A weblog “dedicated to the late Murray Rothbard” gives a detailed and very positive review of my book, calling it “provocative and profound,” and “a book I recommend to all” that “defends a traditional conservatism one can respect.”
The blogger, of course, is a libertarian. The biggest difference he can see between my views and his is that he believes it possible and desirable to do without the state, while I do not. I don’t discuss the point in the book, and emphasize the need to reduce the role of the state, but he’s right.
I don’t think the state can simply be done away with. It’s an element of an overall complex and multileveled social order. The attempt to do away with it completely is somewhat like attempts to do away with more basic elements of social order, like religion or institutionalized sex roles and family life. It makes for a neater and more elegant picture based on very simple principles. Simple theories aren’t everything, though, however illuminating they may be analytically. You can’t always do away with problems by doing away with the thing that gives problems.
Comment on the book
Mr Kalb, my name is Patrick Weinert, I’m a graduate of Christendom College, and a long-term supporter of all the conservative intermediary institutions that you talk about in your book. Congratulations on your book’s publication, btw, I understand how tough it is sometimes to get something published.
I wanted to send you some critique that I hope will bring benefit, as I feel the constant exchange of thoughts and ideas brings all of us closer to the truth. I read through most of it, and it does have a lot of thought provoking points, I felt that your breakdown of the subdivisions of the conservative movement to be mostly spot on. There is no question that many in our culture now have accepted so many differing goals both good and evil as deserving equal respect, which is sheer madness. But I felt that your book could have used a little bit more ‘realness’ to it with means and ends a little more clearly defined. What exactly does the traditionalist society look like and how do we get there? I don’t think that was ever really concretely defined…I get the impression that it existed at some point prior to the 1960s. To get there we rely more on ‘the family’, church, and private institutions, less on federal and state government. Sounds very conservative (which I like), but isn’t that detailed. Perhaps you can’t be that detailed with a book who’s topic is so broad.
The points that didn’t agree with me: First the tone of the book. It felt extremely pessimistic, as in we live in this now morally bankrupt society that we have no way of escaping or changing. It seems to miss the power of prayer and grace even in the material world, as in all solutions are simply a way of winning a debate. I think at some point you even have us devolving into some internal mafia-style warfare in the States as our final outcome. That isn’t a very inspiring end.
When you actually go out in the world and talk to people about these issues, you find that most of them agree with most of your positions. Even self-proclaimed liberals. There really is a silent majority of conservatives in the world (and it’s a vast majority, not just 51%), but like you said in your book, they just aren’t well organized and focused, they haven’t put as much thought into their beliefs as you or I have.
Not only does grace have a powerful role to play, but the thought that we put out into the universe in faith influences it as well. In many cases our manifesting ideas through thought bring them into existence, including negative thought. I’m in agreement with you that we are to go through some painful adjustment periods culturally, but my goal has always been to help others see them coming and prepare themselves (i.e., find a solution to the problem, even if it’s only a personal one).
There are points that you have that appear to contradict each other…you talk about the ‘unstableness’ of 19th century liberalism as a reason it won’t work. That’s a hypothesis, but that doesn’t judge the effectiveness or value of a socio-economic system, for your own golden age of the ancien’ regime and the pre-WWI monarchies of Europe were also unstable (they’re gone!). And second while you discredit libertarianism in your definition of it, you seem to admit that it is one of the most probable ways we are going to replace the Christendom that you and I both would like to see. Instead of alienating the movement why not use it? You say it is simply a philosophy recognizing property rights as being supreme and the state needing to be completely abolished. The vast majority of libertarians I know don’t believe that (i.e., property rights need to be respected to the extent of allowing the poor to starve to death! Read Henry Hazlitt ‘The Conquest of Poverty’). But even the ones who do strangely see propery rights as it’s own god, still talk consistently of Natural Law…no socio-economic system can exist in a vacuum, it’s in some culture (ideally a Catholic-Christian one).
Another point, I have to admit, are some of your definitions. They undermine your credibility a little bit. Calling classical liberalism the ‘rejection of moral authority that transcend human purposes’…that is based on 5 pages of one book (Utilitarianism), written by one guy (John Stuart Mill). Hardly, in my humble opinion, the basis for a movement spanning several centuries and with many different actors. You also don’t give the Medieval era credit…you claim it a time where there was a vague notion of individual liberty. When I read the Charter of Liberties under Henry I or Magna Carta or even Aquinas’ treatment of law, I see highly educated people who clearly understood individual liberties and the threats posed by State incursion. You place liberalism’s birth with Hobbes and Locke! And John Rawls a ‘classical liberal’? I definitely disagree.
