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.
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.
I agree that the populist right is a much bigger threat than the progressive extremists on the left. My question is why is there so much violent anger on the Right? So much of it does seem to be a reaction to cultural changes rather than the economic changes of "Promethean capitalism" that Damon refers to. Why are the Rust Belt voters not attracted to the promise of help for their economic dilemmas that the traditional Democratic party might provide?
Grievance. They've been lied to so long and so strongly that they hate Democrats. They believe Democrats want to destroy the country. They don't hear about the threat that Trump and his ilk pose, and when it's put in front of them they claim he's being persecuted. I don't know how anyone can reach these people.
Perhaps a good start would be to stop calling each other "these people" and all of the much more derogatory versions of "othering" people that get used so often. I think we all need to spend more time with people that have different political leanings than ourselves. I'm a liberal and I live and work in a community of many Trump-supporters who are absolutely lovely people. Do I agree with all of their opinions? Of course not. But when you talk to people with the assumption that they are good people navigating the world as best they can, you see that the differences are really pretty small. It's small differences in priority, not huge fundamental difference, that lead most people to vote in the ways they do. This fact gets lost on the internet and on television. Let's all spend more time being good neighbors and see what happens.
I would respond in two ways. 1. The anger in everyday people is not nearly as extreme as what is portrayed in the media (sensational stories sell). 2. The far-left fringe seems just as angry and set on destruction as the far-right fringe. Also, someone being angry doesn't mean they've been told lies, and people do sometimes have legitimate reason for grievance. For example, I live in Arizona and grievances over the illegal immigration mess are legitimate. It's very easy for people who live thousands of miles from the border to ignore it, or believe that wanting secure borders is racist, or whatever other ideas people come up with who don't have to give the issue any serious consideration. When one politician proposes no solution to a problem and the other proposes a flawed solution, people have to make the best choices they can. One last thing... the left's attitude of moral superiority is certainly not helping the anger...
We are not the ones claiming men can get pregnant. We are not the ones that want to normalize sex changes for 6 year olds. We are not the ones that believe that .gov is the most important creation ever in the brief history of mankind. That is all the democrats.
To the thinking person that would rather not repeat his mistakes, nothing from the left is to be believed.
Trump may be the antiChrist, but the lies from the left remain at the forefront of our thought process.
The old saying that the left is wrong, but the right is evil is complete BS. The difference between right and left is that we dont believe that .gov should have ANY control over our day to day lives, let alone be the most important thing since ever. It is because of the control freak nature of the left the we find the left disgusting.
Besides- when was the last time the left came up with an idea providing more freedom? Or less taxes?
Because the left claims that men can bear children.
Any farm kid knows about procreation. They have witnessed it all of their lives. So when the left comes along with their obvious lies, they lose all credibility in the eyes of that farm kid. Anything else the left may say will never be heard, let alone believed. And rightfully so.
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.
Likewise subscribed just to reply to your comment! Love this and couldn't agree more. I'm a former Catholic, former evangelical atheist, former Ron Paul libertarian, and former Marxist (all occurring in my 20s). Today I would consider myself fairly agnostic about most topics - and/but still searching while first and foremost trying to recognize my own biases/lenses/frames. The only thing I know for sure is that many of my former beliefs are mutually exclusive - therefore, by definition I MUST have been wrong at some point in the past; having been so then, I could very well be so again.
I was introduced to Damon through Andrew Sullivan - whom I originally subscribed to out of intellectual curiosity for a rational and humane conservative who happens to also be a member of a historically marginalized community. My current politics fall somewhere left of center, but rarely radically so.
TLDR: love both Damon's post and your comment. If I could write my own epitaph I would love it to say "Reasonable people can disagree".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree that the populist right is a much bigger threat than the progressive extremists on the left. My question is why is there so much violent anger on the Right? So much of it does seem to be a reaction to cultural changes rather than the economic changes of "Promethean capitalism" that Damon refers to. Why are the Rust Belt voters not attracted to the promise of help for their economic dilemmas that the traditional Democratic party might provide?
Grievance. They've been lied to so long and so strongly that they hate Democrats. They believe Democrats want to destroy the country. They don't hear about the threat that Trump and his ilk pose, and when it's put in front of them they claim he's being persecuted. I don't know how anyone can reach these people.
Perhaps a good start would be to stop calling each other "these people" and all of the much more derogatory versions of "othering" people that get used so often. I think we all need to spend more time with people that have different political leanings than ourselves. I'm a liberal and I live and work in a community of many Trump-supporters who are absolutely lovely people. Do I agree with all of their opinions? Of course not. But when you talk to people with the assumption that they are good people navigating the world as best they can, you see that the differences are really pretty small. It's small differences in priority, not huge fundamental difference, that lead most people to vote in the ways they do. This fact gets lost on the internet and on television. Let's all spend more time being good neighbors and see what happens.
It's the anger that is difficult to understand intellectually. What is the grievance? What lies have they been told?
I would respond in two ways. 1. The anger in everyday people is not nearly as extreme as what is portrayed in the media (sensational stories sell). 2. The far-left fringe seems just as angry and set on destruction as the far-right fringe. Also, someone being angry doesn't mean they've been told lies, and people do sometimes have legitimate reason for grievance. For example, I live in Arizona and grievances over the illegal immigration mess are legitimate. It's very easy for people who live thousands of miles from the border to ignore it, or believe that wanting secure borders is racist, or whatever other ideas people come up with who don't have to give the issue any serious consideration. When one politician proposes no solution to a problem and the other proposes a flawed solution, people have to make the best choices they can. One last thing... the left's attitude of moral superiority is certainly not helping the anger...
Thanks.....interesting response.
These people? Really?
We are not the ones claiming men can get pregnant. We are not the ones that want to normalize sex changes for 6 year olds. We are not the ones that believe that .gov is the most important creation ever in the brief history of mankind. That is all the democrats.
To the thinking person that would rather not repeat his mistakes, nothing from the left is to be believed.
Trump may be the antiChrist, but the lies from the left remain at the forefront of our thought process.
The old saying that the left is wrong, but the right is evil is complete BS. The difference between right and left is that we dont believe that .gov should have ANY control over our day to day lives, let alone be the most important thing since ever. It is because of the control freak nature of the left the we find the left disgusting.
Besides- when was the last time the left came up with an idea providing more freedom? Or less taxes?
To answer your question, civil rights, marriage equality, access to health care, including abortion, to name a few.
Because the left claims that men can bear children.
Any farm kid knows about procreation. They have witnessed it all of their lives. So when the left comes along with their obvious lies, they lose all credibility in the eyes of that farm kid. Anything else the left may say will never be heard, let alone believed. And rightfully so.
Well, a few people might make that claim, but it is not at all held universally by those of us on the left. It is a minority position.
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.
Likewise subscribed just to reply to your comment! Love this and couldn't agree more. I'm a former Catholic, former evangelical atheist, former Ron Paul libertarian, and former Marxist (all occurring in my 20s). Today I would consider myself fairly agnostic about most topics - and/but still searching while first and foremost trying to recognize my own biases/lenses/frames. The only thing I know for sure is that many of my former beliefs are mutually exclusive - therefore, by definition I MUST have been wrong at some point in the past; having been so then, I could very well be so again.
I was introduced to Damon through Andrew Sullivan - whom I originally subscribed to out of intellectual curiosity for a rational and humane conservative who happens to also be a member of a historically marginalized community. My current politics fall somewhere left of center, but rarely radically so.
TLDR: love both Damon's post and your comment. If I could write my own epitaph I would love it to say "Reasonable people can disagree".
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.
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.
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.
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.