William Lind: The Next Conservatism: What Is Conservatism?
Showing posts with label Paul Weyrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Weyrich. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Thursday, November 22, 2012
“The Integration of Theory and Practice”
Begun on October 16.
“The Integration of Theory and Practice:” Eric Heubeck’s Proposal For Cultural Guerilla War against the Leftist Establishment
I was looking through Orthosphere, and this caught my attention. As the introduction explains, the author of the essay is "Eric Heubeck, a protégé of Paul Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation." Is the essay reconcilable with a localist/right communitarian program? Certain much of that proposal is precisely that. But it's more. Alan Roebuck writes in his introduction to the essay:
Let's take a closer look at one section:
Is he talking about the political, economic, intellectual, and social elites of this country? If the former, I don't think there is much of a shot at this happening, unless they already happen to be devout Christians. There may be a few, but how many of them are believers in "capitalism" or partisan Republicans? Certain priests who come into contact with the elites (like members of PSHC of Opus Dei) may evangelize and convert some, but how likely is this to happen? We do not seek to change just "private" morality, but healthy communities, and these need to have some measure of autarky, as well as be sustainable and resilient. It is more likely that a new "elite" will have to be created, but how?
A healthy and flourishing Christian community may be able to convert some of the wealthy, who can then act to preserve that community through their monetary support.
As it is unlikely that traditional conservatives could gain control of a national media outlet, what about employing alternate mass media sources (like the internet)? But is this not already being done now? What obvious results can we see from this?
Leaders for the group will be selected - but will there be a formal mechanism for this? Who gets to decide who gets to be a leader, unless they are already leaders? Or will leaders be recognized informally by the other members of the group, standing apart from the others because of their abilities, dedication, and the respect that they've gained? They may not have money but they make up for it in character and the commitment to a place. Do we Uhmericans have the sufficient humility that enables us to recognize that others are more qualified for leadership than we?
Traditional communities can foster a local identity (we recognize that there are valid differences between local cultures) while adhering to a common intellectual patrimony (or [Western] culture). Is that intellectual patrimony sufficient to define a group? No. There are also the [local] customs and mores.
As for the place of modern mass "art" in such an effort - they may be a necessary "cultural" reference points, but do movies and television suffice as stories and bearers of tradition? I am doubtful of their cultural value as a whole, other than providing images for the development of the moral imagination for beginners - scenes of heroism and virtue. The problem with the moving image is that one cannot replicate it through words, either spoken, through [lyric] poetry, or written, in books. To make use of the moving image one must have the means to display it, and in a future without cheap electricity, one should not depend too much upon it for the transmission of culture to the next generation.
Referring to the classics may not be enough to recover the tradition, if people are ignorant of the classics, but substituting movies and television shows is inadequate because they are unable to provide a long-lasting foundation for the transmission of the tradition. The neo-traditionalist leadership may need to study the classics, philosophy, political science; what suffices for the "average" traditionalist conservative? The knowledge of their history, familiarity with the intellectual tradition, coupled with a sound moral formation?
What stories do we tell and what history do we remember? Is it possible to create a history wholly anew? No, because we are not generated spontaneously from nothing. The Christian community will have their saints, but it is proper that we remember those who may not have been as holy but nonetheless contributed to the well-being of those who came before us and of our communities. As for our experience in being part of a nation/empire - this is reality, not something we can ignore in our history-telling, as if we could just wish it away. But the degeneration of the federal union into empire can be a useful warning to future generations.
“The Integration of Theory and Practice:” Eric Heubeck’s Proposal For Cultural Guerilla War against the Leftist Establishment
I was looking through Orthosphere, and this caught my attention. As the introduction explains, the author of the essay is "Eric Heubeck, a protégé of Paul Weyrich at the Free Congress Foundation." Is the essay reconcilable with a localist/right communitarian program? Certain much of that proposal is precisely that. But it's more. Alan Roebuck writes in his introduction to the essay:
What I find most appealing about Heubeck’s proposal is that it combines the two different strategies that traditionalist conservatives propose, but that are generally regarded as mutually exclusive: retreat, in order to develop a non-liberal counterculture, and attack, in an attempt to retake the nation.
Let's take a closer look at one section:
Support of an Elite More Valuable than Support of the Masses
We will initially operate according to the belief that it is more important to win over the elites (or create a new, better one) than to build up a mass movement. Furthermore, it is more important to have a few impassioned members than a large number of largely indifferent members. The amount of energy, élan, and self-assurance that we are able to inculcate in the leaders of our movement will ultimately determine its success or failure.
