Conservatives, always returning to a better reality

Conservatives often claim to be in favor of innovation.  Indeed, they are favorably disposed to finding new and creative means of acquiring more of the good things they already have.  Theirs is a profit-friendly notion of progress.  Yet conservatives generally don’t value change.  This is sensible.  Conservatives tend to be elites.  They don’t want a different world, only more of the world that they already possess more of than others.  To them, the best kind of innovation would be a return to a once and future sort of greatness—a purer version of the present in which people like themselves continue doing well (very well indeed) without having to suffer the indignity of sharing their greatness with all the rest—the disappointments, the failures, the half-hearted types.  But there is danger in pursuing a better world.  A differently-constructed version of greatness might not give the same advantages to those who hold the plurality of advantages right now.  And those who hold the advantages right now obviously and indisputably deserve to hold them.  Otherwise they wouldn’t be holding them, would they?

Yet there are always malcontents out there who insist on imagining new and perverse social orders in which any sort of riff-raff might put themselves in charge.  These grumblers and faultfinders dream up all sorts of unnatural society, in which those who are clearly meant (by the Creator, no less) to stay in their humble place and do what they are supposed to do might instead hold positions of ease and authority, living lives of lazy comfort, while others do their work for them.  And these peevish murmurers conjure up all manner of justification to show that those who are obviously best suited to be in superior positions should not really be there at all.  One can only imagine what such septic-disturbers might say next.

Observation 4: Conservatism is a valiant determination to suppress evidence of reality.  Conservatives like their worldly advantages, but they don’t always like the world the way it is—or as the available evidence suggests it is.  They have good reason to think so.  Evidence is a very unreliable way to truth, liable as it is to lead its naïve followers down whatever merry path it cares to go.  The conclusions of evidence-based investigations cannot be easily anticipated, predicted or cajoled, nor relied upon to favor the preferred world-view of those who have an investment in the present (and obviously best) order of things.  It is no surprise, then, that conservatives seldom care for objective (that is, uncontrollable) measurements, statistics or observations—where any sort of claim might be taken as true, regardless of the standing of the person who claims it.  But how can any thing be called true if its truth does not depend on a proper authority—that is, on someone who can be counted on to know truth when he sees it?

Conservatism, then, is a heroic struggle to uphold a proper respect for authority by willfully embracing virtuous ignorance.  Ignorance of evidence, that is—which really has nothing to do with truth.  Truth is what we know to be true.  Evidence either supports truth, in which case it would seem mostly unnecessary, or does not, in which case it would necessarily be wrong, right?  (And in which case inquiry itself would be mostly useless.  After all, true facts would have to serve truth, would they not?)  Since such a splendid form of ignorance—the worthiest kind—would have to be willful, it might as well be loud.  Conservative voters agree by proclaiming confidently, and at appropriate volume, the things they heroically know to be true.  And so those things become true—and truer yet every time they are repeated.  The louder the truth, the more true it must inevitably be.  (So cheer boisterously whenever you hear your favorite slogan repeated by a trusted voice!)  Truth will always be a sure thing and follow close behind certainty.  Here measurement will actually prove useful, for volume in service of truth is easy to measure.  And just to be clear, doubt of the beloved truth will not be looked upon kindly.  Apologizing for being right is out of the question.  Truth can never be so weak and uncertain as to depend on unpredictable evidence or follow after slippery reason.  Rather, truth itself will tell us which sorts of evidence or reasoning are worth paying attention to.  The rest can safely be mocked or ignored.  Conservatives intuitively understand this.

The truth-disturbers, however, cannot be reasoned with.  They are determined to follow their precious evidence wherever it might lead, even to places where decent folk refuse to go.  (True conservatives always know where they’re going—or at least where their enemies ought to go.)  Sometimes the doubters and truth-disturbers will try to blame decent conservatives for their own problems, as if good folk were responsible for the sorry state of the world.  So deflection becomes a useful strategy.  Focus not on the uncertain evidence (which we already know can’t change what’s true) but on the disreputable character and intentions of the people promoting such evidence.  Best to keep a handy label ready—leftist, liberal, secularist, socialist, radical.  (At least one of those will always be right.  But it won’t matter as long as it successfully sticks or distracts.)  Once you attach the correct label, no reasonable or decent person will pay any further mind to their so-called evidence.  You can also question their motives, loyalties and morals.  Or just make fun of their speech patterns, hairstyles and nerdy clothes.  Find an embarrassing story about one of their relatives.  Whatever you do, don’t give any attention to their evidence, unless to imply it came from a tainted (that is, liberal or foreign) source.

Slow and cautious (that is to say, wishy-washy) thinkers will insist that we not confuse intentions with effects.  Conservatives don’t waste time on such unnecessary concern.  They know perfectly well that there can never be an effect without an intention, nor an intention without an effect.  Therefore, they rightly attach themselves to the leaders and visionaries who say the things they already know to be true and promise to set things right again.  If they say it (with suitable confidence), they’ve as good as done it.  No need to check up on them later.  (And at the next rally, conservatives will gladly take their word that they’ve accomplished all the things they promised to do.)  They will also assume that without a clear intention, there can be no consequence.  If they didn’t intend specific ill toward a disadvantaged (or other pampered) group, no such ill could have come to them.  Thus their complaints can be safely ignored.  If they did not intend to spread a disease or cause damage to the environment, then no such bad consequences could have taken place.  Their declarations of freedom are not confused at all—they’re marvelously simple!  Since they are decent, well-meaning and honest folk, their exercise of freedom cannot possibly be harmful to anyone else!  And lord knows their beloved and well-disposed world could not have come into being without deliberate and benevolent design.  So they will never permit the God-deniers to suggest anything else to their children.  Undoubtedly all part of some hidden, leftist plot to turn them into Commies.

But one must admit with a sigh that democracy has an unreliable relationship with truth.  Any savvy operator in any major party working in any democratic system knows that the real world of politics has nothing much to do with truth.  It’s opinion that matters.  Votes are all that count, and voters vote according to their opinions, which have little foundation in demonstrable (let alone objective) truth.  Their opinions may or may not correspond to anything resembling truth, but since most such opinions are held only by a minority of voting citizens it seems likely that most of them will turn out to be wrong.  Or at least have little connection to reason or evidence.  Yet none of that matters to political outcomes.  If a majority of voters are determined to believe something that reason or evidence finds dubious, politicians will not argue with them.  They will likewise prefer the untrue thing.  Otherwise they will not get voted into office, which is the only meaningful marker of political success.  This may even prove to be the case in political systems that are not democratic.  Any enduring political system must cultivate some notion of legitimacy, which in practice means that any politician or ruler who wishes to continue in power will say whatever needs to be said to maintain peace and order.  The ruled always outnumber the rulers.  The ruled can bring about disorder in any political system if they feel intolerably exploited or abused.  And so too with democracy.  Politicians will always say what they need to say to keep their jobs.  Except of course for the candidates who fail to win elections.  It’s not only conservatives who understand this.  But they tend to understand it better than most.

But this is merely saying the quiet part out loud, which we naturally don’t care to do.  One might suppose that it amounts to a conspiracy, in that conservatives quietly agree to deny that they are denying reality.  But they’re not really denying reality, only the appearance of it.  The problem is all that pesky evidence—the kind that wishy-washy liberals say is supposed to speak for itself.  But the truth is that facts don’t know a thing, least of all anything so important as truth.