Conservatives are modest in what they assume to be the realizable goal of humanity’s march into the future. The "ideal society" is neither their expectation nor their rational goal.

A short time ago, at the end of a course-concluding lecture, I got an ovation. My thereby fertilized growing ego made me ask the group why they liked me. While the rest nodded, a volunteer told me that the other guys, probably since they are aware that they approach the end of their trail, preach incessantly about the doom to which the future leads. I, on the other hand, was “always so optimistic.” If true, this is quite an encouraging trait for kids in the course who can not flee into the past they do not yet have and who must, therefore, face the future ahead of them. Quite frankly, I suddenly saw myself in a new light and agreed with the assessment. When I started to work for the Intellectual Conservative I expected to continue to be optimistic.

Therefore, nowadays, whenever I take up a topic for the IC, I feel disappointed because, being located on the “European Front,” I wind up bringing bad news. Well, with this piece, before I changed the subject, I had been setting out to be at it once again! Momentarily discarding the original topic, apologies are called for to my original intentions, that class, and to many conservatives. Here the ones are meant who know that being a conservative does not mean bemoaning bygones or seeking the preferred future in the past. A conservative has faith in human nature and therefore he believes that if allowed to do so, man being more cerebrally than short-term appetite-driven, he will, while erring, make in the aggregate the right choices. For us the past adds up to a pattern defined by progress from the bad to the better. This feature is what supports the hunch that as always before, what is ahead of us is manageable and that therefore the future is positive.

Assuming that cogent decisions will be a reliable guide at the bifurcations along the road, the yet unpaved path before of us will, if we choose wisely, continue to lead to improvements — albeit not perfection. This last caveat is, together with the assumption that not the set laws of nature, but human decisions predetermine outcomes, is one of the crucial assumptions that separate conservatives from totalitarians.

Totalitarians generally operate under the assumption that unless they, the “elect,” intervene, mankind will meet its demise. Oddly enough this is one of the attractions of all “end-of-the-world” creeds. The same applies to sects who march off into the desert to wait for the End. In the secular realm it fits the Greens, who warn of a polluted earth becoming too cold or too hot for habitation. Let us not forget here the National Socialists that also feared (racial) pollution and the Marxists who, regardless of the collapse of the states in which they experimented, still forecast, with a defiance for the facts that is admirable, the ruin of those unwilling to take their medicine. Naturally, totalitarians regard The End as not only preventable but foreordained to be avoided due to their generous intervention.

If “History” is the unfolding of a pre-determined law, its motor becomes the “intelligent” with a grasp of this law. This element forms a group that is, by its very nature a numerical minority. (Typically, after losing an ill-advised election following his coup, Lenin ignored the results after stating that he was uninterested in numerical majorities.) Acting, as it claims, on behalf of the majority, this élite declares itself to be thereby democratic. Even so, like the pilots of a 747, the qualified Elect do not feel the need to consult seriously the crowd of the unskilled entrusted to their care. Better expressed, the input of the unknowing is to be ignored whenever their wishes run counter to the findings of those in the know. Admittedly, if we return to the 747 analogy, in the crisis situations that are imaginable in the Jumbo’s case, such a comportment of the pilots would be proper. If only societies would be analogous to large planes in trouble!

What the brief argument leaves us with is a rudimentary explanation why authoritarians distrust the masses — in whose behalf they claim to act — and why they feel deputized by “History” (whatever that means) to act unilaterally if the consent of the currently existing majority is not to be had. The inherent contradiction is solved by the Enlightened ones’ conviction that they are acting in the name of a majority that will be produced by the future into which they are herding the occasionally disoriented. Once this majority is achieved, the gap between the knowledge of the bright Chosen and the hunches of the dim confused masses will be closed. With this the new “majoritarian democracy” will have a foundation and thus be suited to replace “guided democracy.” With that the era of the ideal society tailored to the virtues of the desired New Man — implying a radical break with the entire past and human nature — will have arrived.

Conservatives are more modest in what they assume to be the realizable goal of humanity’s march into the future. The ideal society, meaning one without problems and thriving under the condition of unity, is neither their expectation nor their rational goal. What stands in the way of these lofty ideals is human nature that they regard as basically unalterable. That makes the New Man to be as much an illusion as are the attempts to create him by violence abhorrent. Imperfect — but always  perfectible — men are, by virtue of this condition, not “bad.” Imperfection naturally means fallibility. Thus, even though majority decisions are trusted, conservatives do not exclude the possibility that majorities can err. Logically, and as pragmatists that are aware of history’s lessons, they cannot, as rational beings, pretend the evidence away. This rational self doubt, the cognizance of mankind’s limitations, the insistence — as in the US Constitution — that even majorities should be restrained, is frequently used to argue that all conservatives are inherently authoritarian. In reality, this label only fits reactionaries who misuse the term.

If fallible individuals are capable of building a better world then this one will always be one of imperfections and therefore of problems. Assuming this, the Conservative is interested in defining institutionalized principles that facilitate solutions in whose case flawlessness is not alleged. This imperfect world implies constant adjustment preceded by a conflict of opinions that is civilized by the rules of the agreed upon political game. The eternally shifting majorities that emerge to implement what is essentially a moderated compromise do not produce final solutions.

At this juncture a state is for conservatives essential to guide the process that leads to resolutions and that guarantees their implementation. As implied, the role of this state is limited. Essentially the conservative’s state is not an end in itself. For one thing, his understanding of history — it instills fear of the misuse of state power — vouches for that. The state is there to make self-government more effective, and is as an organ “neutral,” that is, it lacks a legitimate will (such as in raison d’état). Certainly, this state that is an instrument (thus a thing. whereby it must lack, as already indicated, a will of its own) has its role and legitimacy limited by what the long-term consensus of the majority happens to be. It is thus not a legitimate instrument to change the majority or to educate society, for it is only created for the limited purpose to implement the community’s will. In summary, one can say that for conservatives the state that is limited in its power — but not devoid of it as in anarchy — is a prerequisite of freedom. And this freedom happens to be a condition maintainable by a moderation of our weaknesses — that can make us if unchecked into growling animals — through consensual laws.

This essay began with a reference to not communicated bad news from Europe that is pessimistic and state (not people) oriented. No ode to conservative optimism will make the bad news dominating the next installments to be written go away. So then, you might ask, what was the purpose of this apparent detour praising optimism? Regardless of French wrecking, German disorientation, Russian atavism, instability in the Balkans, devastating Hurricanes churned by Bush, the troubles with China, exploding terrorists, the Castro & Chavez Brothers joint clown-act and the stationary UN circus: the bad news become devastating only if under their impact you fold while trying to hide from them.