Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Gospel of Hope Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_gospel_of_hope#10665 Post contents: I think, rather, I KNOW, that John Ball doesn't understand what I am saying. I didn't say that traditional conservatives ARE TOO concerned with stability and NOT concerned enough with progress. Rather, I was attempting to say that according to Lukacs, traditional conservatives SHOULD BE more concerned with stability. I can assure you that Lukacs has said that. Of course, part of that stability should be a protection of both the land and cityscapes. As Lukacs has noted, the ideology of GROWTH is comparable to one of the most feared biological diseases of the 20th century, namely Cancer. So "progress" as a form of the Growth ideology is like a cancer, destroying human community and any sense of place and the stability on which those things depend. One of the most important policy changes that could be adopted to increase stability and thus protect the land and cityscapes would be to stop mass immigration (and mass internal migrations). A second step would be to encourage local production and local consumption, in other words, to resist the global so-called "economy." But neither of these inter-related policies are politically correct and thus aren't likely to be enacted. In short, the only way we can protect the Land, is to have a population that is rooted to the Land. And the only way to have a rooted people is to oppose deracination. But to do that would entail adopting policies that politically correct types, like John Ball, would never approve of. It would require, in short, some form of nativism in practice if not in name. As to “split-mindedness”, Lukacs has stated that the Greens are also split-minded, favoring unlimited immigration and a radical anti-traditional social life that is contrary to stability and thus would undermine any real attempt they might make to protect the Land. If an individual or a group favors “progress” and technology and ignores stability and a protection of the land they are by definition something other than a traditional conservative. What Lukacs has actually said is that real traditional conservatives including those one might consider “reactionaries” believe that stability is more important than progress. Lukacs has also noted that we all need to reconsider the meaning of the term “progress.” In this, Lukacs echoes the concern about the concept of progress that Irving Babbitt raised over 100 years ago. Babbitt noted, citing Emerson’s poem, that the law for man is different than the law for thing, and thus that progress according to the law for material things is a very different matter than progress according to the moral law applicable to humans. Technological “progress” is providing a small number of humans more and more power over other humans and over the rest of the natural world. Obviously, to a traditional conservative, this raises the prospect of a “moral hazard”, in that such an amount of power is likely to be abused. From this perspective, we are witnessing a race between utilitarian humanitarians (Baconians), empowered by science and progress and sentimental humanitarians, empowered by emotions, to see which group will bring about the new barbarian age first and put its stamp upon it. Sent at: 2008 07 24