Political Theory

One way to win the immigration debate

by Kyle Scott

Here is an article on winning the immigration argument by Kyle Scott, published in the Desert News.

What gets lost in the immigration debate is the importance of tradition and custom. Conservatives can clearly articulate pragmatic reasons why we need stronger controls on immigration, but we often neglect the more nuanced, and perhaps more important, reasons for protecting our borders.

A core value for conservatives is a belief in an enduring moral order that is revealed to us through custom, convention and continuity. Without an adherence to tradition and custom, societies must rely exclusively on laws, which means, they must look to the government rather than institutions such as family and church for guidance. Immigration threatens to undermine tradition and custom in the U.S. Unless immigrants are asked to assimilate, we will lose what binds us as a people and relegates the government to the background. Without a common understanding and history, the government is pushed to the foreground, unhinged from anything of meaning or lasting value.

If we continue to be a nation that welcomes immigrants but does not ask them to take our norms, customs and history as their own, then we are left with no choice but to have a government define for us who we are as a people. Furthermore, in a government that is increasingly being pushed toward radical democracy, there is a risk that the laws promulgated will be without ethical merit.

Liberty under God and law, as Tocqueville formulated it, is distinct from the liberty argued for by those who favor radical democracy. As we move closer toward a radically democratic regime, we also move toward a system in which the will of the individual is glorified and fewer restraints are placed around human desires. Liberty is sacrificed when pure democracy is pursued because pure democracy does not recognize an enduring moral order or convention; it only recognizes the will of the majority. Without natural limits, democratic government is nothing more than a relativistic anarchy cloaked in the misappropriated rhetoric of liberty and equality.

Progressives encourage a “radical emancipation from natural limits and moral restraints and from a transcendent order above the will of men.” However, if man dislodges himself from what he needs, from what is natural, he will fail to achieve fulfillment, happiness and dignity.

I agree with Tocqueville’s assessment that collectivism originates in radical individualism. Because men need limits, and radical individualism rejects all natural limits and thereby destroys human connections, the end result of radical individualism — and thus radical democracy — is a dependence upon an impersonal “schoolmaster.” Radical individualism will destroy traditional values and in turn force people to turn toward the government for fulfillment, safety and guidance. The process from radical individualism to collectivism will enervate the human soul and destroy the capacity for individual initiative and moral and civic judgment. Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in things established through immemorial usage is required for liberty and self government.

Our political climate rarely leaves time or space for sincere reflection. Grandstanding has been substituted for statesmanship, and talking points have taken the place of principle. If we are to create a politics which can rise above the gutter, we must take the first step of identifying core principles and why we adhere to them. Conservatism recognizes man has limits and must reconcile himself to those natural limits. From this fundamental truth springs conservatism and the policies which are consistent with conservative ideals. If we do not take this as the fundamental reason for securing our borders, we will lose the moral high ground and eventually lose the political battle.

---

Kyle Scott is a professor of political science at University of Houston and a trustee of the Lone Star College System. Dr. Scott, the Conservative Professor has a blog at kyleascott.

Part 3: What We Need for Victory in 2014, Part II

PART 3: What We Need for Victory in 2014, Part II

By Dr. Kyle Scott, The Conervative Professor

From his blog

The first three principles of conservatism given by Russell Kirk are belief in an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in what may be called the principle of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage. Readers will recognize how the argument developed here applies to same sex marriage and other threats to tradition. These first three principles may sound stifling, but I will demonstrate how adherence to these principles is the only way self-government can be maintained and liberty protected.

Liberty under God and Law, as Tocqueville formulated it, is distinct from the liberty argued for by those who favor radical democracy. As we move closer toward a radically democratic regime, we also move toward a system in which the will of the individual is glorified and fewer restraints are placed around human desires. Responsible liberty, dignified liberty, is sacrificed when pure democracy is pursued because pure democracy does not recognize an enduring moral order; it only recognizes the will of the majority. But self-government is sustainable only when man operates within traditional limits.

Daniel J. Mahoney writes, “unencumbered choice can never be the sole-criterion for judging the thought and action of human beings. Liberty understood as pure freedom unconnected to larger ends and purposes fatally undermines the dialectics of truth and liberty, and liberty and virtue, that define true human existence.” This touches upon a truth about the human condition, which is that man is an ever-wandering, searching being who can never be satisfied by looking within himself. Man is incomplete and cannot complete himself or his longings by staying within himself. Man must reconcile himself to his limited capacity and recognize that there is an enduring moral order he must submit to as well as the fact that those who have come before him can offer guidance.

