Conservatism: A Rediscovery

I have to write one more review about conservatism, with the release of the new book by Yoram Hazony,and then I'll give the topic a break for a while. Between Conservatism and Matthew Continetti's The Right, I've had a lot to reflect upon over the past month.I am very sympathetic to what Hazony is trying to do here, which is not a surprise because he is in closeassociation with Rusty Reno, whose theology has been valuable to my own theological projects. Myresponse to the populist nationalism manifest in Trump was quite similar to those of Reno and Hazony.He's trying to give it deeper historical and intellectual roots. While conservatives have long lookedto Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville, Hazony is trying to go even further back into Englishthought. While he and his family have moved to Israel, he remains deeply engaged with Americanconservatism. So he presents this line through Burke, Hamilton and Adams as an alternative tothe Lockean liberalism that informed Jefferson and Madison. Hazony tends to use the simplerterms "liberal" and "conservative", perhaps in an intentionally provocative way, where I would use"libertarian" and "traditionalist". But the point is the same. He's with Russell Kirk's The ConservativeMind on the need for tradition and prescription.When we get closer to the present, there is the story of Bill Buckley, National Review, BarryGoldwater, and Ronald Reagan. As Continetti and before him George Nash showed, one ofthe key thinkers was Frank Meyer, who gave Buckley the idea of fusionism of the free market,national security, and traditional people. From the 50s to the 80s this brought tremendousintellectual energy and political victories. And yet social conservatives still have generallylost, in terms of the cultural atmosphere that they live in. So there are responses like RodDreher's Benedict Option, which promotes the need for small intentional communities.For most of American history, the principles of natural law and Scripture that Hazony ispromoting have been in the background, but not explicitly written into the politicaland legal institutions. Read Abraham Lincoln's speeches and you have a feast of biblicalinterpretation. I am in agreement that we need the God of Scripture. The question is,how do we get there through political and social institutions. It is hard to criticizefusionism, when it brought half a century of political thought and action. As PaulMcCartney said in a very different context, no I wouldn't change it! It's the White Albumby the Beatles! But Hazony does provide some possible answers for why fusionism wasn'table to give the traditionalists the same importance as the free marketers and the nationalsecurity hawks. On the other hand, Chronicles magazine generally argued not to attemptpolitical solutions to cultural problems. All these areas work together in a complex way.But what has been called conservatism generally has been too libertarian, at the expenseof other principles.I was surprised a couple of years ago when George Will revealed that he is an atheist. Butas Buckley said, you might not have faith but you can't be against it. Hozany doesn't letthem off the hook, in an eloquent closing passage. He writes (p. 414)My nation, friends and neighbors, and my family are suffering grievously from having cutthemselves off from the God of our fathers, and from the teachings that flowed from Scriptureand gave us strength. What can I do to recover and restore the old paths, and to give honorto the ideas and way of life of my ancestors who brought me here? And is it not, perhaps,my own fault that I know nothing of God, having given up the search for the wisdom andunderstanding of my ancestors as an adolescent? Perhaps it is my own fault, after all,if I seek to exercise my freedom by going to the seashore on the seventh day, rather thansetting aside as my ancestors did, as a day for learning Scripture and for taking my placewithin my congregation and family, in this way reconnecting myself to the traditions ofmy nation and to the God of my forefathers.

What is conservatism? Where did conservatism come from? Are conservatives just conserving classical liberalism? Was America founded by liberals or conservatives? What is nationalism, and why are so many conservatives talking about it today? No one answers these questions better than Yoram Hazony in Conservatism: A Rediscovery. Hazony argues that the Anglo-American conservative tradition is distinct from liberalism. The book is divided into four major parts: history of conservatism, philosophy of conservatism, conservatism today, and living a conservative life.In the history section, Hazony corrects many modern misunderstandings about the history of conservatism and liberalism. This section includes a comprehensive overview of the greatest thinkers of the conservative tradition. Hazony begins the history of Anglo-American conservatism with John Fortescue from the 15th century. Although Fortescue was not the first conservative, Hazony calls him the tradition's first great expositor. Hazony also examines the ideas and accomplishments of conservatives like Richard Hooker, John Selden, Edmund Burke, and the American Federalists. Hazony shows how Federalists like George Washington, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris were part of the conservative tradition.In the philosophy section, Hazony thoroughly explains the philosophical roots of conservatism. Based on an empirical account of human relationships, Hazony cautiously identifies six premises of conservatism. He compares these with the premises of liberalism to show that conservatives have a better understanding of how communities are built and prosper. Like Fortescue, Burke, and many other conservatives, Hazony grounds his political philosophy in the Bible. In the final chapter of the philosophy section, Hazony takes a closer look at the purpose of government. He compares the seven purposes of government listed in the Preamble to US Constitution to a very similar set of principles given by Burke.Next, Hazony examines the history of the conservative movement since World War II. Hazony is critical of most thinkers associated with the modern conservative movement. Even Russell Kirk does not escape his criticism. Although Hazony praises Kirk for his traditionalism, he criticizes him for prioritizing localism over nationalism. Hazony is most critical of thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Frank Meyer. Hazony blames the Fusionists for failing to conserve institutions like the family and the university. Hazony argues that conservatives need to rediscover their tradition to restore these institutions and fight the new Marxists. Hazony explains why Marxists are so successful at taking over liberal institutions, where Marxism goes wrong, and how conservatives can beat them.In the final section of his book, Hazony opens up about his personal journey living a conservative life. In my opinion, this is the most powerful and perspective-altering part of the book. Hazony shows how conservatism is more than public policy. It's a way of life. If conservatives do not attend church, have a family, and contribute to their community, conservatives will not conserve anything valuable.For the past several years, I have been looking for a book to recommend to those who want to learn more about conservatism. My search has ended. Conservatism: A Rediscovery is the best book on conservatism that I have read. This book answers all the common questions asked today about conservatism, and it provides a path forward to restoring our traditions. This book is essential reading for conservatives who want a deeper understanding of their tradition. I highly recommend it.

