/lit/ - Literature

Most conservatives problem is that they are too apolitical or think naive half hearted aristocratic dabbling in politics should be enough to steer the wayward plebs back to good values, so you could just read any major conservative. Kirk had this problem (what exactly was Kirk's politics?), and knew Eliot who had it as well. Eliot's politics were at least positive, he knew what he wanted, but he never concretely engaged with politics, just gave vague suggestions.

Eliot's friend Pound tried to make conservatism political and instantly realized it entailed fascism and a total war against financial powers, international actors using mammonism and usury to uproot all nations and traditions. Look where that landed him. He is a black sheep in post-war polite society.

So everyone after the war looks back to the Pounds and says "sheesh we'd better be more like Eliot," or Chesterton if they're Catholic. They want to be aloof, aristocratic, above the mess of politics. But what does that get them? At least Pound tried. What did Kirk's half hearted attempt at heavy on the spirit, light on the political machinery style conservatism get him? A weak, vague, coalition based conservatism that never learned to come together and fight, and was swept aside first by opportunism, and then by technocrats who elevated opportunism to a science, the neocons.

Now what do we have? The afterglow of that already weak conservatism, the Scrutons and Hitchenses who don't even stand up for their nations anymore. In the 20s Eliot could still say that the racial mingling of all nations was a disaster for their wonderful distinctness, and that a cosmopolitan finance class was a cancer in the heart of any country. In the 60s and 70s one tended to downplay all that, water it down into platitudes, but at least one could still oppose abortion and sexual hedonism, and the problems in minority communities like nihilism and violence. By the 80s one couldn't do that and still be "mainstream" conservative which increasingly meant business-friendly laissez faire with a 50% chance of being Jewish.

By the 90s and 00s being conservative meant being a man out of time, a caricature like Scruton who grumbles about art but is careful not to grumble about anything that gets one kicked off Good Morning Britain. The critique of capitalism and technocracy is lost. The critique of the lower orders is lost. The aristocratic ethos and aloofness is a pathetic sham version of its former self.

There is a rich tradition of aloof "apolitical" conservatives, but their apoliticality was political, because it allowed the erosion of the ground it was standing on to continue. Apolitical conservatives were living on borrowed time and they happily spent whatever was left with no plan to renew the possibility and luxury of being apolitical for future generations.

>>16403971
sadly accurate.

Ted K

>>16403902
I don't really see how you can qualify Simon Leys as apolitical, either in his writings or personal life

>>16403971
The way you describe it, it sounds as though the issue lies not in the aristocratic dabbling but in the truth that this behavior uncovers: the vagueness and arbitrariness of many modern conservative values, not to mention that these now exist and let themselves be exclusively molded in reaction to specific ideologies instead of striking out on their own

>>16404708
>instead of striking out on their own
So who does this?