One interesting example of the “slow down and figure out the reason for the fence” behavior, or more accurately, the lack of it, is crypto finance. The industry promised a revolution, and then it spent the last 15 years or so rediscovering why the laws and regulations for financial services are as complicated as they are.
It will be fascinating to see how Crypto plays out. Both the use case and the store of value case, neither of which I've understood. Those who have plunged in have so far done remarkably well.
I read the trilogy by William Forschten. I realize now that if we ever had a massive attack countrywide where we had chaos, I won't be in the second novel! I won't be the 0.0001% who lives. I am a bullet to the head person in the story. I guess I am more fatalistic in my knowing my ability to survive long-term (years of no electricity in this example). It's fiction, but not enough to imagine myself finding my true love and living on🤣
I've been camping since I was 10, due to the Girl Scouts. We scouting children even dragged our parents camping. My dad liked it because it saved money.
Later on, when I lived in NYC, I went camping with some friends who lived in the Stuyvesant town development on East 14th Street. Their toddler son's feet had never touched grass. Consequently, he spent the whole weekend on the picnic table avoiding contact with dirt.
Later on, he became an army ranger in Afghanistan, so his attitude toward the natural world did evolve.
I second this, Michelle. I like the thought. Let's start sending David Roberts out on assignments of our choosing. He's such a nice guy he would never refuse.
He IS a nice guy. And it would truly be interesting to read about the experiences of a wealthy person navigating a camping trip, but I would not want to pressure him.
Since I'm 100% Ashkenazi Jewish I guess that I come from a long line of Jewish peasants who would find it very strange that I have to keep up my strength through exercise, some of which I pay for.
Do you feel like being an Ashkenazi Jew informs your perspective on stewardship? It seems as if the Jewish culture (generalizing here) reveres upholding tradition and doesn't have as hard of a time upholding what other cultures might see as restrictive?
I do since it's both part of my identity and miraculous that the Jewish religion has survived so long. So i'm aware that it's only survived because traditions/identity were passed down by enough Jews to their children.
And due to sexism and patriarchy in Confucianism, it’ll take more research than a PhD does for their dissertation to find every single family member going back several thousand years. I know my dad’s line however, but only back 200 years. I think the OG kinship book was destroyed.
Genealogy for ordinary people began with the Catholic practice of keeping baptismal registries for all births including parents' names, God's parents names, and child's name. This began before the Protestant Reformation, because all Protestant churches that retained infant baptism continued the practice. However, many of these records have been destroyed in wars. England is in good shape in this regard because it hasn't had a successful foreign invasion since the Normans in 1066.
However, the minute a family moves from its ancestral location, the chain is broken. There are many European genealogy clubs and professional genealogists who work hard on these issues. But if the records aren't there or have been destroyed, not even a PHD can reconstruct the past.
I read part of it and read reviews of it. I found the theory of the Church's change in marriage between cousins as a significant factor in the destruction of the clan and the rise of individualism to be compelling.
I am not even sure what to say and maybe that is a good thing. Sort of mulling it over. I would say the degradation of our borders may feel like a more "conservative" or "nuanced" situation if we use your term. It could also feel nihilistic. So might there be room for a more sharp course correction that I am comfortable with? Yes. I know there is nuance is our border crossers and I also think there are criminals and multiple deportees who I will be happy if they aren't living in my close by neighborhood. In my experience, the erosion of tradition with men in women's sports is another place I am not certain nuance or conservative efforts serve. I believe if men had stood next to women with a hell no at the beginning (stopping a "revolution"?) maybe we wouldn't need a sharp course correction. Women attempted to stand up but even our male decision makers allowed this to occur. My heart goes out to the families whose daughters or wives said but [insert male family here] if you or I say anything, I will be [insert consequence here that felt more scary than men in women's locker rooms]. I also think our family experience shapes our tolerance to change. Some of us need more stability to make us comfortable, others want the wrong to be addressed. I consider my own family upbringing of emotional neglect in my view of the world and how I can tolerate discomfort. Some days and some ideas are easier than others. And as far as ideas like DOGE, I am more okay than not. As a healthcare worker and business owner who hasn't seen a substantial change in reimbursement in the positive, who lives under the threat of fraud investigation everyday, I am happy they are opening the hood and looking at their own engine. I hope we can all agree the boat needs a dose or two of Ozempic. I took am comfortable with a more nihilistic approach. There is no way the government of d would ever undertake real lifestyle change, diet and exercise. Overall, I look forward to this sea change. PS I also support changes in our VAERS system, NIH funding and mandates on our bodies for employment. Again, maybe not conservative views as defined here. But again, some systems need better processes. Knowing that most of childhood vaccines are tested not to a true saline placebo, but to another vaccine that could have harm, means we have been duped. So I hope we could be open to better research that could indicate the potential harm, or not. So again I am good with change.
You and I can agree to disagree on much of your comment. To highlight one area of disagreement, I am very concerned that vaccine uptake will decline and that America will become a lot sicker and many more people will die unnecessarily. That happened with vaccine skepticism during Covid. I'm not placing you in this group, but it's the poor who are particularly at risk because they often lack access to vaccines and lack education.
