[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
It is an exaltation of the individual with all of his faults and all of his potential. [/quote]
This is what I wonder at. Should conservatism do so? Is it a philosophy of hyper-individualism? Are we atomistic? I agree that the individual should be considered. But is this the conservatives first response? What if I suggested that conservatism should exalt civil society ABOVE the individual? Is not exaltation of the individual the conerstone of liberalism? Well, libertarianism today, if we’re to bend to more modern terms, I guess.
Not trying to be picky, so forgive me. I’m trying to boil it down–though, I it may be impossible–as to where conservatism finds it starting point, before branching out into what it must support.
Let me share bit of an article, ‘America’s Potemkin Village,’ by Patrick J. Deenen. Here he recalls Tocqueville’s caution.
[b] The tendency for democracies, over time, toward separation, solipsism, individualism–suspicious of groups and people that make claims upon individuals, more tempted by private than public concerns, increasingly understanding freedom to be doing as one wants–renders democratic people ripe for the rise of the tutelary State.
Tocqueville over and over describes such people as “weak,” shorn of the resources that provide an avenue toward a true form of freedom. And so, he writes toward the conclusion of Democracy in America that the individual freedom claiming to do what we want will lead to the most debased form of modern tyranny, willing subjects to a tutelary State. Tocqueville writes, with acute insight:[/b]
“Since…no one is obliged to lend his force to those like him and no one has the right to expect great support from those like him, each is at once independent and weak. These two states–which must neither be viewed separately nor confused–give the citizen of democracies very contrary instincts. His independence fills him with confidence and pride among his equals, and his debility makes him feel, from time to time, the need of the outside help that he cannot expect from any of them, since they are all impotent and cold. In this extremity, he naturally turns his regard to the immense being [the tutelary, bureaucratic, centralized State] that rises alone in the midst of universal debasement. His needs and above all his desires constantly lead him back toward it, and in the end he views it as the unique and necessary support for his individual weakness.”
Tocqueville’s analysis provides us with a unique understanding of the sources of modern centralization and the rise of the administrative State. Often we tend to view its rise as the result of a collectivist spirit, and assert in its opposition a hale defense of individualism. Tocqueville’s analysis suggests that those concerned with the rise of the tutelary State should not defend individualism as such–but instead, defend associational life and the spirit of self-government that it engenders. The spirit of liberty that impels individuals toward the liberation born of freedom from obligations and responsibility finally makes us servile dependents upon the State.
