Worldview Matters
Chuck Colson explains that we disregard the past at our own peril.
One of the best exponents of [the role and importance of tradition] was G.K. Chesterton. In his book Orthodoxy, he wrote, “Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors.” And he wrote that “tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”
It’s not only respect for tradition that’s involved here—it’s prudence. These institutions and arrangements have helped to preserve the moral order, which is our first duty to maintain. They have been shaped by people who took into account the world as it is—filled with fallen human beings—instead of an imaginary utopia filled with perfectible people.
This respect is why true conservatism is a disposition, not an ideology. It doesn’t seek to reinvent man and his world—its concerns are about what T.S. Eliot called the “permanent things.”
In contrast, perverted modern liberalism, which includes many who call themselves “conservatives,” is about innovation, breaking from the past, upsetting the established order, and maximizing individual autonomy.
Colson is responding to the liberalism that is being taught in our universities, as exemplified in a quote from a Harvard faculty committee. Read the whole thing.
Filed under: Conservative • Culture • Doug • Education • Liberal
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
In contrast, perverted modern liberalism, which includes many who call themselves “conservatives,” is about innovation, breaking from the past, upsetting the established order, and maximizing individual autonomy.
Does Colson have a source to support this statement?
I tend to think that the terms Liberal and Conservative are mostly not very useful. This area would be one example of how they’re not very useful guidelines.
I don’t know of ONE single “liberal” whose desire is to upset the establish order for the sake of upsetting the established order. Or from breaking from the past for its own sake or even maximizing individual autonomy (although to a lesser degree – perhaps many of us, conservative or liberal, would agree that personal autonomy can be a good thing).
Now, we DO want to break from the harmful traditions of the past – racism, sexism, polluted streams or air, for instance – but then, so do most conservatives I know. So in my circle of acquaintances, we ALL want to break away from the harmful aspects of yesteryear and yet hold on to the positive aspects.
Liberals, for instance, value the simple living, thrifty ideals of the Amish, but have less use for their rigid roles for women and men. (Look at all the Back to Land-type books – are these not mostly written by hippies and religious liberals?) This is not a breaking away from the past AT ALL – we cherish Thoreau, the Amish, Harlan Hubbard, W Berry and other Old Ways advocates – just from the parts we think less helpful.
And again, this is the norm for both liberals and conservatives. Most conservatives, after all, most definitely want to break away from the racist aspects of our history, does that mean they reject it all?
Similarly, we may want to upset the established order where it is wrong, but conservatives want to do this, too, I’d hope. Holding on to tradition for tradition’s sake is not a healthy thing, wouldn’t you agree?
The quote Colson offered…
““The aim of a liberal education . . . is to unsettle presumptions, to defamiliarize the familiar . . . [and] to disorient young people and to help them to find ways to reorient themselves . . .””
This is not the same as the conclusion that Colson jumps to.
He is concerned that schools teach that “individuals should . . . be skeptical of preexisting arrangements . . . break free from the way they were raised . . . [and] discover their own values.”
But this is not the same as wholesale rejection of Old Ways. After all, I HAVE looked skeptically at preexisting arrangements, broken free from the way I was raised and discovered my own values. And, as it happens, my own values are very similar to anabaptist values.
Colson says that this goes beyond critical thinking, but I don’t think it does. Or, at least I don’t see anything in his essay to support that it does. Critical thinking is a good thing and I’m relatively sure that this is all the source he quoted is talking about.
After all, do you really think the college committee quoted wants students to actually reject honesty? To do away with hard work and study and personal effort? Colleges would collapse in that sort of anarchy.
Each generation needs to discover for themselves what is important, dear, true. They can be informed by the past and learn a great deal from it, of course, but they have to make their values, theirs for it to be meaningful and real.
Seems to me.
Colson’s “Breakpoint” commentaries have covered different aspects of this in the past. The radio spot is a daily 90-second segment, so yes, in and of itself this commentary doesn’t fully explain his thoughts on the subject.
Redefinitions of “family” are, for example, one of the things that he’s referring to. From the mainstreaming of single parenting (often by choice these days) to same-sex marriage, it is the liberal agenda driving against what has been a traditional institution for thousands of years.
You are indeed correct that to some extent both liberal and conservative want to improve things, which may include breaking with an established order. Still, I agree with George Washington when he said in his farewell address:
I wouldn’t put racism and sexism in the same boat here. Those are simply sinful tendencies, not established institutions or even “traditions” (in the … traditional sense).
The founding fathers certainly broke with the tradition of English rule, but did so by looking back at history for inspiration from other governmental patterns that worked in the past. They determined to modify them in order to remove the flaws, but the foundation was a healthy respect for the lessons of history. Certainly not disorienting themselves or discovering their own values. They knew their own values and looked to history and tradition for how to implement those values.
Colleges may not want their students to reject honesty, but when they deconstruct so many other things, is it surprising that the students continue that thought process? Governments may not want people to go on the dole, but when it’s so easy and it’s in line with the new, untraditional ideas about “family”, is it a surprise when people get lazy, enjoy the “free” money and watch the next generation pick up the same habits — make them theirs?
The founding fathers certainly broke with the tradition of English rule, but did so by looking back at history for inspiration from other governmental patterns that worked in the past. They determined to modify them in order to remove the flaws, but the foundation was a healthy respect for the lessons of history.
You think liberals DON’T want to do this? I would suggest you aren’t very aware of liberal thinking, if this is the case.
When “liberals,” for instance, want to promote living in smaller circles, growing some of our own food, supporting local businesses and farmers, doing with fewer cars and auto infrastructure and relying on travel by foot, bike and train, we ARE seeking to learn from the past and implement old ways that worked well, but fit them into a modern context.
When “conservatives” reject such “restrictions” as outmoded thinking, they are rejecting traditions and old ways that had been proven by time. Right?
I simply don’t buy the notion that liberals reject Old Ways and Traditions any more than conservatives do. We may embrace different ones, but that is not the same as suggesting we reject them.
The founding fathers did not try to run the economy. No one says you can’t live the way you wish to. It’s when such economic decisions are forced onto the population that conservatives balk. The free market, historically, has worked to bring prosperity, and socialism or communism (as a governmental philosophy) has not.
Trying to “spread the wealth around” has generally failed in its aims to make everyone well enough off. Instead, as Winston Churchill noted, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Socialism brings those restrictions that are outmoded if you give any thought to economic history.
My earlier comment (“I would suggest you aren’t very aware of liberal thinking”) has just been supported by your comment here. WHO has said anything about socialism? Only conservatives.
I’m not advocating socialism, Obama is not advocating socialism and, except for that relatively small group of liberals who go by the name of “socialists,” liberals aren’t advocating socialism. It’s a myth.
Not in name, and not even pure socialism, but bit by bit, just like Europe, policies that try to equalize outcome (as opposed to equalized opportunity) are steps toward a socialization of the economy. And European countries are going bankrupt trying to implement it.
So is Venezuela, and Chavez’s programs are much like old Europe’s. As long as he had cash rolling in from oil revenues, that was bankrolling his programs. But with oil prices down, he, too, is feeling the results of his vacation from history.