The irony is that Vance and Musk talk about needing more babies (to be future worker bees) but refuse to protect the ones who are here already. No lifesaving vaccines, at risk of being shot in school... just have more to replace the ones that are not strong enough to survive, I guess (while their children are protected with the b best that money can buy). Pro life? It depends...
I will report my experience, so it's not NYT reported, so take it as one person's experience. I had many patients who seemed to decline after covid vaccination. I won't tell you the nearly 100 examples of anecdotal evidence. And the thing about covid vaccination, it doesn't stop transmission. So get the vaccine and still get covid. And the argument is that it reduces serious illness. There hasn't been enough research to actually say that with more than marketing line of proof. Also have you read the body of work that showed those healthcare workers who were vaccinated were more likely to get covid than those who were not or less vaccinated. I agree with many that if we improve nutrition, our exposure to toxicity and I prove our social connection, we could probably handle covid naturally. As a person who believes in mind body medicine, the way our society is isolated more and more, it's probably the number one health crisis facing all of us. We could do a lot for our health and lockdowns and fear about a virus isn't helpful. And let's recall (and maybe from this post ongoing) people demonized those who chose not to take a vaccine. I worked 5 days a week wearing a mask for two years. My clinic never had a single case of covid. People cared, even those like me, who didn't choose vaccination. It's actually a topic of nuance, like abortion is a topic of nuance. My body, my choice seems to have become a mantra that can be used and attached to one argument but not the other. It's good to have the conversations so we can find out common humanity. The amount of things I did in my business for the safety of others was important. And it worked. And it wasn't fun or easy.
I have read the country wide data studies on the connection between mortality and vaccination and unless all these countries are in some sort of conspiracy, the data is dispositive.
I'm glad you took good care of yourself and your patients.
I always love your work David! When I was a union organizer for twenty years my more lefty friends would say, “Big labor is not revolutionary,” to me as a put down , but I would agree. My colleagues and I used to chant in a somewhat joking manner, “What do we want? Incremental change! When do we want it? Gradually!” We understood that people become psychologically unhinged when change is too fast. I see this in the poor urban children I teach. This year I am substituting again - have done both full time and subbed - and I try to maintain as much consistency as possible. The poor have very little structure and will embrace dysfunction if it’s routine. I worry about erosion or destruction of the social safety net because people will do irrational things if there is a disruption in their basic needs being fulfilled. Change is needed but not so fast it pulls the rug out.
Unions are a great example of incremental change. A raise here, a benefit there, safety condition requirements, it's all unfolded over many decades. Right now we're seeing a lot of incipient instability.
I welcome the nuanced in politics – not enough of that about!
Your thoughts on stewardship reminded me that when I lived in London I learned how many of its wonderful public parks had come about because of philanthropists in the industrial age realising that we (and nature) need our open spaces. The prospect of nihilism is the opposite of that approach, and I can see why it's making you feel seasick. (I'll keep Fruit Loops off my shopping list!)
Thanks for this well researched essay. I was a little surprised by the title since I never considered you a conservative, based on the political views you share in your Substack… but upon reading, I understand your thesis. Which is why I think labeling ourselves is sometimes detrimental. I call myself a moderating conservative, but what does that mean in today’s world? Anyway, appreciate the time and effort you put into this one. Very interesting and educational. You seem to be a history buff!
There is a principle in economics (having a hard time finding the academic name for it) that all change comes with a cost. Not only is there the possibility that the proposed change may actually worsen things, but there's also an enormous effort in getting everyone on the new page.
This concept is also found in the biology of life— DNA is conservative. We have within us more DNA that is no longer active (it was active millions of years ago) than we have of DNA that is presently active. Also, most mutations do not increase the fitness of the species.
Indeed, the most energy efficient way of changing society is through individual adoption. Perhaps even more efficient is allowing the individual to choose their own “influencers.”
Not exactly. This is an economic principle that says that novelty is always more effortful than the status quo so there is a strong economic reason for preferring the status quo. Most new businesses fail— only a few create something new.
I loved The Stand as well back in my early 20’s. I sometimes go back and re-read books that had an impact when I was younger to see if they’ve stood the test of time. The Stand does not. Not sure why. I enjoyed it the second time, it just wasn’t as good as I remembered it. Contrast with Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita which was waaaaaay better than I remembered it the second time around.
I’m a restorationist myself. As in anything that helps restore our nation to its constitutional republic roots, I’m for it. Our forefathers wrote an amazing, elegant and simple document that does stand the test of time if people would stop trying to destroy it. They knew that by nature, man was petty, avaricious and ambitious, and created a template to protect against such base impulses.
You know who’s been trying to do end arounds our constitution for over 100 years? Progressives. True progressives, not virtue signaling rubes, hate our constitution. It’s the only thing standing in the way of, er, progress.
Anybody that doubts this, I invite you to do your own homework.
I'll disagree with you on progressives hating our constitution. The OG progressives were Abolitionists. The Civll Rights movement was the result of political progressivism. Checks on capitalism from antimonopoly laws to employer safety standards were all the results of progressivism. The remarkable increase in the quality of the air we breathe is thanks to the EPA, which was a progressive project. Seatbelts were progressive. As was restricting the freedom to drive drunk.
