DAMON LINKER FEBRUARY 11, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I'm delighted that Patrick Deneen has taken the time to craft a vigorous response to my post about Andrew Bacevich's thoughts on the end of conservatism - delighted because Deneen has a powerful mind and is perhaps the most formidable blogospheric defender of the paleocon outlook I set out to criticize. Deneen attacks me on two ground. First, I absurdly and ham-handedly link Bacevich's defense of individual self-restraint to the authoritarianism of the Legionaries of Christ, a scandal-ridden Catholic religious order. Second, and more broadly, my critique of authoritarianism actually amounts to an assault on all forms of "self-government" -- a term that Deneen uses to mean not liberal democratic political institutions and procedures but the ability and willingness of individual men and women to govern their own appetites. Genuine liberty, in Deneen's view, involves living and acting within self-imposed economic, social, and moral limits; it does not assume the embrace of authoritarianism. On the contrary, it is nations (like the contemporary United States) in which individuals devote themselves to satisfying limitless appetites that foster the most debilitating forms of tyranny. This, at any rate, is what I take Deneen to be saying.By way of response, let's begin by returning to Bacevich's first criticism of the United States, which Deneen tacitly endorses. Among their many other sins, Americans affirm the "right to choose" above all other social and moral principles, producing a nation in which individuals freely "fornicate, marry, breed, abort, divorce, and abandon." To take the first item on this list, Bacevich and Deneen would clearly prefer that their fellow citizens not "fornicate" as much as they currently do. How might this goal be achieved? One possibility is that we pass and enforce laws upholding sexual chastity. That sounds pretty authoritarian to me. But of course, Bacevich and Deneen deny that they're advocating any such thing. Okay, then, let's take them at their word: What they want is for Americans to restrain themselves, to resist their sexual appetites, to repress their desires, to rein them in. And that's not authoritarianism; it's "self-government." Except for one thing: It now appears that Bacevich and Deneen aren't really opposed to a "culture of choice" at all. Rather, they're opposed to a culture in which people make the wrong choices -- in this case, the choice to fornicate instead of the choice to resist their sexual appetites. But here's what I don't understand: Why would a free man or woman choose to resist rather than act on his or her sexual appetites? I mean, we've invented birth control. Sex is very pleasurable. It's a way to enjoy emotional and physical intimacy with another human being. Why not choose for fornication? Why, in other words, is it wrong, in itself, to fornicate? Can we even imagine a response to this question that does not make reference to the authoritative teachings of an orthodox religious tradition? Without such an authority, all Bacevich's and Deneen's talk of "self-restraint" simply makes no sense. People only act to restrain their desires for a reason. In some cases, that reason might be self-interest (for instance, a desire to avoid exposure to sexually transmitted diseases). In other cases, it might be the desire to avoid hurting those we love (when, say, avoiding fornication with those other than one's spouse). But neither of those reasons can tell us why fornication as such is wrong. For that we need some authoritative standard or ideal of intrinsically right or wrong actions. And it is only (orthodox) religion that can provide us with such a standard or ideal. But here's the problem: As I tried to explain in my original post, we have every reason to view with deep suspicion those who speak in the name of such standards and ideals. (This is where the ultra-orthodox Legionaries of Christ came in in my original post.) Indeed, the rise of modern liberalism can be understood in large part as the attempt to found a new form of politics without reference to no-longer-authoritative standards and ideals. Now, to be sure, Deneen proposes a very different, far more philosophically elaborate account of the origins of modernity than the one I've just suggested. Following Leo Strauss, he thinks we should look to the pages of a book written five centuries ago in Florence, Italy to understand the character of American predatory capitalism and imperialistic domination of the world. Following Martin Heidegger and Michel Foucault, he suggests that every advance of personal freedom furthers our enslavement to the tyranny of technology and the modern state. (You just can't win with some people.)Call me na
14 comments
I think you have an assumption here that lies at the heart of what your blogopponents are complaining about. If it were true that only orthodox religion could provide an alternative to the pursuit of pleasure then they would necessarily be critics of modernity, just in disguise. I don't think it is, though- Bentham claimed, without invoking God, that cultivating the mind was a higher order of good than pursuing bodily pleasures. A Benthamite, then, could argue - in a liberal, secular way -that people ought to practice self-restraint to avoid the immediate pleasures of getting it on and instead pursue the more rarified pleasures of reading blogs or something.
