Words Have Meaning
You don’t always have to have the right answers, but you need to be asking the right questions.
📬
Welcome to my new corner of the Internet, custom domain and all. 10th grade me would be so proud... Substack was good to me and it's a really cool platform, but I still wanted to make this move. Read more about why here. As long as you're on my email list, my new posts will come straight to your Inbox.
I'm sorry for my absence these last two months... I've had a few things going on. We're still in the process of getting our shower fixed, which I first mentioned all the way back here. Long story short: we had to tear out and redo the entire shower, which is as expensive as you can imagine. Kayla and I were praying through a major job change for her, which she starts next month. I served during WIRED last week and the new tile installation took place this week. My reading habits have been nonexistent. When you planned to heavily focus your blog content on what you read but then you stop reading, you have no blog content, so... I'm hoping to return to some sort of regular schedule soon, but I won't even make any promises. For now, here's an edition of From the Shelves I've been working on for at least three months.
I’ve written about “political” issues a couple times this year, but I’ve made a conscious effort to not write about specific candidates or parties. Political Theater and Palace Intrigue are almost always a waste of time. What you hear on cable news or talk radio is far downstream of the foundational issues we face. These issues have been with us for a long time and most of them will be here long after today’s “stars” exit the stage. That’s the most important lesson I learned from reading Yoram Hazony’s latest book, Conservatism: A Rediscovery.
Yoram Hazony is the chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation and President of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem. Conservatism: A Rediscovery was first published in 2022. You can support this publication and locally owned Downtown Books by purchasing the book here on Bookshop.
Summary
Hazony’s rediscovery of conservatism is divided up into four parts: history, philosophy, current affairs, and personal. I’ll focus most of my attention on the philosophy section and will completely omit any commentary on the current affairs section because of what I said about Political Theater. I’ll make just a few comments about the other two sections and then we’ll call it a day.
History
“A conservative is a traditionalist, a person who works to recover, restore, and build up the traditions of his forefathers and to pass them on to future generations. Political conservatism is a political standpoint that regards the recovery, restoration, elaboration, and repair of national and religious traditions as the key to maintaining a nation and strengthening it through time.”
I really appreciate how Hazony immediately defines his terms because it makes the rest of his argument much easier to understand. From here, the history section is made up of two categories: the English Conservative tradition and the American Nationalists.
Contrary to what I assumed, the conservative tradition enjoys a rich history stretching far beyond 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. These ideas were born long before the Founding Fathers laid out what we (are supposed to, but don’t) have today. Don’t ever let someone write off an idea just because it’s “old.” All ideas deserve to be judged on their merits. For the most part, the conservative ideas laid out by Hazony in this section have stood the test of time. They are the exact opposite of whatever is “new and improved,” and I find that to be very refreshing. Hazony paints this picture for us by examining the works of men like John Fortescue, Richard Hooker, John Selden (who he actually labels as “the greatest conservative,”) and of course Edmund Burke, who heavily influenced men like George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.
Philosophy
The central pillar of the section on conservative philosophy is a discussion about paradigms. Specifically, Hazony compares the conservative paradigm with the Enlightenment liberal paradigm. Paradigms “consist of fundamental concepts and principles by which these concepts are related to one another. We use it to describe a certain domain in which we seek understanding.” Another way to think of this is worldview. We’re familiar with religious worldviews, of course. Things like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, paganism, atheism, etc. Within each of these we also find political and cultural worldviews.
Like it or not, we have been steeped in the Enlightenment liberal paradigm for most of our lives. Hazony argues that this paradigm is completely blind to many things, but specifically to any concept of nationhood.
Thus we find that instructors in political theory (whether in high school civics classes or at the university level) avoid discussing the nation, as well as those characteristics of the nation that explain its behavior in the political world. Instead, they discuss the political world using only concepts such as the individual, freedom, equality, government, and consent, which appear in the premises of Enlightenment liberal political theory, and additional terms such as rights that permit liberal premises to be elaborated in greater detail. But such instruction is powerless to explain many of the most basic phenomenon of political life.
Does this description sound anything like modern day Liberalism to you? It actually sounds a lot like modern day Conservatism, to me. This is really the core of Hazony’s argument throughout the book. Much of what we think to be conservative today is really devoted to just conserving an Enlightenment liberal paradigm or worldview. Again, this is why definitions are vital. What exactly is it that we are aiming to conserve? Fortunately, Hazony believes there is hope. Though the premises of this paradigm are inculcated at every level of culture, they are not really self evidently true, as we have been told. There are other ways, and I would argue better ways, of seeing the world.