Has there been progressive overreach at times? Of course. It'd be silly of me to deny that, but the overall record has improved all our lives.
As you know I feel the Constitution is being tested by the current administration. So you and I have very different views on both the historical record and the current state of play.
But I welcome your comments and your dissent from what I write..
The OG progressives were on to something. It was an organic movement and good came from it. They just didn’t know when to stop. They created the nanny state. That was not our FF’s intent. I do not want to live in a nanny state. Trump and Musk are taking a sledge hammer to it. Bravo!
And I’ll push back on your assertion that progressives don’t hate our constitution. All one needs to acknowledge are the countless instances of judicial activism instigated by progressives. Separately but related, do you really think the 5 separate legal actions brought against Trump would have occurred had he not been running for office? Be honest.
C.S. Lewis said it best: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I did. If they wantonly shoved $20 billion out the door to intermediaries without specific plans in place to use it, then that money should be returned. It seems as if that should be illegal or at the very least improper.
Those who love change tend to think that every idea that pops into their head is a winner that should be implemented by everyone immediately.
Old fashioned conservatives like Burke tend to recognize limitations to resources and power. Those who favored taxation of the colonies saw only the money, and possibly plenty of it. Burke saw that Britain did not have the resources to impose such a drastic change on its American colonies.
That's why traditional conservatives know that Trump and Musk are not conservatives.
"Those who love change tend to think that every idea that pops into their head is a winner that should be implemented by everyone immediately." Those who hate change tend to think that way too. Meaning everyone. And they are all wrong. It's my ideas that are winners.
As usual you have made interesting and insightful comments. So many things to say in response! But I will keep it limited. Seems to me your comments are an indirect reference to Trump and his accelerated agenda of change. I remain indifferent to Trump but in some ways in the US social context, HE is the conservative, simply restoring conventional order to a society shaken by Democrat and other progressive radicals over the past decade.
Like you I am a conservative in some senses, and like you I don't appreciate radical change, most of the time. And I don't appreciate change just for the sake of change.
One thing that only really occurred to me in the past decade is how the Left is ALWAYS pushing for change (whether or not it makes any sense) and this truth is reinforced by their rebranding (or at least reviving) the mantle of 'progressive', implying change and always forward movement. Whether or not that 'progress' meaning walking off a cliff seems to never occur to them as possibility, hence the real value of Chesterton and his fence. Progress also implies that there is some end state (mostly Marxism) where are supposed to end up, an idea I find repellent.
So with a perennial cohort in society constantly pushing for change (and in many cases pushing genuinely stupid ideas) anyone who questions or resists their proposals is attacked as 'right-wing' or 'conservative' and somehow this is now viewed broadly as bad. This is a problem. Preventing stupid ideas being implemented is never bad.
But in general terms I really consider myself a centrist, because as an inventor, innovator and artist by nature, I am in some sense, extremely progressive. So from a lifestyle point of view I am somewhat conservative and rational and by my internal creative life I am an artist.
I'll copy my answer to Jrod below but I'd point out that progressive overreach in certain areas in the recent past is real but to me it's a footnote in a long history of gradual improvement.
"I'll disagree with you on progressives hating our constitution. The OG progressives were Abolitionists. The Civll Rights movement was the result of political progressivism. Checks on capitalism from antimonopoly laws to employer safety standards were all the results of progressivism. The remarkable increase in the quality of the air we breathe is thanks to the EPA, which was a progressive project. Seatbelts were progressive. As was restricting the freedom to drive drunk.
Has there been progressive overreach at times? Of course. It'd be silly of me to deny that, but the overall record has improved all our lives.
As you know I feel the Constitution is being tested by the current administration. So you and I have very different views on both the historical record and the current state of play.
But I welcome your comments and your dissent from what I write."
Yeah ok. I wont disagree and do think things have broadly improved in North American society over the centuries/decades. But if that is true, then it means genuine problems have been solved. And if you believe in Human Nature (and built-in human proclivities, weaknesses and imperfectability - although many progressives don't) then there is probably some state of civilization that is about as good as it can get, practically speaking. I suspect we are close to that in the West now. Which means that there are many more cliffs than there used to be, and more Chesterton Fences required. Yet the progressives, by their very nature, never stop pushing. There really is nothing new under the sun, and I expect all civilizations eventually fall because the progressives go over one too may cliffs in their pursuit of a non-existent perfection.
Trump, Vance, Musk are all nihilists. They want to burn it all down... after they get theirs. The meme of 'leopards eating faces' is all over Twitter now, with teachers in the South, having voted for Trump, being surprised that their schools are at risk of losing Federal funding (it's the kids who suffer, of course). It's Musk trying to cuts costs, without damaging his own government contracts. It's Vance telling the EU to F themselves and Trump giving away bargaining chips to Putin for nothing in return. It's Apple and Google using Gulf of America.
The commenter who said sometimes you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater is a nihilist and I hope has no children.
