's insistence on the more trivial aspects (pronouns, bathrooms) is not helping. I do disagree with Oakeshott because I find change, or I should say good change exciting. Yes, it can be difficult and disorienting, but it can lead to a much richer life. Politically I don't think either party will be successful by leading from their most radical ends. I think most Americans are for justice and equality, but can't abide radical positions on these issues. All this being said, I do think the "populist" right is a much bigger threat than anything the left is pushing. I would like to hear more about how your liberal conservatism informs your view on specific issues, as I find your writing to be well informed and very thoughtful.

Expand full comment

I am subscribing so I can respond to this. I have read Damon for years. I am attracted to his authentic, honest approach and I share many of his intellectual interests. I am not accomplished like he is, but I have been a reader of the ancient Greek philosophers my whole life and I have read dozens of popular histories of the late Roman Republic and it's fall. I have "studied" Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas. My father is a deacon in the Catholic church and has a masters degree in theology and publishes articles about theology. I have worked for a conservative media organization for over 20 years. I know the movement and its propaganda quite well. So I relate to Damon on all of this and have found his journey through recent times very interesting.

What I want to say to this piece is that about ten years ago I began to realize the role that psychology plays in one's political philosophy. In all of my studies over the years, I was seeking to understand why intelligent people of good will cannot come to consensus on questions of justice. For thousands of years, this puzzle has eluded the human species. I thought this was one of the great mysteries of the human story and our struggle to live in peace among one another. I poured through philosophical tracts trying to figure out where we were going wrong, and why. Where is the wrong turn in the bad argument? Where is the error in the belief structure? It didn't take me long to realize that intelligent people of good will can come to opposing valid conclusions from different virtuous principles. Asking which political philosophy was "correct" or "best" often redounded to a matter of asking which virtue is "correct" or "best." Sometimes there is more than one valid solution to a question. I learned that fact in calculus class and I remember it to this day. More than one correct answer? Yes! Usually there is!

But what really came as a revelation to me was when I began to understand just a bit about psychology and personality and how these often factor into political philosophy. Damon has here told a story of how childhood trauma determined his political philosophy. You can't argue someone out of their trauma, or their psychology. At least not easily. And this is the challenge that the philosophical approach faces. Debates don't change anyone's psychology. So as long as psychology is one of the driving factors in determining political philosophy, debates have limited power to change people's political philosophy - especially in cases where someone does not possess a lot of self-awareness or honest self-reflection. You would think that philosophers should be better at this, but we go back and forth between our detective modes where we are searching for the truth, and our lawyer mode, where we are pleading our case, or if we over-identify with this process, representing our client (our own egos). It is difficult to stay in the detective mode forever. Eventually our search finds - something. From that point on, the lawyer mode sets in. For a lot of us, we never return to the detective mode ever again.

Anyway, I have always enjoyed reading Damon because I think he is a true detective, which I appreciate. Never stop searching, Damon. And may all of us remember these two things: 1) The reason that people disagree about some of the things they disagree about is simply because people are different and have different preferences and attractions to different virtues. 2) Even if we were purely rational, perfect moral calculators, there are many valid and correct answers to the human calculus.

Expand full comment

Beautiful, moving, and articulate. Thank you for describing these aspects of your journey. One rarely encounters a true intellectual who writes with such emotional honesty. I really appreciate this quality of your work.

You touch on a question that I find deeply puzzling. For all of us, our choices reflect our individual temperaments and psychologies and, at the same time, some of us are sufficiently open to the guidance of reason to change our minds regarding very fundamental questions, such as our relationships with "ultimate" reality, if such a concept even makes sense.

One's political inclinations are undoubtedly linked to psychological determinants. Yet, a fundamental tenet of the liberal tradition is the idea that reasoned persuasion, not passion, profit, or preference, must be the primary mover of political change. That's why freedom of speech and an honest, fair press play such an important role. At the same time, most people end up voting like their parents.

I don't have any answers to this puzzle, but I remain convinced that there is some feature of human intelligence that allows us to order our guiding principles in such a way that we can actually change in profound ways as a result of careful, reasoned analysis - despite our psychological history.

Expand full comment

I am very much like you. I also had a mentally ill mother and an alcoholic father so I craved security. But then I went the ither way. I also lived in Europe for a couple if years and it really opened my eyes politically. I am socially liberal and believe everyone should be whatever they want to be. But I am fiscally conservative and see the value of rewarding innovators and growth. And voted for the person not the party. I was shocked out of complacency when Trump was elected. The decidedly fascist turn the Republican Party to extent that one prominent official said the US could be replaced. This made me solidly in the Democratic camp.

Expand full comment

Let's face it, change is always bad, and that's why people resist it. For example, when you boss says "we need to make some changes," you know it's going to mean layoff, pay cuts, more work, etc. On the rare occasions change is not bad, it's not even called change. It's called progress.

Expand full comment

The problem with legalizing gay marriage via a court decision, instead of legislative action, is that the reasoning in the Obergefell decision logically requires the legalization of polygamy as well. It's only a matter of time before some Mormon or Muslim challenges prohibitive state laws.

Expand full comment