Conservatives against Conservatism

[elfs]

Over the weekend, I briefly dipped my toe back into the Honor Harrington universe to read the second and third books, The Honor of the Queen and The Short, Victorious War, both of which are among the better books in Weber's oeuvre. As I read them, I was as usual pummeled by the way Weber portrayed the liberal vs. conservative divide on Manticore, but you have to admire the fact that his conservatives were absolutely not racist in the least, and even their religious conservatism was extremely well-tempered and moderated by a classic liberalism expectation that where the human condition had weaknesses, the human mind could be turned to deal with those weaknesses without futher deprecating the human mind.

Weber's "conservatisem" is a paean to the finest of human qualities, and the expectation that every human being wants to be a perfect expression of those qualities.

So, of course, I wake up this morning to find that Whitney Houston has died, and FOX News "conservatives" respond with anything but decency and dignity.

I'm still thinking that Corey Robin's book, The Reactionary Mind, may have gotten it essentially correct: conservatism is always about the maintenance of power in those who currently have it, and who therefore conclude that they are fit to rule, and ought to always be the ones to rule. The currrent ugliness about Whitney Houston and Barack Obama is what happens when the convinced power base sees that, even though it has maintained its half of the bargain, its privileges are not being maintained.

George W. Bush's won the 2004 election with his promise that he would protect the US from gay marriage, welfare cheats, and Muslim terrorists. He dismantled the regulatory system, turned a blind eye to mortgage market pillaging by private interests, and allowed cronyism to rampage through US-owned natural resources-- all the while, more states allowed gay marriage, and a black man ended up in the White House. The bargain has not been upheld.

You go to war against the conservatism you have, rather than find common cause with the conservatism you wish you had.

Comments

[herewiss13.livejournal.com]

Weber's conservatism always struck me as primarily economic and political, rather than ideological/cultural (if that makes sense)...probably because he writes of a world with no civil rights issues. Certainly (beyond the illegal slavers themselves), we see no "common man" prejudice against genies.

...of course, we see very few "common men" to begin with and while characters _talk_ about keeping quiet about enhancements and gengineered backgrounds, Weber never really shows _why_ this would be necessary to protect against stigma. There's probably a paper in there somewhere. :-P

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It would be no big deal, in Weber's universe, to be gay. Honor even makes the comment, silently, in book two that she's never shown much interest in men, "or women, for that matter."

The biggest civil rights issue in Weber's universe seems to be about the devolution of power, and that's it. It is a conservatism of "those fit to rule... and those who are not." Weber concentrates on a "fit to rule" by meritocracy (hence the whole Pavel Young issue).

But it just fantasy. Sadly, in some respects.

The other thing is that Weber writes as if some people have an "aura of rulership." I've seen people with auras before: Steve Jobs clearly had it; so did the original CEO of F5, although his faded the second he stopped talking. But they weren't "of leadership," merely of conviction. I'm not sure you can harness one well for the purpose of the other.