I do get the sense a significant part of the Trump/Musk "project" is driven by an adolescent glee at destroying things.
I remember being at a dinner with a conservative couple in 2015 soon after Trump announced. And the husband chortled and said something to the effect that Trump was exactly what the liberals deserved as if Trump's main utility was to being discomfort to liberals. I don't think we can discount that desire to burn things down.
As a neurodivergent person, sudden change doesn’t come easy for me. And as someone whose family has its traditions and belief systems, being told that what you’re doing is wrong and, and at worst, stupid/classist/whatever feels shameful, especially if it’s part of who you are. You openly talk about generational wealth openly. But as a first generation inheriter (this isn’t even a real word, judging from the red squiggly I’m seeing as I type), I find very few places where I can talk about it openly since I worry about shame.
I just read an article in Business Insider about a group of young people that is all about giving their money away. I'm not saying you need to do so, but if you can find the group you might be able to speak freely among it's members.
You're a conservative, for sure -- an honorable outlook with a worthy purpose and articulate forebears, Burke included. The present bunch are anarchists, revolutionaries without a plan, thieving thugs insensible to the common good. For sure they are NOT conservatives. I like to think of myself as a conservative liberal -- or liberal conservative -- a proponent, in either case, of the common good. Thanks for this.
I’m horrified by “move fast and break things,” especially for a country. However, I think it’s fair to say it makes more sense to think things are not so bad and should be changed slowly if you’re occupying a more comfortable and privileged place. If you are suffering, you must be forgiven for wanting fast relief.
I agree. As a woman, these days I’m a radical. I deserve the right to make my own decisions about what to do with my body and my life. Abortion restrictions clearly tell me that others think I’m too stupid to do so. Likewise, I want young women to have the opportunity I did to carve out a career in a field of men and earn respect not for being the exception to their boys club, but for the work I did. And your position that slow change is the best change flies in the face f history: slavery, women’s full participation in the world, and dire poverty are the result of: go slow! Change will come if you’re patient. Bullshit. This world is fair and generous to people who already have their hands full. Not to those who have to struggle for every crumb. And some of the fatuous remarks in these comments frankly shock me at their complacency and sneering superiority. Y’all got yours, now don’t look at the people who you KNOW NEED HELP. I hope the revolution comes.
In a prior draft I included the overturning of Roe as an example of NOT respecting tradition, flouting stare decisis for no good reason other than we had different justices with different views.
As for a revolution, I think we are fighting against a revolution in political and constitutional norms that if not defeated will set back women's rights, civil rights, and economic inequality.
For my part, I do look at the people who need help and am involved in helping them through a number of wonderful grassroots organizations. It's part of my privilege to be able to do so although I would feel immoral if I did not.
Thanks for the comment. There's quite a wide range of viewpoints expressed so far. And I appreciate your stance.
I agree with you, David. Not only can we see Roe as a tradition to conserve, but I think we can also see bodily sovereignty as both a liberal (Enlightenment) value and a conservative one. Pro-choice women and men are stewards and conservators of whatever is loving, thoughtful, and respectful of self and others.
That's fair Michelle. And certainly many people who voted for Trump were hoping for fast relief because they needed it. As you've written expensively, they will almost certainly be disappointed. But to blame them does seem churlish.
The really astounding thing is that Trump voters usually want almost exactly the same things everyone else wants — to be able to live a good life, to do interesting and useful work that’s paid fairly, to live in a safe and free society, to be able to take care of our families — but we cannot agree on how to get there. I think they’re trying to put out society’s fires with buckets of gasoline and I’m screaming we need water.
Haha - I'm trying to plot myself on this axis. I consider myself both liberal and conservative because I take both words etymologically. (So I think most people are actually both.) And I want the world governed by my preferences STAT. So I'm near the middle of one axis and flying to the moon with blazing speed on the other. Is that possible? Fast change to include a little of everything? This is fun to ponder. 😂
One interesting example of the “slow down and figure out the reason for the fence” behavior, or more accurately, the lack of it, is crypto finance. The industry promised a revolution, and then it spent the last 15 years or so rediscovering why the laws and regulations for financial services are as complicated as they are.
It will be fascinating to see how Crypto plays out. Both the use case and the store of value case, neither of which I've understood. Those who have plunged in have so far done remarkably well.
>>Reading an apocalyptic book, you always imagine yourself as one of the .0001% survivors.
Believing in reincarnation, you always imagine yourself as an ancient Egyptian Princess.
Due to a quirk of European religious history, I know my Weber ancestors back to the 1500s. Its peasants all the way down.
I read the trilogy by William Forschten. I realize now that if we ever had a massive attack countrywide where we had chaos, I won't be in the second novel! I won't be the 0.0001% who lives. I am a bullet to the head person in the story. I guess I am more fatalistic in my knowing my ability to survive long-term (years of no electricity in this example). It's fiction, but not enough to imagine myself finding my true love and living on🤣
I would be the same, Kton. I've never even gone camping. Ever.
I've been camping since I was 10, due to the Girl Scouts. We scouting children even dragged our parents camping. My dad liked it because it saved money.
