Kelse’s response to my post “Traditionalism and Statism,” suggests that my defense of traditionalism over some kind of rational libertarianism was off-base because I focused only on the tradition that he and I share, not on traditionalism as such. Kelse suggests that, were we to focus our attention on a different culture (he gives the example of Saudi Arabia), my argument would have much less to offer it. There are three points I would like to make in response to this: 1) libertarianism as Kelse knows it is inextricably tied to a particular historical context, 2) traditionalism offers more hope for the libertarian-minded individual in Saudi Arabia than Kelse suggests, and 3) that this form of tradition-infused libertarianism actually has more to offer than does a purely reason-based libertarianism, if one can be said to exist.
Kelse readily acknowledges that his own libertarian beliefs fit relatively well into the broader Anglo-American tradition. He stops short, however, of recognizing that this is because the Anglo-American tradition gave birth to libertarianism.
Without the Magna Carta, without a Hobbesian conception of social atomism, without a Lockean understanding of property rights and religious toleration, without the Scottish Enlightenment, Kelse wouldn’t be the same thinker he is today. It is important then to note that Kelse’s beliefs do not arise “in a vacuum independent of tradition” as he argued in an earlier post. Either libertarianism is not as “reason”-based as Kelse suggests, or else reason is not as easily divorced from tradition as we are prone to believe. Either way, libertarianism has slowly grown and evolved within a particular historical context (borrowing, here and there, from minds outside the Anglo-American tradition).
Why was it not rationally deduced all at once? Did people just not think hard enough? Was Murray Rothbard the world’s first fully rational man? On the contrary, the history of philosophy would suggest that, whatever the differences in our individual reasoning capacities, all humans are in some way bound by the limits of their own tradition’s worldview: there are certain things they can and cannot see from their own particular historical vantage point. The Enlightenment notion that we have already achieved the pinnacle of human wisdom from which no further growth is possible is, from this point of view, laughably hubristic. One might then say that Anglo-American libertarianism is the best political philosophy heretofore known (which is improbable but conceivable), but one cannot say that it is the best that will ever exist.
As a traditionalist, I am proud of my culture’s accomplishments and believe that elements of its tradition have much to offer the modern world today. Yet, I do not believe that my own tradition represents any kind of grand advancement in human development. The value of my tradition is the same as the value of every other tradition: it conveys a universal truth about humanity. If a tradition has endured over hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years, it must have some degree of staying power. Thus, although I might have serious spiritual, cultural, and political differences with members of the Muslim world, I would have to acknowledge that there must be something worthwhile within their tradition to allow it such longevity.
This is not to suggest that there are not aspects of every tradition that do more harm than good to a society. My primary cultural identity comes from being born in the American South. And while there are many aspects of my culture that I love deeply, there are also some unfortunate aberrations from that tradition: slavery, discrimination, and racial prejudice to name a few. Did slavery exist for so long because it conveyed some deep truth about human nature or encouraged human excellence? Obviously not. So, as a Southerner, I must make a conscious choice to emphasize some aspects of my tradition over others. In order to make this distinction, I admittedly must have some understanding of a higher good that transcends my particular historical tradition. In a sense, perhaps this is similar to what Kelse means when he talks about “reason.” That being said, I would maintain that universal truth can only be understood through historical tradition.
This leads to an important point I was attempting to make, perhaps somewhat awkwardly, in my previous post: as a traditionalist, I am not trying to perfectly recreate an instantiation of universal truth that has already existed in the past; I am attempting to reformulate that truth to fit new circumstances. In the process, I am also constantly trying to improve my own tradition.
The libertarian-minded individual living in Saudi Arabia has the option of doing the same thing. If he were to look back at his own culture and see that theocratic Islamist statism does indeed lead to human excellence, he might begin to reconsider his previous attachment to libertarianism. If, on the other hand, he finds within his own tradition some kind of cultural precursor for limited government, for individual liberty and property rights, then he has the option of building upon this tradition and pointing his culture toward the type of society he sees as best encouraging human flourishing.
Ostensibly, a distinctly Saudi Arabian form of libertarianism won’t look exactly like the Anglo-American libertarian tradition that Kelse is familiar with. Nor should it. Libertarianism in America itself originated within a particular culture. Why should Saudi Arabian libertarianism not? Or alternatively, why should we hold out hope for Anglo-American libertarianism thriving in Saudi Arabia?
Libertarianism, to the extent that it has been separated from its original cultural moorings, has proved to be a more destructive than positive influence. If the Saudi Arabians want a more libertarian culture, then they should develop one within their own cultural context.
Emile
bdouglass
Benjamin David
Chuck O'Shea
Edmund Babbitt
joeptak
Kelse Hillery
Lucie
John David
prsancho
Radagast
The Lancastrian
wmsamuelbradford
I must take exception with the following: “there are also some unfortunate aberrations from that tradition: slavery, discrimination, and racial prejudice to name a few.”