- Simon Greenwood
February 11, 2009 at 5:53pm
So it's a choice between getting it on and reading blogs? Hmmm.... I'll have to think about that one.
- srendall2
February 12, 2009 at 4:07am
Asking "what's so wrong with sex" is the same question as "what's wrong with stuffing your face with donuts cause it makes me feel good" just like "what's wrong with doing what I please all the time. "
Morality is like a muscle. The more you exercise it, the stronger it gets. I find myself delaying gratification of food, sex, and other pleasures in order to fully savor them when they're finally achieved. To regularly and continually do whatever the hell you please is to debase your humanity and self-control. Whether or not you're a religious person, it pays to have strong moral fiber. Less diseases, slimmer body, healthier living. Not to mention that when suffering truly does occur, you'll be ready for it. Fattened liberals who indulge every whim and cannot postpone gratification find themselves in deep trouble when famine or tough times call for sacrifice. That is why they're the hardest hit by this economy - to not be able to buy Whole Foods or Starbucks is psychologically damaging to them. War is so foreign to these effeminate-types that they'll subscribe to peace at any price.
- jwl2672
February 12, 2009 at 2:03pm
Maybe Mark Foley can help us exercise those morality muscles the right way. Since you are such a winking sphincter yourself jwl, maybe you can teach us about those muscles too.
- Wandreycer1
February 12, 2009 at 5:38pm
Perhaps what Deneen is railing against (albeit poorly) is the modern culture of extreme permissiveness. You know, the one where every sitcom/drama show is guaranteed to have a scene where a character's parents say "Oh, honey, we just want you to be happy." What?? What kind of response is that for a parent? Maybe "honey" wants to be a stripper, maybe he wants to be a girl, maybe he just wants to be a lumberjack instead of the doctor they wanted him to be. I don't care about the reason for their statement; I only know that if they really mean it, it makes them about the worst parents in the world. (What if what makes your kid happy is beating up other kids?) Yet this is constantly repeated to us and to our children, held up as an example of parental perfection.
Yes, I freely admit to reading an awful lot into one little line, but pay attention and you will see it repeated again and again, meaning the shows' producers either take it as given that we believe it as well, or hope to convince us of its superiority. Doesn't that seem like a cultural flaw worth railing against? Jwl is right about one thing - just because something is legal doesn't mean you should mindlessly engage in it (though he's wrong in pegging liberals as being alone in this behavior). The reason for a liberal - free - society is because different people have differing opinions of what is moral. But all religions, and most non-religious philosophies, agree - there must be a level of self-control, a line in the sand beyond which we will not let ourselves go, or we will become no more than beasts.
- dhauck
February 12, 2009 at 6:51pm
I don't know Deneen except for the link that Damon provides, and I'm sure I would disagree with his politics. But I find Linker's catty response surprisingly shallow. It's as if the mere suggestion that we should place limits on ourselves is, in Linker's world-view, a dangerous precedent. (It reminds me of certain pro-market conservatives who, for ideological reasons, cannot acknowledge any deleterious effects of capitalism -- as if any criticism of the market would start us on the slippery slope toward socialism.) Linker states that he may be naive "to prefer psychological explanations to World Historical ones." A thinker who eschews the historical for the psychological is probably naive, but more importantly he is probably ill-prepared for debate with people like Deneen. And this is a shame, for there is common ground to be shared by many liberals and "paleo-conservatives." Both groups share reservations about the use of American power abroad, rapacious capitalism, and centralized power, etc. The body politic would be better served were Linker and Deneen to discuss the degree to which government or private corporations control America.