Later on, when I lived in NYC, I went camping with some friends who lived in the Stuyvesant town development on East 14th Street. Their toddler son's feet had never touched grass. Consequently, he spent the whole weekend on the picnic table avoiding contact with dirt.
Later on, he became an army ranger in Afghanistan, so his attitude toward the natural world did evolve.
Oh, you should go, and then write about it! That would be a truly fascinating exercise.
I second this, Michelle. I like the thought. Let's start sending David Roberts out on assignments of our choosing. He's such a nice guy he would never refuse.
He IS a nice guy. And it would truly be interesting to read about the experiences of a wealthy person navigating a camping trip, but I would not want to pressure him.
You mean like real camp, in a tent? Or any kind of camp? Your parents didn’t send you to sleep away when you were a kid?
What? With Central Park right across the street?
I went camping once and it was really roughing it. No port-a-potty. No glamping. Never again!
Since I'm 100% Ashkenazi Jewish I guess that I come from a long line of Jewish peasants who would find it very strange that I have to keep up my strength through exercise, some of which I pay for.
Do you feel like being an Ashkenazi Jew informs your perspective on stewardship? It seems as if the Jewish culture (generalizing here) reveres upholding tradition and doesn't have as hard of a time upholding what other cultures might see as restrictive?
I do since it's both part of my identity and miraculous that the Jewish religion has survived so long. So i'm aware that it's only survived because traditions/identity were passed down by enough Jews to their children.
And due to sexism and patriarchy in Confucianism, it’ll take more research than a PhD does for their dissertation to find every single family member going back several thousand years. I know my dad’s line however, but only back 200 years. I think the OG kinship book was destroyed.
Genealogy for ordinary people began with the Catholic practice of keeping baptismal registries for all births including parents' names, God's parents names, and child's name. This began before the Protestant Reformation, because all Protestant churches that retained infant baptism continued the practice. However, many of these records have been destroyed in wars. England is in good shape in this regard because it hasn't had a successful foreign invasion since the Normans in 1066.
However, the minute a family moves from its ancestral location, the chain is broken. There are many European genealogy clubs and professional genealogists who work hard on these issues. But if the records aren't there or have been destroyed, not even a PHD can reconstruct the past.
Really interesting. i've seen abstracts of multi-century studies about socioeconomic mobility or lack thereof based on English records.
It’s remarkable how much Catholicism shaped the world, even for non-Catholics, and way beyond the things we see. Did you read Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World? https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-how-the-west-became-psychologically-peculiar-and-particularly-prosperous_joseph-henrich/26726468/item/44183051/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_scarce_%2410_%2450_17400876848&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADwY45iFAFcgAWFYcbY9czjunEKTA&gclid=CjwKCAiAk8G9BhA0EiwAOQxmfoFAm2xyvDBC9Bz4z5KWpkdj5NNeFP9Foenb449yzwtysLYPabhZyhoCgjEQAvD_BwE#idiq=44183051&edition=23335317
I found it on Internet archive for free. https://archive.org/details/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-how-the-west-became-psychologically-peculiar
I shall read it. thanks.
It’s one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read.
I read part of it and read reviews of it. I found the theory of the Church's change in marriage between cousins as a significant factor in the destruction of the clan and the rise of individualism to be compelling.
Shouldn't that be: "peasants all the way up?"
I am not even sure what to say and maybe that is a good thing. Sort of mulling it over. I would say the degradation of our borders may feel like a more "conservative" or "nuanced" situation if we use your term. It could also feel nihilistic. So might there be room for a more sharp course correction that I am comfortable with? Yes. I know there is nuance is our border crossers and I also think there are criminals and multiple deportees who I will be happy if they aren't living in my close by neighborhood. In my experience, the erosion of tradition with men in women's sports is another place I am not certain nuance or conservative efforts serve. I believe if men had stood next to women with a hell no at the beginning (stopping a "revolution"?) maybe we wouldn't need a sharp course correction. Women attempted to stand up but even our male decision makers allowed this to occur. My heart goes out to the families whose daughters or wives said but [insert male family here] if you or I say anything, I will be [insert consequence here that felt more scary than men in women's locker rooms]. I also think our family experience shapes our tolerance to change. Some of us need more stability to make us comfortable, others want the wrong to be addressed. I consider my own family upbringing of emotional neglect in my view of the world and how I can tolerate discomfort. Some days and some ideas are easier than others. And as far as ideas like DOGE, I am more okay than not. As a healthcare worker and business owner who hasn't seen a substantial change in reimbursement in the positive, who lives under the threat of fraud investigation everyday, I am happy they are opening the hood and looking at their own engine. I hope we can all agree the boat needs a dose or two of Ozempic. I took am comfortable with a more nihilistic approach. There is no way the government of d would ever undertake real lifestyle change, diet and exercise. Overall, I look forward to this sea change. PS I also support changes in our VAERS system, NIH funding and mandates on our bodies for employment. Again, maybe not conservative views as defined here. But again, some systems need better processes. Knowing that most of childhood vaccines are tested not to a true saline placebo, but to another vaccine that could have harm, means we have been duped. So I hope we could be open to better research that could indicate the potential harm, or not. So again I am good with change.
