34 Comments

The Blank Slatist denial of Human Nature has become the dominant outlook on humanity in Western culture since The Enlightenment. Not just on the Left but also on the Right too.

The belief in Libertarian Free Will, the notion that homosexuality is a "choice" (denying the existence of innate sexual proclivities), the notion that personality traits like laziness & depression are "choices", Civic Nationalism, Free Market fundamentalism, Neo-Conservativism in general, etc are all examples of how most Western Conservatives also deny Human Nature.

We even see this in most Western Christians today. Many modern Christians are under the delusion that faith in Jesus somehow completely erases any immoral proclivities & instincts, that faith in Jesus leads to moral perfection and a perfect society (with the implication that any Christian who sins on the regular must be a closet infidel). Nevermind that the Bible itself repeatedly states that this is impossible.

Expand full comment

This is a thought-provoking comment. I find the idea that laziness is a choice especially interesting because if it were the case that it is not at all a choice, my perspective would be completely changed. In the past, learning difficulties like ADHD and dyslexia 'did not exist', so I wonder what other conditions will be discovered which will impact how we see people who struggle to focus or with certain tasks.

Fundamentally, I think there is always a strong desire to deny Human Nature. For example, if someone else struggles with something, e.g. addiction, we may think highly of ourselves for not succumbing to it. When in fact, it may be a genetic predisposition that causes their addiction.

Expand full comment

Well said. And correct that the (happy and comfy!) delusion of modern Progressivism stems from the errors, vanities, and absurdities of the misnamed Enlightenment. I note here that Lucifer is termed the Angel of (En)light(enment). How apt.

Expand full comment

Impressive essay. This is one of the best summations of the assumptions behind conservatism that I have read. It clearly explains why conservatism is superior to utopian ideologies.

You also correctly point out that conservatism is not opposed to all change.

I wonder, however, how does a conservative differentiate between “good change” and “bad change” within the confines of its own ideology?

And how does this “good change” differ from what the Center-Left claims to believe in?

Doesn’t conservatism in practice just to devolve into Progressive reform at a slower pace? If so, is this not exactly what conservatives complain about the Center-Left?

Expand full comment

Conservatism currently is corrupted by selfishness, greed and cowardice, as best witnessed by what transpires as 'conservatism' in D.C., and in corrupted bodies like the GOP. Most of these 'conservative' persons are just liberals and leftists wearing the skin-suits of conservatism, but differing only imperceptively from Leftist attitudes and practice. They end up conserving NOTHING except their own positions and paychecks. For God sakes, the Right in New Amerika could not even conserve the Boy Scouts: their wives and daughters would, after all, be upset and outraged were boys and men permitted to have organization without the supervision of (Prog) women.

Note, however, the standard hypocrisy inherent: the Girl Scouts remain intact, and do not have to allow boys to participate in its organization. One rule of law for thee; a very different rule of law for me. Thus, we see the typical dishonesty, selfishness, and outright tyranny inherent in Leftism and Progressivism, which essentially is femaleness without constraint, responsibility or consequence, leading inevitably to totalitarianism of all institutions and a nihilism that rejects all personal account and responsibility. The satanic condition, in short.

Expand full comment

This does not really answer my question…

Expand full comment

Wasn't addressing your question. Was making a statement pursuant to your general subject. Didn't know you were soliciting answers to a specific question.

Expand full comment

Yes, two-thirds of my comment were questions. Please reread.

Expand full comment

That is a long question, then! But out of respect for you, I will review the document and, if I have any profitable contribution to make, I will post again with a response. Thank you for your patience with me, and your hard work. m

Expand full comment

Fair enough.

Expand full comment

We should compartmentalize change into “things that should not change” and “things that may change, but with caution”. Family structure and values, a child-oriented society, cultural traditions passed on through the generations, and national/ethnic identity are some things that should not erode or be redefined. Things that may change, but with caution, include economic structure, technology, and environmental sustainability.

I also believe government should be somewhat paternalist, but not overbearingly so. Gambling, selling/dealing marijuana, porn, and smartphones for minors are some things that should be illegal. The trades should regain their importance over university education. However, there should be some breathing room at the same time to satiate those with inherent social liberal inclinations. For example, tattoos should be legal, homosexuality should be legal, but not promoted through parades or pride month, and marijuana smoking should be decriminalized (but crucially, not its dealing).

However, maintaining a society with these rules in the long-term is difficult in a western-style democracy. Social activists will always advocate for change, and more change without satiation if they’re enabled. That’s why liberal democracy is not the ideal form of government. Ideal, in my opinion, would be a more constrained democracy. A one-party state that guarantees basic civil liberties, but does not accommodate social views beyond a certain Overton window. There would be red lines that automatically disqualify one for running for public office, such as support for immigration or trans rights. Some of these laws and red lines should be incorporated in the national constitution from the get-go to make them more durable.

