There's no small irony in the fact that most authors
attribute the modern use of the term "conservative" to the writings
and philosophy of an 18th century Irish Catholic heretic (a Catholic forced to
deny the doctrine of transubstantiation so he could get his political and
academic credentials, educated by Quakers, and, ready for this, a member of
Parliament who argued against the
inhumane treatment of homosexuals). Edmund
Burke actually opposed democracy in our present form stating that the general
populace lacked the intelligence and command of subtleties required to
govern. He was concerned that demagogues
could sway the frail minds of an ignorant population and this, he argued, could
lead to tyranny over minorities who were out of favor with the powerful
interests reinforced by the influential few.
If Burke read the Wikipedia article about the principles ascribed to
him, I suspect he'd be enraged. In fact,
those who laud the values of "conservatism" fail to heed Burke's
prophetic warning that:
"…yet if men gave themselves up to imitation entirely, and each followed
the other, and so on in an eternal
circle, it is easy to see that there never could be any improvement amongst them."
(from A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Origin of Our Ideas of The Sublime and
Beautiful, 1756)
So why is it that modern
"conservative" thought celebrates so completely the antithesis of its
acclaimed progenitor? Why have we
adopted political theorist Russell Kirk's canons of: 1) belief in a transcendent
order based on divine revelation and natural law; 2) belief that societies
require distinctions of classes; 3) belief that freedom is inextricably linked
to property and enclosure rights; 4) belief in custom and convention; and, 5)
belief that innovation must conform with existing traditions and customs? Why have we fallen for Kirk's thoughtless
assumption that culture must "arise from religion" and without
religion, "culture must decline"?
Whether we subscribe to any fragments of Kirk's perspective or not,
there's no question that his writing and thinking was predicated on racism,
classism, bigotry, and arrogance. It is
this socially unquestioned euphemistic veneer that I believe makes his form of
conservatism so popular today.
I encountered the adjective form
of "conservative" this week when I was in dialogue with a
world-famous athlete who told me that his investment managers marketed his
overweight fixed income portfolio as "conservative". This investment manager lie - one that is
foisted on financially literate and illiterate alike - amazes me. With 8 years of returns that have failed to
generate returns sufficient to cover bloated management fees, the audacity of
calling cash and fixed income "conservative" is ludicrous. From the tax-deferred pensioner to the depository
saver, the justification for this version of "conservative" investing
is the thinly veiled seduction to allow predatory institutions to leverage the
public's capital without their full knowledge.
Whether it's a bank that takes deposits and, courtesy of fractional
reserve banking, levers the money 6-10 times (or more) or the bond originator
who manufacturers credit for the statutory consumption of fiduciary managers
giving little to no thought to the savers whose money they're placing at risk,
there's nothing "conservative" about placing faith and belief in a
system that explicitly pays a paucity for its subsequent leverage
exploitation.
I also heard the management of a
company describe their resistance to innovation as a byproduct of their
"conservatism". This company
once had a market capitalization measured in the billions and now trades at a
fraction thereof. They were more than
happy to have investment bankers bring M&A transactions to them -
transactions that saddled their lucrative cash-flows with non-organic
debt. Why? Because the stories told by MBAs with glossy
presentations and cunning spreadsheets were consensus albeit entirely in
error. Seduced by the short-term benefit
of quarterly "growth" through acquisition, this firm eviscerated its
value destroying millions in shareholder value while enriching the bankers and
advisors who were able to act with impunity.
When presented with a method to regain new product opportunity and
significant cost-savings in current operations, they didn't know how to process
that kind of input as it was "unconventional". Their impulse to preserve the diminishing
status quo: Conservatism.
Now here's the puzzle. I'm an orthodox kinda guy. If someone wants to know what my values are,
look at what they've been over the past 20 years and, lo and behold, they're
pretty much the same. I am a firm
adherent to principles of equivalent access, the importance of a collaborative
and interdependent private sector, and the primacy of transparency and
accountability. These are not
conservative nor are they liberal values.
What I find offensive is the use of the term "conservative"
when it really is a masquerade for political bigotry, preservation of willful social
ignorance and, predatory asymmetry in financial appropriation and outright
theft. Until we're ready to be
transparent about our genuine motivations, we're not fit to use this term to
hide our real intentions.
x
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment. I look forward to considering this in the expanding dialogue. Dave