You and I can agree to disagree on much of your comment. To highlight one area of disagreement, I am very concerned that vaccine uptake will decline and that America will become a lot sicker and many more people will die unnecessarily. That happened with vaccine skepticism during Covid. I'm not placing you in this group, but it's the poor who are particularly at risk because they often lack access to vaccines and lack education.
The irony is that Vance and Musk talk about needing more babies (to be future worker bees) but refuse to protect the ones who are here already. No lifesaving vaccines, at risk of being shot in school... just have more to replace the ones that are not strong enough to survive, I guess (while their children are protected with the b best that money can buy). Pro life? It depends...
I will report my experience, so it's not NYT reported, so take it as one person's experience. I had many patients who seemed to decline after covid vaccination. I won't tell you the nearly 100 examples of anecdotal evidence. And the thing about covid vaccination, it doesn't stop transmission. So get the vaccine and still get covid. And the argument is that it reduces serious illness. There hasn't been enough research to actually say that with more than marketing line of proof. Also have you read the body of work that showed those healthcare workers who were vaccinated were more likely to get covid than those who were not or less vaccinated. I agree with many that if we improve nutrition, our exposure to toxicity and I prove our social connection, we could probably handle covid naturally. As a person who believes in mind body medicine, the way our society is isolated more and more, it's probably the number one health crisis facing all of us. We could do a lot for our health and lockdowns and fear about a virus isn't helpful. And let's recall (and maybe from this post ongoing) people demonized those who chose not to take a vaccine. I worked 5 days a week wearing a mask for two years. My clinic never had a single case of covid. People cared, even those like me, who didn't choose vaccination. It's actually a topic of nuance, like abortion is a topic of nuance. My body, my choice seems to have become a mantra that can be used and attached to one argument but not the other. It's good to have the conversations so we can find out common humanity. The amount of things I did in my business for the safety of others was important. And it worked. And it wasn't fun or easy.
I have read the country wide data studies on the connection between mortality and vaccination and unless all these countries are in some sort of conspiracy, the data is dispositive.
I'm glad you took good care of yourself and your patients.
I always love your work David! When I was a union organizer for twenty years my more lefty friends would say, “Big labor is not revolutionary,” to me as a put down , but I would agree. My colleagues and I used to chant in a somewhat joking manner, “What do we want? Incremental change! When do we want it? Gradually!” We understood that people become psychologically unhinged when change is too fast. I see this in the poor urban children I teach. This year I am substituting again - have done both full time and subbed - and I try to maintain as much consistency as possible. The poor have very little structure and will embrace dysfunction if it’s routine. I worry about erosion or destruction of the social safety net because people will do irrational things if there is a disruption in their basic needs being fulfilled. Change is needed but not so fast it pulls the rug out.
Hi April,
Unions are a great example of incremental change. A raise here, a benefit there, safety condition requirements, it's all unfolded over many decades. Right now we're seeing a lot of incipient instability.
You have my vote, Mr. Nuance. Great piece.
I welcome the nuanced in politics – not enough of that about!
Your thoughts on stewardship reminded me that when I lived in London I learned how many of its wonderful public parks had come about because of philanthropists in the industrial age realising that we (and nature) need our open spaces. The prospect of nihilism is the opposite of that approach, and I can see why it's making you feel seasick. (I'll keep Fruit Loops off my shopping list!)
Thanks Wendy for the comment.
Thanks for this well researched essay. I was a little surprised by the title since I never considered you a conservative, based on the political views you share in your Substack… but upon reading, I understand your thesis. Which is why I think labeling ourselves is sometimes detrimental. I call myself a moderating conservative, but what does that mean in today’s world? Anyway, appreciate the time and effort you put into this one. Very interesting and educational. You seem to be a history buff!
Thanks Midlife. I've always loved history.
I am liking it more, the older I get.
Nice! The older we get, the more history there is.
There is a principle in economics (having a hard time finding the academic name for it) that all change comes with a cost. Not only is there the possibility that the proposed change may actually worsen things, but there's also an enormous effort in getting everyone on the new page.
This concept is also found in the biology of life— DNA is conservative. We have within us more DNA that is no longer active (it was active millions of years ago) than we have of DNA that is presently active. Also, most mutations do not increase the fitness of the species.
Indeed, the most energy efficient way of changing society is through individual adoption. Perhaps even more efficient is allowing the individual to choose their own “influencers.”
“Creative destruction”
Not exactly. This is an economic principle that says that novelty is always more effortful than the status quo so there is a strong economic reason for preferring the status quo. Most new businesses fail— only a few create something new.
Never knew that about DNA but it makes sense. Thanks Kathleen.
I loved The Stand as well back in my early 20’s. I sometimes go back and re-read books that had an impact when I was younger to see if they’ve stood the test of time. The Stand does not. Not sure why. I enjoyed it the second time, it just wasn’t as good as I remembered it. Contrast with Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita which was waaaaaay better than I remembered it the second time around.
