The Non-Existent Movement
I was looking through the website of Maxim Philippines (What? There were two girls on the cover. I got curious.) and I soon found out that the reason for the two-girl cover was that Maxim was being oh-so-fashionably, predictably "cutting edge" by putting out a "gay and lesbian" issue. (If I ever buy this edition, guess which half I'm cutting out and throwing away?) The main article was some sort of poorly conceived counterpoint wherein they have a bunch of whiny queens, led by the whiniest of them all in the persons of "Boy" Abunda and Danton Remoto, discuss gay issues inside a VIP Room in "Classmates", a stripper club chock full of semi-naked women. Get the irony? Gay guys in a girl strip joint! Bleh. (BTW, not even a token lesbian in that roundtable? What about the cover girls?)
I thought that, if Maxim's editor-in-chief had any imagination or balls, he'd set up a real counterpoint, wherein you have pro-gay rabble-rousers like Abunda and Remoto on one side, and a conservative response on the other side. You know, an actual dialogue. Such an exchange would be far more worth their readers' time than some masturbatory intellectual session conducted by serial masturbators.
While I was mulling that idea, I thought that if I were that editor, where in the country would I find that measured conservative response? One would think that I should look into the clergy first. But at the first of whiff of a guy with the title "Father", "Pastor" or "Reverend", people's brains and ears tend to automatically shut off. I blame both the utter ignorance of political culture in this country and the poor homilectic skill of most of our clergy. Besides, throwing Bible verses won't work in this setting, and regrettably, that's all most of our clergy can do. (If I can find the Fountain of Youth for Father de Torre, I'd be all good. That man is our Father Richard Neuhaus. Sheer genius.) What about the politicians? No dice. Nothing discredits a position faster than when it is defended by a Philippine politician. (Now that I think about it, Remoto should run for Congress!) What about crotchety old men whose old-school cultural reflexes jerk faster than an epileptic siezure? Nope. I want dialogue, not a shouting match. Besides, the gays scream louder. (How else can a minority with no substantial moral claims so utterly dominate?) So, the best option would be to turn to the Philippine conservative movement and find some nice, articulate and eloquent conservatives who can pose a strong intellectual and philosophical challenge to the pro-gay side. Then, it hit me. The Philippine conservative movement does not exist.
----
What is Conservatism?
What is a conservative? There are many answers to that, as there are many kinds of conservative, from
Johnny Ramone to
Winston Churchill. But, for all the variations, what all types of conservative have in common can be seen in the
ten principles laid out by the late, great Russell Kirk, the father of modern political conservatism. (These are expanded from his original six.) To wit:
1. The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
2. The conservative adheres to custom, convention and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention -- a word much abused in our time -- that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions -- why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.
3. Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of
prescription -- that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary.
4. Conservatives are guided by their principles of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity.
5. Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.
6. Conservatives are chastened by the principle of imperfectibility.
Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent -- or else expire of boredom.
7. Conservatives are persuaded the freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth.
8. Conservatives uphold voluntary community, as much as they oppose involuntary collectivism. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community.
9. Conservatives percieve the need for prudent restraints upon human power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one's fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy.
10. Conservatives understand that permanence and change must recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects.
Some of you may not recognize these principles as conservative, if only because Filipinos keep misreading what conservatism is. It is no particular slight upon Filipinos, for this misreading occurs widely in the West, especially in the wake of the Presidency of George W. Bush. (For a stark example of a Filipino misreading of what conservatism is, check this guy's
blog post out.) That is because people tend to confuse various potential conservative populations with the entirety of conservatism itself. This problem is quite persistent because conservatism, at its core, is emphatically NOT an ideology. There are ideologies that adopt parts of its principles, but it in itself is a negation of ideology. (See Principles 4, 5 and 6 for example.) In the US, ordinary people tend to think that Bush's "compassionate" neo-conservatism is all conservatism. In Europe, conservatism is confused with either the Aristocracy, Nationalism or "Christian" (as opposed to Social) Democracy. In the West's margins, such as the Philippines, people tend to think that Religion and Oligarchy are all that conservatism is.