“The conservative paradigm regards political order as hierarchical in nature, consisting of multiple levels: An individual is born into a family, which combines with other families to form a clan (today often called a community or congregation). Clans combine to form a tribe within the alliance of tribes that together constitute a nation. This natural hierarchical ordering means that the individual is not perfectly free and equal, but is born into a structure that involves certain constraints and unequal relations from the start.”
I think this is a really good thing. Note how little this has to do with “politics” as we know it today, even though these are ideas intended to create some form of “political” order. Hazony is not arguing that individuals have no worth. On the contrary, individuals carry immense value as image bearers of God (Genesis 1:27). He’s simply arguing that that’s not the end of the story or the highest good. Individuals make up families, families make up congregations or clans, and congregations and clans make up nations. Neither is necessarily more important than the other. Instead, they each have a vital role to play in a flourishing society. These institutions create obligations in us that are usually not of our choosing or consent, but that doesn’t mean they’re inherently bad, as liberalism would have you believe. What the obligations cultivate in us is for our good and for the good of those who come after us.
The Enlightenment liberal paradigm not only knows nothing of these things, it is often openly hostile to them. In this paradigm, the individual reigns supreme. What the individual wants, the individual gets, and nothing can stand in the individual’s way. No one else matters.
“The results of this happy form of reasoning, according to which no one is ever under any obligation he does not want, are plain to see. Liberal society is one in which everyone is free to pursue happiness, but the most obvious things that must be done to ensure that a family, community, or nation remains functional and whole have become optional… Such conditions cannot endure.” (Emphasis mine.)
This form of reasoning, reasoning that says I am under no obligation to anything I do not choose, must logically extend to matters of religion as well. By celebrating this paradigm, I can champion individualism (and all its excesses) and call myself a Christian. Isn’t it great? But eventually, I might reason my way to thinking that I’m under no obligation to obey Christ if I don’t want to consent.
My friends, this is a very dangerous path to walk down. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what we’ve been doing for a really long time and we haven’t even realized it. This is the water I’ve been swimming in my entire life, and I’m only 26. We often try to have it both ways… We privately cherish our “faith,” which is notably a pretty generic faith, while publicly worshiping the self through individualism in the name of patriotism. But then we are appalled when followers of rival religions refuse to keep their values private because they actually believe what they say they believe.
My policy here has always been to make you think. I don’t want to discourage you. What I want you to take away from this section is the encouragement that it doesn’t have to be this way. Especially if you belong to Christ. There is a better way.
“By His divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know him, the one who called us to himself by means of his marvelous glory and excellence. And because of his glory and excellence, he has given us great and precious promises. These are the promises that enable you to share his divine nature and escape the world’s corruption caused by human desires.” 2 Peter 1:3-4 (NLT)
Personal
To understand the why behind Hazony’s argument, the section on philosophy is vital. However, my favorite section was the personal section because there are several examples of how we can put this stuff into practice. I already wrote some about that in my recent post, The Ruthless Elimination of More, so I won’t repeat it all here. If you haven’t read that already, I’d encourage you to take a look.
I will, however, remind us of the main point. Ask yourself a few questions.
Am I conservative person? Do I live a conservative life? Do I truly believe all this stuff or not?
If not, fair enough. Either way, let's all try to find some clarity on our terms.
Here’s something I’m making a conscious effort to grow in lately: introspection. I hope and pray my work here encourages you to do the same. Make introspection a habit. Is it possible you’re guilty of the same things you accuse “them” of doing? I know I often am. This needs to change, and that’s one of my favorite takeaways from this book. Nothing can become corporate until it has first become individual, and both the corporate and the individual matter.
Praise and Critique
Apart from the lessons learned, what I liked most about this book is Hazony’s writing style. I love it when the right questions are asked, especially when they’re questions that many aren’t even willing to approach. You don’t always have to have the right answers, but you need to be asking the right questions.
Finally, I really really really admire the fact that Hazony thoroughly dismantles the idea of public/private distinction in this book. For example, think about how awkward it will be for you to have to tell God that you had to leave your Christian convictions at home because you lived in a pluralistic society… I would agree with Hazony that we have a lot to unlearn.
That’s gonna take practice, and it starts at home, as all good things do.