The reason traditionalism appeals to me is that it makes sense from my viewpoint as an individual and also from the standpoint of justly organizing a complex society. If one takes as bedrock conservatism the ten principles of Russell Kirk, why are these ideas not transmitted more freely? Maybe the risk is in boring people away? Or perhaps many liberals would see Kirk the way we see Gramsci? Either way there is a depressing paucity of good faith, meaningful dialogue, even on the ‘net, but this may be changing. This gets back to what you say about different levels of sophistication and I have always had a difficult time understanding why deeper thinking on essential issues appeals to so few. If that’s just the way it is, then the duplicity charge can be let go and we can get on with building a better model.

Slightly OT, I just read somewhere the keen observation that conservatives traditionally exert most of their energies and mental efforts on “living the program”, focusing on personal/family wealth and well being, whereas liberals with their idealism and freedom from tradition end up as bureaucrats, educators and community leaders. The first group adheres to what is good for their own kind, while the second group adheres to what they believe should be mandated for a better society. In terms of image, conservatives are clearly disadvantaged.

In a way, fake “conservatives” like Bush look even more dishonest because they invoke conservative principles without believing them. Liberals notice this, and it enforces their liberal beliefs rather than winning them over to the conservative side.

In a traditionalist politics, based on truer beliefs, I think politics could become more honest. Political dishonesty would be based on old-fashioned greed and vanity rather than a deeply false and evil world view. We ultimately have to win by speaking the truth. (However, I don’t discount the possibility that “tactics” of not revealing our full intentions may be necessary at points.)

Rick, very interesting comments. I think what you call “macro” individualism is what we value here in the West. To be agents of choice, but within a society and a universe of spirit, as you put it. Related is what Lawrence Auster has called “Christian freedom.”

But there seems to be a steep, slippery slope to social disruption as soon as we start talking about “freedom to” do something dangerous or harmful. I think maybe there should be freedom to read the Koran. I don’t think there should be freedom to practice Islam in a Western country. There should be freedom to buy glue, not freedom to sniff it.

I had to laugh at your caricature of a Randian! When I was in college, there were quite a few neurotic followers of Rand (er…I was one). Formula for making life decisions: “Abolish yourself. Then ask, what would Howard Roark do?” I do, however, think that since then libertarianism has diversified and that the majority of libertarians are not Objectivists.

Macro individualism is about the things that make us humans instead of herd animals, adults instead of children, agents of choice instead of followers of routine or ideology, and give us meaningful lives in a meaningful universe. It is “big picture” individualism, the kind that enables us to seek understanding and inspiration, to develop values consciously and express them to the best of our ability in our lives. It is being both ourselves in the truest sense and being part of a society and a universe of spirit that is more than our own personalities.

There is very little encouragement of this kind of individualism in the modern liberal-consumerist society, and often leads to rejection or even discrimination if it involves ideas and values that go counter to liberal and consumerist conventional wisdom.

But micro individualism is ultra-cool, because it furthers the system. In place of significant roles, it gives us nearly infinite freedom to express ourselves through clothing, hairstyles, tattoos, electronic gadgets, cars, vacations in exotic places, the latest trendy restaurants, the most fabulous spa. None of that threatens the Liberal Establishment, because it keeps our minds occupied with fulfilling wants and discovering new ones with the time and effort we could put into our relationships, our intellectual development, our souls. And it keeps the wheels of commerce spinning.

Ayn Rand did express a valid revulsion from the collectivist ideologies that were so much in vogue from the early years of the last century through the ’60s. From what I’ve seen and read of Rand’s followers and libertarians, though, they are besotted with micro individualism. They place themselves in the dead center of the universe, combining grandiosity (see what a Titan I am!) with pettiness (why should a force of nature like me restrain my natural desire to walk on the newly seeded grass?).

John, thank you for responding and for sharing your response at the site. I’ll take a look soon and let you know what I think.