- Mozier
February 12, 2009 at 7:13pm
jwl2672:
"Fattened liberals who indulge every whim and cannot postpone gratification find themselves in deep trouble when famine or tough times call for sacrifice."
Fat people are hardest hit during a famine? Hardly - they would surely outlive the skinny self-restrainers.
Besides which, if you're delaying gratification because it ultimately intensifies you're later gratification you're catering to your appetites all the same.
- mikul
February 12, 2009 at 8:05pm
The whole idea of personal liberty is to allow people to make the "wrong" choices. Liberalism is fundamentally an empirical political philosophy, and the whole reason that liberals see certain actions as "wrong" is in their consequences. I see the glutton get fat and die of a heart attack at 40, and think twice about that box of Krispy Kremes. I see the philanderer break his wife's hearts and leave his kids in dire financial straights, and I think twice about adultery. Actions are "wrong" *because* there are negative consequences, and liberalism allows me to witness, gather data, and decide for myself which actions are worth pursuing.
Conservatism, on the other hand, is entirely opposed to experimentation. "Wrong" is defined in reference to abstract moral standards, not to actual consequences. In fact, the conservative argument again permissiveness is almost always a slippery slope: if some people are allowed to fornicate/marry/breed/abort/divorce/abandon, then soon everyone will do this and society will collapse. This type of argument reveals that conservatism is fundamentally anti-empiricism and thus anti-science. After all, if it's really "wrong" to do something-- in the sense that it creates bad consequences-- then wouldn't the "rational actors" of conservative economic models *realize* that those actions are harmful and thus not do them?
Why are conservatives so terrified of people making their own decisions based on the experiences of others? Could it be that lingering concern that they just might be wrong?
- asistos
February 12, 2009 at 10:07pm
aristos -
So if you kill someone that nobody will miss, and you don't get caught (i.e. you kill without consequences) is it wrong?
- dhauck
February 13, 2009 at 12:13pm
I avoided blogging for a long time. And the one time I briefly tried it prior to my current stint at
- Anonymous
February 13, 2009 at 3:46pm
dhauck -
I don't understand the relevance of your question. I'm advocating empiricism enabled through the marketplace of ideas, not Benthamite utilitarianism. I think the drawbacks of a society where people can be randomly killed-- either because nobody will miss them, or because you also kill everyone who *would* miss them-- would become stunningly apparent in a rather short period of time.
- asistos
February 13, 2009 at 4:57pm
There is a difference between modeling private life (and thence sub-cultural or cultural norms) on principles derived from religious authority, and expected the state to support those principles by force.
Why exactly does Linker care if the devout Christians and conservative Jews among us live chastely in obedience to scripture? As long as they don't use the state to coerce everyone else into living similarly, what problem would Linker's liberal order have with them?
- ryanburke
February 13, 2009 at 5:48pm
asisos -
Nor am I discussing utilitarianism. Perhaps I was misled by your choice of examples, but you seemed to be referring to the consequences for *you* (getting fat, your family falling apart). Therefore, I was posing more a sort of game theory, where everyone else follows the rules but you can break them without consequence. So, given that, the question stands: is it wrong?
Incidentally, we already live in a society "where people can be randomly killed-- either because nobody will miss them, or because you also kill everyone who would miss them" and without consequences - if you don't get caught. Lucky for us, most people choose not to do it anyway. Thus, the relevance of my question to your post is whether you are correct that the moral value of an action is entirely dependent on an evaluation of the personal consequences of that action, and that the whole point of personal liberty is to allow us to use self-interested empiricism to develop a "morality" calculated to bring a minimum of unpleasantness.
Or did I misread your post?
- dhauck
February 13, 2009 at 7:21pm
In his criticism of the "illiberal liberalism" of this post, my friend Noah Millman makes several
- Anonymous
February 15, 2009 at 3:21pm