I’m a restorationist myself. As in anything that helps restore our nation to its constitutional republic roots, I’m for it. Our forefathers wrote an amazing, elegant and simple document that does stand the test of time if people would stop trying to destroy it. They knew that by nature, man was petty, avaricious and ambitious, and created a template to protect against such base impulses.
You know who’s been trying to do end arounds our constitution for over 100 years? Progressives. True progressives, not virtue signaling rubes, hate our constitution. It’s the only thing standing in the way of, er, progress.
Anybody that doubts this, I invite you to do your own homework.
I'll disagree with you on progressives hating our constitution. The OG progressives were Abolitionists. The Civll Rights movement was the result of political progressivism. Checks on capitalism from antimonopoly laws to employer safety standards were all the results of progressivism. The remarkable increase in the quality of the air we breathe is thanks to the EPA, which was a progressive project. Seatbelts were progressive. As was restricting the freedom to drive drunk.
Has there been progressive overreach at times? Of course. It'd be silly of me to deny that, but the overall record has improved all our lives.
As you know I feel the Constitution is being tested by the current administration. So you and I have very different views on both the historical record and the current state of play.
But I welcome your comments and your dissent from what I write..
The OG progressives were on to something. It was an organic movement and good came from it. They just didn’t know when to stop. They created the nanny state. That was not our FF’s intent. I do not want to live in a nanny state. Trump and Musk are taking a sledge hammer to it. Bravo!
And I’ll push back on your assertion that progressives don’t hate our constitution. All one needs to acknowledge are the countless instances of judicial activism instigated by progressives. Separately but related, do you really think the 5 separate legal actions brought against Trump would have occurred had he not been running for office? Be honest.
C.S. Lewis said it best: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Progressive tyranny. I’ll pass.
I’m revisiting this because ironically, you mentioned the EPA. Did you catch Zedlin’s comments on the $20bil caper they’re involved in? https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/the-epas-incredible-20-billion-dollar?r=5xhjb&utm_medium=ios
I did. If they wantonly shoved $20 billion out the door to intermediaries without specific plans in place to use it, then that money should be returned. It seems as if that should be illegal or at the very least improper.
Those who love change tend to think that every idea that pops into their head is a winner that should be implemented by everyone immediately.
Old fashioned conservatives like Burke tend to recognize limitations to resources and power. Those who favored taxation of the colonies saw only the money, and possibly plenty of it. Burke saw that Britain did not have the resources to impose such a drastic change on its American colonies.
That's why traditional conservatives know that Trump and Musk are not conservatives.
"Those who love change tend to think that every idea that pops into their head is a winner that should be implemented by everyone immediately." Those who hate change tend to think that way too. Meaning everyone. And they are all wrong. It's my ideas that are winners.
As usual you have made interesting and insightful comments. So many things to say in response! But I will keep it limited. Seems to me your comments are an indirect reference to Trump and his accelerated agenda of change. I remain indifferent to Trump but in some ways in the US social context, HE is the conservative, simply restoring conventional order to a society shaken by Democrat and other progressive radicals over the past decade.
Like you I am a conservative in some senses, and like you I don't appreciate radical change, most of the time. And I don't appreciate change just for the sake of change.
One thing that only really occurred to me in the past decade is how the Left is ALWAYS pushing for change (whether or not it makes any sense) and this truth is reinforced by their rebranding (or at least reviving) the mantle of 'progressive', implying change and always forward movement. Whether or not that 'progress' meaning walking off a cliff seems to never occur to them as possibility, hence the real value of Chesterton and his fence. Progress also implies that there is some end state (mostly Marxism) where are supposed to end up, an idea I find repellent.
So with a perennial cohort in society constantly pushing for change (and in many cases pushing genuinely stupid ideas) anyone who questions or resists their proposals is attacked as 'right-wing' or 'conservative' and somehow this is now viewed broadly as bad. This is a problem. Preventing stupid ideas being implemented is never bad.
But in general terms I really consider myself a centrist, because as an inventor, innovator and artist by nature, I am in some sense, extremely progressive. So from a lifestyle point of view I am somewhat conservative and rational and by my internal creative life I am an artist.
I'll copy my answer to Jrod below but I'd point out that progressive overreach in certain areas in the recent past is real but to me it's a footnote in a long history of gradual improvement.
"I'll disagree with you on progressives hating our constitution. The OG progressives were Abolitionists. The Civll Rights movement was the result of political progressivism. Checks on capitalism from antimonopoly laws to employer safety standards were all the results of progressivism. The remarkable increase in the quality of the air we breathe is thanks to the EPA, which was a progressive project. Seatbelts were progressive. As was restricting the freedom to drive drunk.
Has there been progressive overreach at times? Of course. It'd be silly of me to deny that, but the overall record has improved all our lives.
As you know I feel the Constitution is being tested by the current administration. So you and I have very different views on both the historical record and the current state of play.
But I welcome your comments and your dissent from what I write."