Expand full comment

Conservatism is descended from aristocratic monarchism so in the past stability was maintained in a top-down fashion. Since the majority of people need guidance to make political decisions it's not clear that there is any stable form of democratic conservatism that doesn't have a populist strongman leader. I suppose there are a few examples of conservative democracy working like in Singapore but in the west it clearly hasn't been successful.

Expand full comment

Singapore isn't really a democracy, the PAP will alter the rules to its favor during elections. The reason why the PAP rules with an iron fist is because they are extraordinarily competent as technocrats so they always enjoy a large proportion of the votes. They're more like monarchists rather than democratically elected leaders.

Expand full comment

Conservatism is the default mode of being throughout history. It is how people survived in a harsh premodern world. Liberalism is a luxury philosophy afforded precisely due to said technologies and safety.

Expand full comment

Can you name one Conservative party – in any Western country – that promotes conservatism as you define it? I can't. In my country, i.e., Canada, political conservatives have long made a virtue of being "conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues."

Yes, if you go far enough back in time, most Conservatives were socially conservative in my country ... as were most Liberals and even many socialists. Social conservativism was the norm. In fact, there was a time when the Liberals were, if anything, more socially conservative than the Conservatives – because Catholics overwhelmingly voted Liberal.

I would also question the idea that social conservatives should believe in the market economy. A true market economy will work only if you have a large middle class and a population with low time preference and sufficient cognitive ability. If time preference is too high, most people will go deeply into debt, and many businesses will exploit that psychological weakness. If the middle class is too small, businesses will combine to keep prices higher than their true market value and wages lower than their true market value. The result: a crisis of underconsumption. Workers won't receive enough money to buy the goods they produce. This has happened, repeatedly.

Look at Springfield, Ohio. Haitian immigrants have been sent there by a temp agency that literally binds them to a certain employer. The employer loves the arrangement because the worker cannot quit and work for someone else. It's really a form of indentured servitude, and we're seeing more and more of this in the "free market." Let's be honest. There are probably millions of poor people in the world who would willingly indenture themselves to an American employer for at least 10 years – in exchange for living in a First World country. And if we accept a limit of 10 years, why not 20? Why not 30?

So please be a bit more restrained in your praise of the free market. For most of human history and prehistory, we had markets but no market economy. A true market economy would not develop until relatively late in history, and then only in certain cultures, i.e., Western Europe and East Asia. Everywhere else, it would not develop without some degree of force, coercion, and surveillance.

Expand full comment

I don't think you mentioned Burke so I'd like to make a shout out for him here. Edmund Burke - father of modern conservatism - expressed it's essential philosophical caution in this axiom: “frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years.” Few people are outright opposed to political change but Progressives seem permanently hungry for it and believe that politics is the way to make it happen. Recent history suggests that they are all too right in this belief but paradoxically are unlikely to actually be happy with the changes they bring about. And so it goes on ad nauseam this frenzied pursuit of "change" One of my favourite conservatism quotes is by Lord Salisbury: "change why change.....aren't things bad enough already" https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life

Expand full comment

So how does a Burkean conservative differentiate between a “good reform” and a “bad reform?” This is a point that I was always unclear about.

Edmund Burke after all did support the American Revolution, which was hardly a trivial change.

Expand full comment

It comes down to judgement and wisdom I guess. And noticing the difference between what you wanted to happen and what has actually happened.

Expand full comment

I would say that you need to focus on Results. The most Wisdom and Judgement in the world do not get you as far as small-scale experimentation in the real world. That is why I am a big fan of Randomized Controlled Trials being done for all social programs before they are scale up.

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-case-for-randomized-trials-in

I am, however, not sure whether Burke would agree.

Expand full comment

So basically when you have a leader like Lee Kwan Yew.

Expand full comment

Forcing oneself to notice the difference, I'd say. Self-criticism and correction are not easy, nor natural to the human condition.

Expand full comment

'A good political ideology must be concordant with human nature..The fundamental premise of conservatism is original sin'. Original sin is also the fundamental premise of Chinese Legalism.

It has steadily became obsolete since 500 BC, thanks to Confucianism, which made the opposite assumption.

Today's China is the outcome of that process, and the PRC is, by far, the most purely Confucian government in that country's long history and the most successful in world history.

Expand full comment

So only Christians can be conservative? Almost no one in India or China?

Expand full comment

You lost me at “fallen”.

If humanity can’t help tearing itself apart without noble lies, we don’t deserve any better.

