Conservatism and the Tide of Dynamism

I recently found a nicely-bound collection of Cassel's Family Magazine in an old cabinet that is undergoing restoration, and have since spent many a pleasant hour perusing it and getting some idea of what it must have been like to live in Victorian England. And in reading through it, I've also been able to get a glimpse as to just how much of that culture simply vanished almost overnight in the onrushing sea-change of the twentieth century. Those issues of Cassel's are chock-full of quaint practices, political views, opinions and belief systems that had more in common with the Middle Ages than they did with modernity by the time the mustard gas first rolled across the green fields of France.

And mind you, many of these things were no passing fancies; they were practices and beliefs firmly held by many people of the day, but they were completly obliterated by the dynamism of progress before anyone could so much as raise an objection.

It's long been my contention that American conservatism will ultimately suffer a similar fate, and I happened to come across a strikingly succint presentation of the issue in National Review Online, a few weeks ago.

In objecting to Brink Lindsey's libertarian view of modern life as the "exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor", Carol Iannone (who is editor-at-large for Academic Questions and writes on literature and culture) concludes that such a view is "utterly soulless".

I found it really quite remarkable to find the essence of conservatism laid bare in such a short piece; when one asks conservatives as to which principles (if any) and philosophies undergird their belief system, one is generally met with hand-waving about the "principles set forth by Russell Kirk" and the occassional mention of Edmund Burke. But what it has always ultimately boiled down to is the conservative desire to impose "soul" (whatever that is) upon the rest of us.

Yes, it is the height of presumption for Ms. Iannone to assert that the goals, desires and intentions of each and every individual out there lack soul (whatever that is...), but that doesn't really matter at this point.

Conservatism is a static movement, and is even now being washed away by the cultural dynamism of an Information Age that is only in its infancy. The question of whether the "culture war" can be won or lost will soon be moot, if it is not already. Lindsey's definition of modern life not only characterizes the essential nature of modern American culture (to use a term which may well be obsolete), but also increasingly that of the world at large.

Social conservatism is becoming much more rigid and vocal these days, as many of it's adherents are coming to realize that many of the societal trends they oppose are the direct result of capitalism, and are thus starting to reject the traditional platform of economic liberty in favor of social issues.

The cultural dynamism of progress and capitalism will certainly allow social conservatives every opportunity to form their own communities and pursue their version of personal fulfillment in the future. What's going to be obliterated (and quite likely sooner than we may suspect) is their presumptuous notion that they can forcibly impart "soul" (whatever that is...) to the rest of us.

That notion was immoral and invalid when it was set forth by Burke. And by Kirk. And by Ms. Iannone.

But it ultimately doesn't matter; the coming dynamism will soon render this discussion as quaint as anything I can point to in my musty old Victorian magazine.