Yeah ok. I wont disagree and do think things have broadly improved in North American society over the centuries/decades. But if that is true, then it means genuine problems have been solved. And if you believe in Human Nature (and built-in human proclivities, weaknesses and imperfectability - although many progressives don't) then there is probably some state of civilization that is about as good as it can get, practically speaking. I suspect we are close to that in the West now. Which means that there are many more cliffs than there used to be, and more Chesterton Fences required. Yet the progressives, by their very nature, never stop pushing. There really is nothing new under the sun, and I expect all civilizations eventually fall because the progressives go over one too may cliffs in their pursuit of a non-existent perfection.
Trump, Vance, Musk are all nihilists. They want to burn it all down... after they get theirs. The meme of 'leopards eating faces' is all over Twitter now, with teachers in the South, having voted for Trump, being surprised that their schools are at risk of losing Federal funding (it's the kids who suffer, of course). It's Musk trying to cuts costs, without damaging his own government contracts. It's Vance telling the EU to F themselves and Trump giving away bargaining chips to Putin for nothing in return. It's Apple and Google using Gulf of America.
The commenter who said sometimes you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater is a nihilist and I hope has no children.
I do get the sense a significant part of the Trump/Musk "project" is driven by an adolescent glee at destroying things.
I remember being at a dinner with a conservative couple in 2015 soon after Trump announced. And the husband chortled and said something to the effect that Trump was exactly what the liberals deserved as if Trump's main utility was to being discomfort to liberals. I don't think we can discount that desire to burn things down.
So was the left which Biden embraced.
As a neurodivergent person, sudden change doesn’t come easy for me. And as someone whose family has its traditions and belief systems, being told that what you’re doing is wrong and, and at worst, stupid/classist/whatever feels shameful, especially if it’s part of who you are. You openly talk about generational wealth openly. But as a first generation inheriter (this isn’t even a real word, judging from the red squiggly I’m seeing as I type), I find very few places where I can talk about it openly since I worry about shame.
I just read an article in Business Insider about a group of young people that is all about giving their money away. I'm not saying you need to do so, but if you can find the group you might be able to speak freely among it's members.
I’m not a young person anymore. Are there groups for middle aged late GenXers or elder Milleninials?
You're a conservative, for sure -- an honorable outlook with a worthy purpose and articulate forebears, Burke included. The present bunch are anarchists, revolutionaries without a plan, thieving thugs insensible to the common good. For sure they are NOT conservatives. I like to think of myself as a conservative liberal -- or liberal conservative -- a proponent, in either case, of the common good. Thanks for this.
Thanks Carll!
I’m horrified by “move fast and break things,” especially for a country. However, I think it’s fair to say it makes more sense to think things are not so bad and should be changed slowly if you’re occupying a more comfortable and privileged place. If you are suffering, you must be forgiven for wanting fast relief.
I agree. As a woman, these days I’m a radical. I deserve the right to make my own decisions about what to do with my body and my life. Abortion restrictions clearly tell me that others think I’m too stupid to do so. Likewise, I want young women to have the opportunity I did to carve out a career in a field of men and earn respect not for being the exception to their boys club, but for the work I did. And your position that slow change is the best change flies in the face f history: slavery, women’s full participation in the world, and dire poverty are the result of: go slow! Change will come if you’re patient. Bullshit. This world is fair and generous to people who already have their hands full. Not to those who have to struggle for every crumb. And some of the fatuous remarks in these comments frankly shock me at their complacency and sneering superiority. Y’all got yours, now don’t look at the people who you KNOW NEED HELP. I hope the revolution comes.
In a prior draft I included the overturning of Roe as an example of NOT respecting tradition, flouting stare decisis for no good reason other than we had different justices with different views.
As for a revolution, I think we are fighting against a revolution in political and constitutional norms that if not defeated will set back women's rights, civil rights, and economic inequality.
For my part, I do look at the people who need help and am involved in helping them through a number of wonderful grassroots organizations. It's part of my privilege to be able to do so although I would feel immoral if I did not.
Thanks for the comment. There's quite a wide range of viewpoints expressed so far. And I appreciate your stance.
I agree with you, David. Not only can we see Roe as a tradition to conserve, but I think we can also see bodily sovereignty as both a liberal (Enlightenment) value and a conservative one. Pro-choice women and men are stewards and conservators of whatever is loving, thoughtful, and respectful of self and others.
That's fair Michelle. And certainly many people who voted for Trump were hoping for fast relief because they needed it. As you've written expensively, they will almost certainly be disappointed. But to blame them does seem churlish.
The really astounding thing is that Trump voters usually want almost exactly the same things everyone else wants — to be able to live a good life, to do interesting and useful work that’s paid fairly, to live in a safe and free society, to be able to take care of our families — but we cannot agree on how to get there. I think they’re trying to put out society’s fires with buckets of gasoline and I’m screaming we need water.
I think we need more of a matrix. Which direction you’d like to go on one axis, how fast or slow on the other.
You had to go all two dimensional on me! What are the two axes?
Haha - I'm trying to plot myself on this axis. I consider myself both liberal and conservative because I take both words etymologically. (So I think most people are actually both.) And I want the world governed by my preferences STAT. So I'm near the middle of one axis and flying to the moon with blazing speed on the other. Is that possible? Fast change to include a little of everything? This is fun to ponder. 😂