The genies of the oh so maligned enlightenment are out of the bottle. Stop trying to shove them back in.

Expand full comment

Outstanding piece. Well done.

Yes, the fundamental difference between the (true) Conservative is acceptance that human beings, and the human condition, is flawed, faulted, and fallen. The New Age utopianists backing the Woke, the Feminists, the Homosexual Celebrationists et al. assert that human beings are perfect as is, and that the world can be made likewise perfect via EXTERNAL implementation of various, unending schemes, programs, laws, and absurd measures. That is, the view that I am perfect sui generis, and need not strive and struggle to improve myself. This is great delusion, and personal dishonesty and cowardice, and leads inevitable to great error, and to damnation.

The New Age, Lefitist contention of perfection-at-birth is easily disproven and dismissed by even the most casual observation of ourselves, others, and this world (which likewise groans and staggers along in a fallen and reduced condition).

Likewise fundamental to the apprehension of the true condition of humankind is knowledge of, and adherence to, the commands and principles of God, as expressed most fully and accurately in Scripture.

Expand full comment

Instead of "The nuclear family is the fundamental unit of Western Civilization," wouldn't it have been more accurate to say the INDIVIDUAL is the fundamental unit of Western Civilization and the nuclear family is the main SOCIAL unit of individuals in Western Civilization?

Expand full comment

One reason I am not a conservative is that I do not believe competitiveness is inherent. I am not competitive, as a 46 years old guy I find nothing more boring than watching sports and I treat videogames as exploration, not winning. And I already see non-competitiveness growing among young men. The anti-work movement, for example.

Expand full comment

This essay can be read as anti-individualist and pro-collectivist.

This especially comes to the surface when arguing for prejudice (cultural consensus) and against reason (individual agency).

While I agree that there is too much emphasis on responsibility to self in this culture, I can’t see religious affiliation being the answer to this problem.

The answer will come when we ask who we are responsible to. Is it just family as this essay suggests? No, I don’t think this is wide enough, not nearly wide enough for the collective structures the writer requires. How about our workplaces? How about our neighbourhoods? Town, city, country? How far should it extend

Expand full comment

Two quibbles:

“Reason” might better be replaced by “Unreason”. “Ignore the constraints of nature” seems an example of unreason rather than reason. Likewise, uncaution and imprudence do not seem to be examples of reason.

On “the desire to dominate others is ineradicable”, Henrich ("The Secret of Our Success") neatly sets out the situation:

"These findings suggest that, at least in this small-scale society, being recognised as either dominant or prestigious has a positive influence on one's total reproductive output (children) or mating success, over and above the consequences that might accrue from factors associated with status, like economic productivity or hunting skills. Not surprisingly, both dominant and prestigious men tended to get their way at group meetings, but only prestigious men were respected and generous.”

[Chris van Rueden … prestige and dominance among the Tsimane in the Bolivian Amazon…]

Expand full comment

I concur with your sentiments, but I suggest that describing conservatism as an ideology is inappropriate. It is perhaps better described as a set of attitudes founded in pragmatism. All ideologies are problematic: https://www.hughwillbourn.com/post/54-madness-and-the-evaporation-of-authority

Expand full comment

Understanding human nature has been my passion for years, for the very reason that it is the only way we can understand how best to govern ourselves. You make an excellent stab at this.

Strangely enough, my husband and I watched the old movie "Invasion of the Body Snatcher" last night. It is a very serious movie with a lesson that harks back to your comments about 'reason' and how we cannot rely solely on it.

Expand full comment

"There are two buildings. In one, your daughter is playing. In the other, 200 children whom you don’t know are playing. You must blow up one building. Which do you blow?”

This is an excellent example against the 'Free Will' argument. If you have free will, you needn't blow up either.

"Humans are also competitive. Many denigrate this proclivity, bewailing the fact that humans are strongly motivated by the lure of tribal contests. Some even seek to eliminate such competitiveness, disparaging dodge ball, football, and other team sports as unfortunate relics of a barbaric past."

The competitions you listed are all primarily physical, and you list none that are cerebral. In modern society, it is more advantageous to be brainy than brawny.

"The desire to dominate others is ineradicable."

That is a bold statement. Dominance is a trait like any other, and it has a genetic basis. Therefore, it can be altered or removed—competitiveness≠dominance.

"But it also means reason can ignore important realities. It can invent social systems that sound beautiful but that ignore the constraints of nature."

All modern social systems and technological advancements were once considered 'constraints of nature.'

"Perhaps religion is a culturally evolved technology that promotes cooperate and self-control, among other things."

I have never seen religion described as a technology.

Expand full comment

Nice defense of prejudice.

Expand full comment