---
Difficult Misreadings
In the Philippines, these misreadings of what conservatism is has resulted, ironically enough, in the stillbirth of conservatism in a supposedly conservative country. The most poignant and heart-rending of these misreadings is the one that conflates conservative ideas with Religion. This is so because conservatism does have a deep, special place in its heart for Religion. The Church is that bastion of tradition, that lion of the moral order, that synthesis of order and freedom, that beating heart of voluntary community that conservatives hold very dearly. Religion (at least, Christianity and Islam, in the Philippine experience) and conservatism are natural allies.
However, where conservatism and Religion are taken as one, conservatism is hampered by the same restrictions that hamper religion, when in fact, conservatism should provide the complementary thrust unburdened by Religion's limitations. Conservative principles are essentially secular in their articulation and application, and this secular character is what is supposed to distinguish conservatism from Religion.
In the Great Discussion, this secular character is conservatism's offering. These are principles which create arguments that do not rely on religious revelation or verification for their veracity, even as they align with religious conviction in their conclusions. As such, they can be articulated by anybody, from a priest to a bum with a laptop. They cannot be so easily dismissed by the "I am not a believer" assertion. As such, it must be distinguished from Religion, even where they take the same side. The conservative must take his place alongside Father / Pastor Bible-verse, and not under his shadow, for in the Philippines it is an unfortunate fact that most of our clergy cannot pull off what St. Thomas Aquinas did - reconcile religion and reason. As a conservative, I say that the Church here needs us, and needs us to be distinct. The best way for a Catholic to argue in the public sphere is as a conservative, not as a mystic or as a fundamentalist.
The other misreading is simply annoying. The conflation of conservatism with Oligarchy is a product of our colonial imagination. Our oligarchic elites are only conservative where it will bring votes and preserve their lands. I have yet to meet an actual conservative by conviction rather than convenience amongst our cynical ruling elite. A pox on all their houses.
----
The Philippines Needs a Conservative Movement
The Philippines has vocal nationalists, liberals, leftists and radicals. They mostly draw from the same tired and empty well of egalitarian and romantic idealism that should have died when Robbespierre faced the guillotine. The conversation has been so one-sided, that we have ceased the Great Discussion altogether and have turned politics into a high school gossip fest. Our elections are almost always about personalities and scandals, not about principles, policy and discourse. The Great Discussion needs to be revived, and it cannot be done when only Religion makes a vocal, credible argument on the other side. It needs to be revived, not only for the sake of those on the defensive end of the culture war, but on the side of the radicals as well, if only to force them to hone their arguments and re-imagine their moral and philosophical claims. (Or come up with one, in the case of Abunda, Remoto, et al.) There is more at stake here than dispelling the scandalous irony of a conservative country bereft of a conservative movement.
If it is to be born, a conservative movement needs vocal, public personalities. We need our own
Russell Kirk, our own
Father Richard Neuhaus, our own
William F. Buckley Jr. Heck, we need our own
Edmund Burke. The only prominent intellectuals in this country that I am aware of who can articulate conservative views in the public sphere quite eloquently and frequently are UA&P economists such as Dr. Jesus Estanislao and Dr. Bernardo VIllegas. If Kit Tatad were not so tainted by his enabling of Erap and Marcos, I'd have him up there too, but stained he remains. Those two men I mentioned are economists, so their sphere is quite distinct. Where are our other public conservative intellectuals? One of the great scandals of our own pro-life movement is that it lacks it's own
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, or even its own
Henry Hyde.
A conservative movement also needs its own publication. Where else can we combat the comfortable presumptions of the avant-garde, from the euphemisms of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star to the quaint simple-mindedness of Maxim Magazine? We need our own
National Review.
Most importantly, we have to disambiguate what a conservative is. I am conservative, and not a member of the ruling elite. My bloodline is as ordinary as a sari-sari store. I am conservative, and I am Catholic, yet am also the farthest example from the perfect Catholic as you will find. I think my opening sentences already implied that. Conservatives need to make clear that it takes in all types, and that we are unified by rational, time-honored principles and not by class or creed.
My blog posts are mostly about affairs well beyond Philippine borders, and not much on local affairs. This is so because it is abroad where the Great Discussion is taking place. I look forward to the day I post about the Great Discussion unfolding here. And if there ever arises a Filipino Russell Kirk, I would love to meet him. I'd love his signature on my forehead too.
Russell Kirk (1918-1994)
