Another Leiter contribution. What is also needed,, very much so , is a counterpart critique of the Left and of significant "other"views --Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc-- but this overview of conservatism has serious value regardlessly Billy ================================================== Brian Leiter _What is Philosophy?_ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/what_is_philosophy/) | _Permalink_ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/01/more-on-philosophy-of-cosmology-the-oxbridge-side.html) _"Conservatism is a tradition, not a pathology"..._ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/01/conservatism-is-a-tradition-not-a-pathology.html) _...says Mark Lilla_ (http://chronicle.com/article/Taking-the-Right-Seriously/48333/) , as though these were exclusive possibilities. He mentions as examples of conservatives constituting the "tradition" (drawing on another professor's reading list) the following: "Burke, Maistre, Hayek, Buckley, Ayn Rand, Irving Kristol, Allan Bloom," and then asks: "answer honestly, dear reader of The Chronicle Review: How many of these authors have you yourself read?" Here's my answer: Burke, Hayek, Buckley, Rand, Kristol, and Bloom. Buckley, Rand, Kristol and Bloom are intellectual lightweights and dilettantes (surely Mark Lilla knows this?), and I would think conservative intellectuals would be embarrassed to claim them for their "tradition." Burke and Hayek are entirely different, though I strongly suspect that if he weren't the canonical opponent of the French Revolution, even Burke would not be much read anymore (in a century that included David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Adam Smith, why would anyone even notice Burke except for his conservatism?). Hayek is a different case, both a bit "pathological" (think of the paranoid weirdness that runs through The Road to Serfdom) and a thinker with genuine ideas, some of which (e.g., the effectiveness of markets in recording information about what people want) are now "conventional wisdom" even on the left (there are several Hayekian moments in G.A. Cohen's last work, Why Not Socialism?) But Hayek is no Burkean conservative, nor are his intellectual heirs: indeed, Burkean conservatives can only bemoan the way markets destroy traditional practices and cultures, whereas Hayekians think they are essential to human freedom. So in a way, Lilla's list is telling that there's really no "there there": philosophical hacks (and hacks in totally different ways!) like Bloom and Rand, journalists like Buckley and Kristol, traditionalists like Burke, and free market radicals like Hayek do not a "tradition" make. That people like Lilla get journalistic mileage out of lumping them altogether is just an artifact of the pathologies of American society, where reactionary political and moral views proliferate, with the result that even some intellectuals apparently feel the need to prove their bona fides to the dominant culture by showing that their milieu, the universities, has room for "diversity" of opinion. But universities aren't mainly about opinions, they are about the discovery and dissemination of knowledge, and since almost everything Bachmann and Santorum and Gingrich and their ilk profess is based on demonstrable ignorance and falsehood, it should find no place in the universities, even if popular "conservatism" takes this nonsense seriously. By contrast, the "conservative" work that has some intellectual content, whether Burke or Smith or Hayek, is widely taught and studied and debated in universities, as it should be. There is no need to invent a fake "conservative tradition" to justify that.