It is undignified to undermine traditional structures for doing so separates man from what he needs to attain his dignity. Per Aristotle, man can only reach his telos within a community whose traditional order he acts according to. To be happy and complete—not to mention moral—man must act within traditional boundaries so long as those boundaries reflect an enduring moral order. All people—to a greater or lesser degree—are like children testing their boundaries. Responsible parents realize they must set boundaries for their children otherwise they risk having a child who has no direction, sense of self or natural restraint. The same is true of a citizen who seeks to unhinge himself from the traditional order. A person with no limits will be nihilistic, disenchanted, and doomed to failure.

Progressives encourage a “radical emancipation from natural limits and moral restraints and from a transcendent order above the will of men.” However, if man dislodges himself from what he needs, from what is natural, he will fail to achieve fulfillment, happiness, and dignity.

I agree with Tocqueville’s assessment that collectivism originates in radical individualism. Because men need limits, and radical individualism rejects all natural limits and thereby destroys human connections, the end result of radical individualism—and thus radical democracy—is a dependence upon an impersonal ‘schoolmaster.’ Radical individualism will destroy traditional values and in turn force people to turn toward the government for fulfillment, safety and guidance. The process from radical individualism to collectivism will enervate the human soul and destroy the capacity for individual initiative and moral and civic judgment. Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in things established immemorial usage is required for liberty and self-government. Man is in need of limits. Without natural limits, democratic government is nothing more than a relativistic anarchy cloaked in the misappropriated rhetoric of liberty and equality.

INTRO: Why We Need Conservatives

by Kyle Scott, The Conservative Professor

INTRO: What is Conservatism?

From Dr. Scott’s blog

The government is rapidly making policy changes that deal with marriage, guns, the military, immigration and nearly every other facet of our public and private lives. These changes are taking place rapidly because Republicans seem to be giving into the demands of Democrats with recent speeches by Eric Cantor and other Republicans whose positions on immigration and same sex marriage have quickly “evolved” over the past few months. These developments illuminate the need for conservatism and its role in balancing the liberal desire for rapid change.

Change in and of itself is not always a bad thing. The problem is not with change necessarily but with the nature and rapidity of the change. If you have ever worked for a company that changed management you might know the feeling. When new management comes in and introduces immediate changes, there is backlash among the employees. The same thing happens with rapid government reform. Our understanding of what to expect and what is expected of us is disrupted with abrupt and radical change. This unsettles the existing order as well as the individuals within it to the point where society’s order is thrown into question. If these sorts of changes are instituted on a regular basis, the existence of the society is put at risk. Our understanding of marriage, education, constitutionally protected rights and healthcare are under assault from a government that thinks it knows what is best.

The liberal establishment’s desire is rooted in a view of the world that defies reality. Liberals are the contemporary adherents to the principle of modernity that places man above nature and nature’s God; they assume that they and they alone can construct a society which leaves nothing to chance and can be planned according to their view of what is good. This is what can be termed the hubris of modernity. Positive law and institutions, according to this view, can overcome traditional constraints and the traditional order by simply instituting reforms. This view thinks of tradition as a hindrance rather than a constructive way of ordering society which limits the need for government intervention.

To counteract this liberal philosophy, one needs to embrace and understand the counterbalancing force of humility. Humility provides a block against the hubris of modernity. Through humility we recognize the limitations of human reason and individuality and come to embrace the wisdom of the traditional order as revealed through faith, family, and community.

My view of humility mirrors Erasumus’ worldview. Erasmus was a Dutch priest and scholar who was influential during the Reformation. Though Erasmus admitted humanity’s tendency to carnal corruption and lampooned its manifold foolishness, he still believed in the essential goodness of a human nature made in the image of God and in the human ability, with the help of grace, to come into harmony with the divine purposes evident in creation. The Hobbesian contractor (which is to say liberal modernity), on the other hand, had to impose order on a chaotic natural world. The desire for control and uniformity will bring us under greater constraint from a central government. Only our humility can prevent a shift in that direction.

In The Conservative Mind Russell Kirk wrote, “We ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched fragments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and appetite.” The U.S. is in dire need of conservatives who can articulate this idea both through rhetoric and policies. If such a voice cannot be found our politics risks losing its counterbalance to progressive reform.

From Dr. Scott’s blog – 4/2/13

SERIES: What Is Conservatism?

by Kyle Scott, The Conservative Professor

SERIES: What is Conservatism?

Articles from Dr. Scott’s blog

Forward by Robin Lennon

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for all citizen lobbyists, politicians desiring to become conservative statesmen, and all citizens considering running for office.

If we cannot articulate what Conservatism is, how can we say who is a Conservative, and who is a RINO? Knowing what conservativism is, and how to determine the conservative position on the myriad political and moral issues we as a Nation are currently faced with is foundational to all Patriots wishing to support limited govevernment and increased freedom.

