Roger Scruton was a philosopher interested in both politics and aesthetics. He was also an advocate for traditional conservative policies and views. Roger died in 2020. This was Nassim Nicolas Taleb‘s tweet the day after he died.
Now, I didn’t know who Roger Scruton was until this weekend. I’d never heard of him. Probably because of his political views. I’m not a conservative, in fact, I’m the opposite. I lean so far left that I’m sometimes embarrassed to be right handed.
I came across Taleb’s tweet and thought I should find out more about Roger Scruton, after all, the way Taleb describes Scruton in this one tweet makes him sound like an extraordinary thinker. I’ll confess now that I haven’t read anything by Scruton, and will probably write more about him after I’ve read his book, How to be a Conservative. That said, I did watch this video of him in a conversation with fellow conservative, Douglas Murray
What I found fascinating about the video was, well, everything. Their views regarding Foucault, whom I believe made important points in relation to power structures in our modern society, were diametrically opposed to my own. The language they used to describe left leaning discourse, and the attacks used by the left on the right resembles almost precisely how the left describe the aggression of the right. Their views of identity politics closely resemble the way I describe how the right engage in populism.
However, the point that I found most interesting was Sir Roger’s definition of conservatism.
Sir Roger’s definition of Conservatism
“… conservatism is more and instinct than an idea. It’s the instinct that we all ultimately share, at least if we’re happy in this world. It’s the instinct to hold on to what we love. To protect it from degradation and violence and to build our lives around it. And what that thing is, is very varied, but it is now, for us in this country, the heritage of political order, and our way of doing things and the natural way of being in this country where we belong. And defending it as our home…”
When I first heard Sir Roger define conservatism, I was shocked. Everything he said sounded incredibly reasonable. These weren’t the words of some right-wing fanatic. Here was a man that wanted to hold onto those things the he held most dear. And who wouldn’t want to protect the things that they care about most in the world? Who wouldn’t think it perfectly rational to defend the values and systems that brought order and sanity to a tumultuous world?
Surely only the most unreasonable person would want to change any of these things. Was I unreasonable in my political views? Were my beliefs unstitching the fabric of our societies, leaving the world to unravel in a haze of entropy?
The Struggle
It was past midnight, I was sitting in my office chair, made uncomfortable by working from home for too long (thank you COVID), staring at my laptop. It had taken me 2 hours to watch the 1 hour and 25 minute video. I’d spent the additional 35 minutes going back and watching sections of the video 2 or more times. I was tired, by eyes burned and all I wanted to do was go to bed. But I wouldn’t sleep until I understood what part of Conservatism I didn’t agree with.
And 5 minutes later I knew, and went to bed and slept like a person who’d spent 2 hours watching a video on the future of Conservatism.
Why I’m a liberal
I agree with the ideals of Conservatism. I think we should preserve the policies, norms and institutions that serve the aims of our societies. However, I don’t believe there are all that many policies, norms and institutions that are deserving of preservation. And that’s because there are still too many people who lose in our societies. It is, in my opinion, unreasonable to defend a system that advantages you at the cost of others. If other people suffer, be it through inequality, discrimination or prejudice while you prosper, then you are being unreasonable when you attempt to protect the policies and the institutions that enable that suffering.
I’m a liberal because I believe we can reduce the suffering that exists in the world. I believe our institutions, politicians and governments have an obligation to continue our quest for a better society that serves as many people as possible. And that means experimenting and discarding policies that only benefit a few.
There are some conservatives that claim that reform (I prefer revolution) could see us throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think where I differ from Sir Roger and Douglas is that I don’t see babies in baths. I see eggs that sometimes need breaking so that we can all have better omelettes.
But I’m mixing my metaphors.