Posted by _Brian Leiter_ (http://profile.typepad.com/bleiter) on January 05, 2012 at 08:42 AM in _Of Cultural Interest_ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/of_cultural_interest/) , _Philosophy in the News_ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/philosophy_in_the_news/) , _The Academy_ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/the_academy/) , _What is Philosophy?_ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/what_is_philosophy/) | _Permalink_ (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/01/conservatism-is-a-tradition-not-a-patho logy.html) 1. John Rawls (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices) 2. Michel Foucault loses to John Rawls by 347–202 3. Hannah Arendt loses to John Rawls by 365–165, loses to Michel Foucault by 277–216 4. Tied: Theodor Adorno loses to John Rawls by 360–169, loses to Hannah Arendt by 259–204 Isaiah Berlin loses to John Rawls by 410–108, loses to Hannah Arendt by 286 –199 6. Robert Nozick loses to John Rawls by 451–59, loses to Theodor Adorno by 261–236 7. John Dewey loses to John Rawls by 394–116, loses to Robert Nozick by 246–226 8. Antonio Gramsci loses to John Rawls by 368– 166, loses to John Dewey by 232–223 9. G.A. Cohen loses to John Rawls by 422–86, loses to Antonio Gramsci by 231–226 10. H.L.A. Hart loses to John Rawls by 431–54, loses to G.A. Cohen by 240–189 11. Tied: Georg Lukacs loses to John Rawls by 388–121, loses to H.L.A. Hart by 239– 179 Jean-Paul Sartre loses to John Rawls by 396–132, loses to H.L.A. Hart by 244–204 13. Simone de Beauvoir loses to John Rawls by 396–125, loses to Jean-Paul Sartre by 212–202 14. Friedrich von Hayek loses to John Rawls by 440–63, loses to Simone de Beauvoir by 219–213 15. Herbert Marcuse loses to John Rawls by 389–117, loses to Friedrich von Hayek by 208–206 16. Max Horkheimer loses to John Rawls by 387–107, loses to Herbert Marcuse by 198–158 17. Brian Barry loses to John Rawls by 423–41, loses to Max Horkheimer by 210–146 18. Joel Feinberg loses to John Rawls by 429–37, loses to Brian Barry by 181–147 19. Michael Oakeshott loses to John Rawls by 432–34, loses to Joel Feinberg by 179–146 20. Leo Strauss loses to John Rawls by 434–72, loses to Michael Oakeshott by 179–169 21. Susan Moller Okin loses to John Rawls by 425–30, loses to Leo Strauss by 176– 164 22. Iris Marion Young loses to John Rawls by 414–43, loses to Susan Moller Okin by 147–143 23. Jean Hampton loses to John Rawls by 418–30, loses to Iris Marion Young by 168–127 24. Judith Shklar loses to John Rawls by 417–30, loses to Jean Hampton by 140–128 25. Charles Macpherson loses to John Rawls by 404–37, loses to Judith Shklar by 125–122 26. John Plamenatz 1. John Rawls (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices) 2. Michel Foucault loses to John Rawls by 347–202 3. Hannah Arendt loses to John Rawls by 365–165, loses to Michel Foucault by 277–216 4. Tied: Theodor Adorno loses to John Rawls by 360–169, loses to Hannah Arendt by 259–204 Isaiah Berlin loses to John Rawls by 410–108, loses to Hannah Arendt by 286 –199 6. Robert Nozick loses to John Rawls by 451–59, loses to Theodor Adorno by 261–236 7. John Dewey loses to John Rawls by 394–116, loses to Robert Nozick by 246–226 8. Antonio Gramsci loses to John Rawls by 368– 166, loses to John Dewey by 232–223 9. G.A. Cohen loses to John Rawls by 422–86, loses to Antonio Gramsci by 231–226 10. H.L.A. Hart loses to John Rawls by 431–54, loses to G.A. Cohen by 240–189 11. Tied: Georg Lukacs loses to John Rawls by 388–121, loses to H.L.A. Hart by 239– 179 Jean-Paul Sartre loses to John Rawls by 396–132, loses to H.L.A. Hart by 244–204 13. Simone de Beauvoir loses to John Rawls by 396–125, loses to Jean-Paul Sartre by 212–202 14. Friedrich von Hayek loses to John Rawls by 440–63, loses to Simone de Beauvoir by 219–213 15. Herbert Marcuse loses to John Rawls by 389–117, loses to Friedrich von Hayek by 208–206 16. Max Horkheimer loses to John Rawls by 387–107, loses to Herbert Marcuse by 198–158 17. Brian Barry loses to John Rawls by 423–41, loses to Max Horkheimer by 210–146 18. Joel Feinberg loses to John Rawls by 429–37, loses to Brian Barry by 181–147 19. Michael Oakeshott loses to John Rawls by 432–34, loses to Joel Feinberg by 179–146 20. Leo Strauss loses to John Rawls by 434–72, loses to Michael Oakeshott by 179–169 21. Susan Moller Okin loses to John Rawls by 425–30, loses to Leo Strauss by 176– 164 22. Iris Marion Young loses to John Rawls by 414–43, loses to Susan Moller Okin by 147–143 23. Jean Hampton loses to John Rawls by 418–30, loses to Iris Marion Young by 168–127 24. Judith Shklar loses to John Rawls by 417–30, loses to Jean Hampton by 140–128 25. Charles Macpherson loses to John Rawls by 404–37, loses to Judith Shklar by 125–122 26. John Plamenatz -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