Dr. Scott is currently writing and will subsequently present a series of classes that deal with the subject of defining conservatism so that we can look at current issues and know what the conservative answer is, and lobby our politicians to support that position. The conservative position is that which has developed over the millenia, rooted in an understanding of the fallible nature of man rather than a belief in the perfectibility of man as addressed by an elite which believes itself capable of legislating and regulating the People into a utopian society of their making.

Read Dr. Scott’s series as they are available, and join us in the Fall when he leads a seminar for us on Just what conservatism is, and how to evaluate the conservative position, as well as applying that knowledge to current issues of the day.

INTRO: Why We Need Conservatives

Part 1: What We Need for Victory in 2014 and Beyond, Part I

Part 2: What We Need for Victory in 2014 and Beyond, Part II

Part 3: Russell Kirk in Syria: Further considering what it means to be a conservative

PART 4: Russell Kirk in Syria: Further considering what it means to be a conservative

by Kyle Scott, The Conservative Professor

Part 4: Russell Kirk in Syria: Further Considering What It Means to Be a Conservative

From Dr. Scott’s blog

A statesman ought to be prudent as prudence is the fourth conservative principle provided by Russell Kirk. This is an area in which Edmund Burke and Plato agree as well; both place prudence as the first among the equal virtues to be possessed by a statesman. Prudence is simply the recognition of the complexity of problems and the need to take a measured assessment before acting. This principle may seem foreign to our world of instant everything, but it is a virtue worth reclaiming.

Kirk comments that, “[s]udden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.” It is oftentimes impossible, and almost always difficult, to roll back the effect of an imprudent action whether it be committing troops to war or creating a new bureaucratic apparatus. But consequentialist reasoning is by no means a sufficient basis on which to build philosophy. And Kirk does not rest his argument on consequentialist grounds. Kirk posits that human society is complex and the human mind’s capacity is limited. Thus, the human capacity to resolve all issues sufficiently well is improbable and doing so quickly is impossible. Kirk’s endorsement of prudence is grounded in the reality of the human condition.

Progressives want change immediately as they feel that progress comes from within the human rather than in a commitment to a thing greater than self. Progressives put faith in man. Once man is given the capacity, as progressives proclaim they have, to control his environment for the better there are no restraints on his actions. This is what Nietzsche meant when he wrote, “God is dead.” Within Enlightenment philosophy individuals were given full agency which meant they had to defer to no higher authority beyond their own will. Progressives are committed to the human mind and the products thereof without recognizing the limits we as people have. Prudence recognizes natural limits and asks us to act accordingly. Prudence runs contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment.

As we look to the situation in Syria we can apply what Kirk puts before us. First, there is no immediate threat to the U.S., its citizens, or its allies if we do not intervene in the Syrian civil war. Second, there is plenty in the historical record to show that limited military engagements are rarely successful at accomplishing their goal and rarely remain limited once they are begun. The use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians is appalling and we are all moved by the images, but we should be prudent and not allow emotions to take over our judgment. Obama must plead his case before Congress and the American people before moving forward with military action given the amount of lives and treasure that could be lost with an involvement in Syria. Once we have committed ourselves, it could take years to settle the matter if not longer.

Furthermore, we must meet with the Israelis and give them time to consider the options given that any retaliation by the Syrian government not directed at its own people will be directed at our closest ally in the region, and maybe even the world. There is no need to be hasty in this situation. There is no urgency for American involvement given that there is no American interest under direct threat. We can take time to deliberate and thus act prudently.

To say that we can predict the outcome of our potential involvement is an act of hubris. To take action in Syria is to assume the Syrian people, and the world in general, will be better off if the U.S. involves itself in the civil war. There is no way to know the answer to this question but committing troops is a commitment to the idea that we do know the answer. We owe it to our citizens, our troops and our allies to act prudently in this and all other scenarios. It is what a conservative would do.

PART 2: What we need for victory in 2014 and beyond

PART 2: What We NEED FOR victory in 2014 and Beyond

by Kyle Scott

From Dr. Scott’s blog.

Since 2012 there has been soul searching among Republicans about what went wrong and how we can win back the Senate and the White House as well as win local elections. What has been lacking is a serious discussion about what it means to be a conservative and thus what the Republican Party ought to stand for. No political strategy will be successful if we don’t have a solidified sense of self. If Republicans are to expand our sphere of influence, we must first decide what it is they mean by conservatism. It is not enough to talk about protecting the border, cutting taxes, and defunding Obamacare. Republicans must possess a core set of values and know why those values are conservative. Enough of the clichés!

On the national level Rand Paul and Chris Christie are exchanging barbs, and each has a different vision for the Republican Party and country. They also have different ideas of what it means to be a conservative. Republicans at all levels disagree among themselves about certain issues, such as whether Edward Snowden is a traitor or patriot. These disputes occur because there is not a clear, accepted definition of conservatism.