Why do you consider these to be “aberrations” from the southern tradition? How do you decide what is the tradition and what is the aberration? You’ve set up a false dichotomy here. Why are slavery, discrimination, and racial prejudice not just as much part of the southern tradition as the so-called “proud” or “good” elements that I imagine you would define as “authentically southern” (e.g., religion, family values, and a respect for tradition)? Couldn’t I just simply reverse your proposition and define slavery, discrimination, and racial prejudice as the tradition and the rest as the aberration?
Steve, a couple thoughts: First, I find it hard to imagine a culture built solely, or even primarily, around racial hatred and discrimination. A society like that would be surely be short-lived. The fact that there is a Southern people with their own distinctive art, culture, and customs would seemingly point to there being something deeper than hatred uniting them together.
Secondly, the point I was trying to make is that there are good and bad elements within any tradition. In reality, in order to even talk about a coherent “tradition,” one has to go through the process of weeding-out extraneous elements that may have been geographically and temporally co-existent. Otherwise, the historian gets bogged down in a morass of facts and figures, unrelated by any kind of theoretical framework.
The role of the conservative is to find what is good within the tradition and find a way to carry it on. This necessarily involves a certain degree of normative judgment.
Pingback: Paul Gottfried on the Libertarian-Conservative Alliance « Beyond the GOP
That’s a great point Steve, and I’ll take it a step further. What do you even mean by “Southern Tradition” at all? An agricultural economy? That’s fine, but what about the cultural significance of cities like New Orleans, Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, etc. They seem to be an important part of the Southern Tradition. And what about agriculture outside of the South, is it less important in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, and the West just because those places don’t have the “moonlight and magnolias” outlook on it? Perhaps the Southern Tradition is a lack of Yankee capitalist values? Seems to me that, though primarily agricultural, the American South has always oriented itself toward making money, just in different ways. I guess you can have slavery as your own, but the North has had just as much (and in places, more) discrimination, and racial prejudice as the South (sundown towns, white flight from the cities at midcentury, etc.). Is it a certain cultural conservatism based in a deeply held Protestantism? I’m pretty sure you can find that in many rural places from Maine to Oregon.
Not to be overly post-structuralist, or whatever, but for everything you cite as a “tradition,” I can find something contradictory that exists at the same time, in the same place, that lasts over time, and yet is written out of the “tradition” as you choose to define it. The problem is that “tradition” is a big category, and big categories, by definition must leave things out. In any cultural analysis, however, leaving certain elements out means you’re missing part of the picture of how people actually live, not in some romanticized dream world, but in their day to day lives.
First off, your feedback is most appreciated. Thank you so much for reading!
Secondly, you’re absolutely correct in that racial bigotry and discrimination are not peculiar to the South. Neither is slavery, for that matter: many of the New England states allowed for slavery well into the 19th Century. I was trying not to get too far into the historical weeds in this post and perhaps oversimplified my point a bit.
As I responded to Steve, any discussion of “tradition” or “culture” necessitates leaving out some factors in an attempt to tie others together in a theoretical framework. Does this negate any conception of “tradition” at all? I don’t believe so.
As a transplanted Southerner, I have a hard time believing that my understanding of Southern culture is merely a construct. By and large, people act differently in Washington, DC than they do in Atlanta. Lived human experience would seemingly indicate that cultures and traditions do exist. The fact that there have assuredly been currents within Southern society running counter to the particular Southern tradition than influenced me is rather beside the point.
I see there’s been some good debate about the idea of “tradition,” as there inevitably is. Tradition -and its mirror, culture – is something constantly contested, challenged, and reborn in new ways as a people moves from generation to generation.
The question I had on this subject was about the very core of “traditionalism.” Can political cultures/theories/structures ever evolve, and still be “traditionalist”? If so, what are those criteria in which a change is or is not part of its tradition? As Brumbaugh pointed out, culture (and tradition) are very wide and include a lot of things. As an example, was the Enlightenment a breach of tradition or an extension of it? It certainly was something new for its time, but some of its thinkers like Burke (correct me if I’m wrong) would still be considered traditionalist.
Take another example. Could we not say that the New Deal was actually in accordance with tradition because it exemplifies American innovation and practicality in the face of hardship? Even more specifically, doesn’t Social Security embody the American tradition of communities helping those who can’t help themselves, albeit through the federal government and not through churches/state governments/etc. as had happened previously?
Pingback: “Why I Am a Utilitarian,” or “A Round-About Response to Ben David” « Beyond the GOP
Pingback: One More Question for Traditionalists « Beyond the GOP
Pingback: The Great Traditionalism Debate, Part 73 « Beyond the GOP