This is a well written book giving the history and possible future of conservatism. It explains what conservative democracy is compared to liberal democracy and Marxism and the danger these pose to our freedoms and traditional society. Highly recommended at this time of great threats facing the West.

This was a bit above my pay grade but I’m glad I persevered through the somewhat boring history sections. I’m here after listening to Hazony’s interview on TRIGGERnometry, which I’ve watched twice and actually transcribed to get a better handle on Hazony’s teachings.I’m 51, married with two teenaged kids, and I’m seeking meaning for my life after 17 years following the teachings of Alcoholics Anonymous. I’ve never really known who I was, politically speaking, but reading Hazony’s book has gone a long way to helping me figure that out. I may follow up by reading some of the source material cited in the last chapter.

Very interesting read....

After reading this book, I know why (a) I could never be a true conservative (although I think conservatively on some issues like immigration, law and order or national sovereignty); and why (b) authentic conservatism, as the author represents it, is an endangered species in the Western world (what used to be the Conservative camp has been overtaken by right-wing populists and libertarians, at least in the US, the UK, France or Italy).I enjoyed reading the book because the author offers the worldview of a true, authentic Conservative. Most people, especially in the US and the UK, who call themselves "Conservatives", subscribe to a strange mixture of conservatism (in the sphere of culture) and liberalism or even libertarianism (in the sphere of economics), which is quite inconsistent (see for example Roger Scruton). Hazony laments this ideological mixture; his critique of Friedrich Hayek (a hero of many "conservatives") is superb.Yoram Hazony however knows the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Whereas liberals focus on (free and autonomous) individuals and their natural rights ("We hold these truths to be self-evident..."), conservatives focus on traditional groups into which a person is born, and on their loyalty and obligations. He writes that "a conservative political theory begins with the understanding that individuals are born into families, tribes, and nations to which they are bound by mutual loyalty".Within the liberal paradigm, by contrast, individuals come first, and then they form groups or alliances of all sorts, they conclude agreements and contrats by mutual consent.Another essential difference: liberals treat individuals as equals, and if they enter a given hierarchy they do so on the basis of consent, whereas according to conservatives we are born not only into groups like families and tribes, but also into hierarchies, and it is our duty to submit to, and be loyal to those who are above us in the hierarchy. Conservatives believe that there is a natural or even divine order out there (Hazony is fond of talking about God and Scripture), whereas liberals believe that all human associations and orders are created by human beings and can be changed by them if there are good reasons to do so (for example abolishing slavery, which was a traditional feature of most agrarian societies, accepted by conservatives; The Holy Bible for example takes slavery for granted)The author is very proud that he, as a Conservative, sees societal and political reality as it is, and not, like liberals, as it should be. Liberal thinking, he claims, is based on abstract reasoning ("top-down"), whereas conservatives proceed bottom-up, in an empiricist manner.But how is this reality structured, according to Yoram Hazony ?"Political reality, as the conservative sees it, is full of competing nations, each of which consists of a number of tribes tied to one another by bonds of mutual loyalty. Each nation and tribe is engaged in a constant competition with its neighbors, allying or warring with them as circumstances dictate."That sounds very much like Hobbes' "war of all against all": families, tribes, clans and nations... locked in a permanent struggle for honor, resources, territories, etc...This may describe political reality in traditional societies as we can still find them in rural parts of, say, India or Africa, but certainly not in Western societies like the US or Germany, where the only tribes are those political "tribes" like the "LGBTQ community" or Trump followers, "tribes" that exist because individuals created them and chose to become members, very unlike the conservative paradigm, where I am a member of certain groups whose membership I did not choose! Therefore, when presenting conservatism, the author does not describe political reality in contemporary Western societies, but an ideal; he is thus doing exactly what he accuses the liberals of.The last chapters of the book are clearly the weakest part of the book, because the author writes no longer as a political theorist, someone who can be taken seriously, even if you do not share his worldview, but he betrays his own philosophy and argues as a fervent (and surprisingly blind!) partisan of one camp, clearly siding with Trump and his supporters. He accuses liberals in general and Democrats in particular of delegitimizing Trump's presidency, but seems to forget that it was Trump himself who delegitimized the entire democratic process during the 2016 campaign by declaring that he would not accept defeat - exactly what he did four years later. I would like to ask Mr. Hazony: Who engaged in conspiracy theories and invented the myth of the "Big Steal"? Who incited his followers to storm the Capitol and stage a coup? Marxists? Liberal Hillary Clinton?There is no denying that democracy in America is in danger, but any independent observer would agree that the greater threat comes not from those whom Hazony likes to call "Marxists," i.e., the "woke" left, but from those who call themselves "conservatives," even if they are authoritarian right-wing populists and/or libertarians. A true conservative like Hazony could and perhaps should have acknowledged and lamented this fact.