More definitions: you define government as ‘organized force’. That would make highly effective business-based mercenary groups like blackwater and executive outcomes = governments. I’m sure that we agree these aren’t governments.
I apologize if my critique seems harsh or nit-picking, but when I read something I can’t discredit the details, it affects my trust in the author. All critiques are intended with the greatest charity, to make the author’s work better if possible. I have quite a bit more that I want to include, but at present honestly don’t have the time to go over it all. Perhaps I can email them to you. I would love to see a book like yours become a best-seller. I would like to stay in touch with you and talk about some of the solutions that I’ve been working on for the very challenges you define in your book.
Mr Kalb, a good book with conclusions that I mostly agree with. Your ‘how’ to get there could use some more concreteness, at least that’s the way I think. Perhaps b/c I’m not as advanced an intellectual as you.
In Christ,
Patrick
Thanks for the comments.
Some responses:
1. “What exactly does the traditionalist society look like and how do we get there?”
Traditionalist societies have been extremely varied, so an exact description is not possible. Basically, though, a traditionalist society is what grows up when people tend to accept what seems natural and the customs they’re attached to as authoritative.
2. “The tone of the book … felt extremely pessimistic, as in we live in this now morally bankrupt society that we have no way of escaping or changing.”
The intended point is that the modern outlook has fundamental problems and escaping it and them won’t be easy. I also say though that the current situation won’t last and propose ways to work toward something better. So I don’t think the book is ultimately pessimistic.
3. “I think at some point you even have us devolving into some internal mafia-style warfare in the States as our final outcome. That isn’t a very inspiring end.”
What do you mean by “final” and “end”? The United States won’t last forever, and it’s certainly possible that its end will be unpleasant, but that doesn’t mean time or the human race will come to an end, or that there’s no hope and nothing any of us can do about anything.
4. “There really is a silent majority of conservatives in the world (and it’s a vast majority, not just 51%), but like you said in your book, they just aren’t well organized and focused, they haven’t put as much thought into their beliefs as you or I have.”
Their difficulty getting organized and focused isn’t just happenstance. It results from basic features of the current situation. That’s a theme of the book.
What I call the tyranny of liberalism is one aspect of a situation in which what counts as reason and knowledge are narrowly based and exclude perceptions and understandings that normally become part of how people understand and do things. The result is that everybody except the experts is officially wrong about everything.
If that outlook takes hold it’s very difficult to fight because if you oppose it your views are nonexpert and they’re at odds with what is generally understood as basic principles of reason and knowledge. As such they can’t be trusted.
5. “You talk about the ‘unstableness’ of 19th century liberalism as a reason it won’t work … Your own golden age of the ancien’ regime and the pre-WWI monarchies of Europe were also unstable (they’re gone!).”
I don’t simply note that 19th c. liberalism is gone but argue in accordance with my overall analysis that it had intrinsic problems that doomed it from the beginning. I also argue that traditionalist society need not be self-destructive in the same way.
6. “And second while you discredit libertarianism in your definition of it, you seem to admit that it is one of the most probable ways we are going to replace the Christendom that you and I both would like to see.”
I argue against libertarianism as an overall system but not against most libertarian positions. So people who call themselves libertarians are less likely to agree with me if they adhere to the former and not just the latter. That’s OK, I can’t agree with everybody.
7. “Calling classical liberalism the ‘rejection of moral authority that transcend human purposes’…that is based on 5 pages of one book (Utilitarianism), written by one guy (John Stuart Mill). Hardly, in my humble opinion, the basis for a movement spanning several centuries and with many different actors.”
It seems to me that liberalism of any sort takes freedom and equality as its highest standards. If a view doesn’t do that people don’t call it liberalism. But if that’s the kind of view we’re talking about then there’s really nothing in it that trumps human purposes.
8. “You also don’t give the Medieval era credit…you claim it a time where there was a vague notion of individual liberty.”
Where do I say that? I suppose I’d say that the Medievals didn’t think that letting people do what they want, as much and as equally as possible, is the highest standard. They often had a definite view of particular liberties though.
9. “You place liberalism’s birth with Hobbes and Locke!”
Pretty much.
10. “And John Rawls a ‘classical liberal’?”
Where do I suggest that?
11. “You define government as ‘organized force’.”
Where? I seem to recall saying it’s organized force, but that’s a description not a definition. If I say aspirin is medicine that’s not defining aspirin as “medicine.” It’s saying it’s a particular medicine.