The new movement must be, in part, exclusive and elite. It must not be afraid to pass along a body of knowledge that is not readily accessible to and understandable by everyone. The strong appeal of a feeling of exclusivity and superiority will give our members a reason to endure the slings and arrows of popular disapproval.
The New Traditionalist movement will appeal to the masses, but not immediately. The ideas of the masses never come from the masses. To the extent that the masses are more conservative than the elites, this is primarily because the masses have a long collective memory, and they still value the beliefs articulated by a long-lost elite. The conservative instincts of the American people will continue to erode unless a new elite is formed to refresh that memory.
We must recognize that literature and philosophy do not appeal to the masses. This is why we must develop ways to spread our philosophy using non-rational means–especially the moving image.
Is he talking about the political, economic, intellectual, and social elites of this country? If the former, I don't think there is much of a shot at this happening, unless they already happen to be devout Christians. There may be a few, but how many of them are believers in "capitalism" or partisan Republicans? Certain priests who come into contact with the elites (like members of PSHC of Opus Dei) may evangelize and convert some, but how likely is this to happen? We do not seek to change just "private" morality, but healthy communities, and these need to have some measure of autarky, as well as be sustainable and resilient. It is more likely that a new "elite" will have to be created, but how?
A healthy and flourishing Christian community may be able to convert some of the wealthy, who can then act to preserve that community through their monetary support.
As it is unlikely that traditional conservatives could gain control of a national media outlet, what about employing alternate mass media sources (like the internet)? But is this not already being done now? What obvious results can we see from this?
Leaders for the group will be selected - but will there be a formal mechanism for this? Who gets to decide who gets to be a leader, unless they are already leaders? Or will leaders be recognized informally by the other members of the group, standing apart from the others because of their abilities, dedication, and the respect that they've gained? They may not have money but they make up for it in character and the commitment to a place. Do we Uhmericans have the sufficient humility that enables us to recognize that others are more qualified for leadership than we?
Traditional communities can foster a local identity (we recognize that there are valid differences between local cultures) while adhering to a common intellectual patrimony (or [Western] culture). Is that intellectual patrimony sufficient to define a group? No. There are also the [local] customs and mores.
As for the place of modern mass "art" in such an effort - they may be a necessary "cultural" reference points, but do movies and television suffice as stories and bearers of tradition? I am doubtful of their cultural value as a whole, other than providing images for the development of the moral imagination for beginners - scenes of heroism and virtue. The problem with the moving image is that one cannot replicate it through words, either spoken, through [lyric] poetry, or written, in books. To make use of the moving image one must have the means to display it, and in a future without cheap electricity, one should not depend too much upon it for the transmission of culture to the next generation.
Referring to the classics may not be enough to recover the tradition, if people are ignorant of the classics, but substituting movies and television shows is inadequate because they are unable to provide a long-lasting foundation for the transmission of the tradition. The neo-traditionalist leadership may need to study the classics, philosophy, political science; what suffices for the "average" traditionalist conservative? The knowledge of their history, familiarity with the intellectual tradition, coupled with a sound moral formation?
What stories do we tell and what history do we remember? Is it possible to create a history wholly anew? No, because we are not generated spontaneously from nothing. The Christian community will have their saints, but it is proper that we remember those who may not have been as holy but nonetheless contributed to the well-being of those who came before us and of our communities. As for our experience in being part of a nation/empire - this is reality, not something we can ignore in our history-telling, as if we could just wish it away. But the degeneration of the federal union into empire can be a useful warning to future generations.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
St. Augustine Press has published The Next Conservatism by Paul Weyrich and William Lind. It's been a while since I've talked to the publisher; I should send him an e-mail and see if this and other new books are actually in print...
A review at TAC.
Related links:
Free Congress Foundation
A review at TAC.
Related links:
Free Congress Foundation
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Politico: Conservative icon Paul Weyrich dies
Links:
TakiMag: Sad News—Paul Weyrich has died
wiki
Free Congress Foundation
The Next Conservatism, by Paul Weyrich and William Lind (to be published as a book) (FCF has entries #24 to #50 -- I'm looking for #1 to #23. I previously blogged about the series of articles here.)
Links:
TakiMag: Sad News—Paul Weyrich has died
wiki
Free Congress Foundation
The Next Conservatism, by Paul Weyrich and William Lind (to be published as a book) (FCF has entries #24 to #50 -- I'm looking for #1 to #23. I previously blogged about the series of articles here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)