The effect of this lack of definition has deleterious effects on our governing as well since it frees up Republicans to act contrary to conservatism. Simply look at the grades given out by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and one will see that many Republicans serving in the Texas legislature are not beholden to principles of fiscal conservatism. Republicans in the House like Patricia Harless, Debbie Riddle, and Dan Huberty received failing grades, which indicates they voted against fiscal responsibility on a consistent basis. This is what happens when voters and representatives lack a sophisticated core—representatives can be easily pushed in the direction of big spending and away from conservative values. In order to demonstrate leadership and resist the temptation to go with the flow, an individual must know what he stands for and why.

There are innumerable definitions of conservatism and treatises on the topic. But a good place to start a sophisticated discussion of conservatism is Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles. They are as follows:

1. conservatives believe in an enduring moral order,
2. conservatives adhere to custom, convention, and continuity,
3. we believe in what may be called the principle of prescription—that is, of things established through immemorial usage,
4. we are guided by principles of prudence,
5. conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety,
6. we are chastened by our principle of imperfectability,
7. conservatives believe that freedom and property are closely linked
8. we uphold voluntary community and oppose involuntary collectivism,
9. the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions,
10. the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Over the next several posts, I will explore each of these principles and relate them to contemporary concerns while grounding them in a sophisticated exploration of what it means to be a conservative. I have taken up this task before in an earlier post and in a different context, but I think it is worthwhile to pursue the idea in more detail. Without a clear understanding of conservatism, there can be no Republican Party. Without a clear understanding of conservatism there won’t be a Republican Party worth having. We must understand who we are, what we stand for and why in order to win in the political arena and to make that victory matter. We must not be hasty but we must move swiftly.

Why the Left Hates Families by Melanie Phillips: British Lefty Turned Truth-Seeker

Read this entire MUST READ Article: Why the Left Hates Families

A former progressive says…

From Zelda West-Meads of the marriage guidance counsellors Relate, I learned that, though many single mothers did a heroic job, it was the absence of the father that did such terrible damage to their children. So I described how fathers were vital to the emotional health of children. 

Fatherless families were also at least partly responsible for a national breakdown in authority and rising levels of crime.

My view was backed in 1992 when three influential social scientists with impeccable Left-wing pedigrees produced a damning report.

From their research, they concluded that children in fractured families tend to suffer more ill-health, do less well at school, are more likely to be unemployed, more prone to criminal behaviour and to repeat as adults the same cycle of unstable parenting.

But instead of welcoming this analysis as identifying a real problem, the Left turned on the authors, branding them as evil Right-wingers for being ‘against single mothers’…

Having experienced how the absence of proper fathering could screw up a child for life, I believed I was doing no more than stating the obvious when I deplored the explosion of lone parenting, female-headed households and mass fatherlessness.

But, to my amazement, at The Guardian, I found that over this and many other issues, I was branded as reactionary, authoritarian and, of course, Right-wing. 

The result was social ostracism. One of the mentors I had looked up to — a thoughtful person, independent-minded and intellectually curious, or so I had thought — simply walked off rather than talk to me about these issues.

All this was very painful. I was accosted angrily by someone I had previously thought of as a friend. 

‘How can you possibly say that family breakdown hurts children?’ he spat out at me.

‘The worst damage to a child is always done by the traditional nuclear family!’

I could only gaze at him, defeated by the stupendous shallowness of such an attitude.

The ones who were the most aggressive and offended, I noticed, were those who had walked out on their families or were cheating on their spouses.[Emphasis added. –rhl] This revealed another sad truth about the Left. What matters to them above all is that they are seen to be virtuous and compassionate. They simply cannot deal with the possibility that they might not be. [Emphasis added. –rhl]

Read this entire MUST READ Article: Why the Left Hates Families

 

Understanding the Liberal-Conservative Divide through the Gun Debate

By KYLE SCOTT, UH professor & The Conservative Professor

The debate that has swept over the nation has now landed in the Lone Star State with the Texas legislature proposing laws that would decrease the restictions on firearms. The proposed measures would make it easier for students and faculty who legally own a registered firearm, and who hold the requisite license to carry a concealed handgun, to carry their weapon on college and university campuses in the state. At first blush this may seem like something new, but as we saw a few months ago at the North Harris campus of the Lone Star College System, students are already carrying firearms onto our campuses. All these new measures would do is to allow citizens who can legally own and carry firearms to protect themselves when the law fails to do so.

Read more →

Larry Elder Keynote Speech: Racism Isn’t a Problem Anymore

Must-see video – “Racism isn’t a problem anymore”: Larry Elder delivers Keynote address at David Horowitz Retreat. Well worth the time to listen to it all.

Senator-elect Ted Cruz: Why We Lost & Opportunity Conservatism

Senator-elect Ted Cruz says what I’ve wanted to say since the election, but much better than I ever could.