The problem with this analysis is that it leaves out the Puritan determination to rid themselves of anyone who didn’t follow the authoritarian rule of the ministers. The most egregious example of this were the Salem witchcraft trials, but one can also point to the expulsion of Ann Hutchinson and her family and others. It also fails to mention the hanging of Quakers who dared to attempt to bring their brand of faith.
And it fails to account for the Calvinistic concert of The Elect - that some were to be saved and some were not based on a Divine selection that preceded birth. Calvin’s Geneva was not a place of freedom.
Indeed, the one thing that has characterized elements of the conservative right, and even more so in Trumpism is the idea that only some of us are worthy of being considered ‘real’ Americans. Many of the rest, of course, are ‘the enemies within; much as were the ‘witches' of Salem.
> anyone who didn’t follow the authoritarian rule of the ministers. The most egregious example of this were the Salem witchcraft trials,
I don't believe that's correct. The 'witches' were not renegades, they were basically all normal observant Puritans. Their devotion to Satan was a dark secret, not detectable by anyone but a small group of girls and it is suspected that their magic powers started out as ergot poisoning fits.
Actually most of those condemned were older women whose sometimes either contrary or difficult character traits led the rest of the community regard them with a certain lack of community sympathy.
It was the whole concept of witchcraft, created by the priest class long before the girls were born that brought the community to the point of madness.
The ergot issue has always been a controversial one.
My understanding of the Trials was that it can't be put neatly into one description. Yeah there were the strange old ladies but there were also several people regarded as upstanding. The priests didn't invent the concept of witchcraft, it goes back thousands of years and exists in probably every culture. And IIRC it wasn't priests who pressed the thing, it was the civil authorities. Ergot or not, it seems undeniable that without the girls nothing would have happened -- nobody was particularly looking forward to a witch hunt at the time.
While there are many valid criticisms of the Puritan project here, the author relies almost entirely upon the fictional work of Nathaniel Hawthorne, who wrote almost 200 years after the Puritans arrived. Hawthorne (1804-1864) was neither a contemporary of the Puritans nor an historian of their era.
How anyone can think a person like Vance is puritanically working towards some kind of control is beyond me. From my standpoint, if there was ever an example of an individual doing his utmost to reject community control and exert his individualism it would be J. D. Vance. Good grief, he even wrote a book about it.
Methinks if he were a black man he'd be glorified as a living god by the author of this essay.
Which brings me to this:
''Oikophobia'', coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is used as a non-clinical description of an 'anti-culture' prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals. It is a combination of:
''oikos'' - from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation” and ''-phobia'' - extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Hellenic Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
> politicians such as JD Vance seek to turn the government and courts into active arbiters of right and wrong
Surely politicians such as AOC want to do the same? All in all I find the woke to be far more likely to attempt to run my life for me than the righties. Individual freedom is a cornerstone of conservatism is it not? 'Progress' is the comparable cornerstone of the left and to achieve progress the left requires control over you -- otherwise perhaps you'd not progress the way they want you to, yes?
Individual freedom is a cornerstone of (classic) liberalism, not conservatism. Those two things are often overlapping to some extent in US contexts though.
Actually it occurred to me to edit my post just so. Go back far enough and 'conservative' equated with the old aristocracy -- not exactly freedom loving. Yes classical liberalism -- JS Mill liberalism centers freedom. Since the ascendancy of progressivism tho I'd say that conservatives are the ones valuing freedom just as those who don't make the rules always value freedom -- until they are in power. The modern progressive of course values freedom in everything but opinion. Still I doubt that JD Vance would suppress freedom nearly as much as would AOC.
I agree with your overall idea about the ways in which the progressives do not value freedom today. However, you don't have to go back all that far to find the moral majority, the conservatives who wanted to be in the business of telling people what to do in the bedroom, with music, violence in video games, etc. Also, there are plenty of conservatives who want to make divorce considerably more difficult. The picture of who values freedom more is nuanced in my opinion.
Absolutely. I'm not looking for good guys vs. bad guys here, the moralist urge to impose values can come from left or right. As I like to say, all fundamentalists are equally dangerous. Furthermore, all sociopolitical terms are very difficult to use usefully. God knows what 'liberal' even means anymore. But there is a school of thought that basically teaches the traditional values of western/liberal civilization and as those values are eroded it is the 'conservative' mindset that wants them defended cuz that's what conservatives do -- defend established values and institutions.
Just a plug for my version of White Supremacy here: the solution to the dilemma of how much government control is appropriate is to manage one's cultural/racial/religious/ethnic makeup such that the nation will naturally tend towards common values and thus accept common laws with a minimum of coercion -- if we all agreed on what was 'moral' then there'd be no need for any laws on the subject at all. Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength.
The problem with this analysis is that it leaves out the Puritan determination to rid themselves of anyone who didn’t follow the authoritarian rule of the ministers. The most egregious example of this were the Salem witchcraft trials, but one can also point to the expulsion of Ann Hutchinson and her family and others. It also fails to mention the hanging of Quakers who dared to attempt to bring their brand of faith.
And it fails to account for the Calvinistic concert of The Elect - that some were to be saved and some were not based on a Divine selection that preceded birth. Calvin’s Geneva was not a place of freedom.
Indeed, the one thing that has characterized elements of the conservative right, and even more so in Trumpism is the idea that only some of us are worthy of being considered ‘real’ Americans. Many of the rest, of course, are ‘the enemies within; much as were the ‘witches' of Salem.
> anyone who didn’t follow the authoritarian rule of the ministers. The most egregious example of this were the Salem witchcraft trials,
I don't believe that's correct. The 'witches' were not renegades, they were basically all normal observant Puritans. Their devotion to Satan was a dark secret, not detectable by anyone but a small group of girls and it is suspected that their magic powers started out as ergot poisoning fits.
Actually most of those condemned were older women whose sometimes either contrary or difficult character traits led the rest of the community regard them with a certain lack of community sympathy.
It was the whole concept of witchcraft, created by the priest class long before the girls were born that brought the community to the point of madness.
The ergot issue has always been a controversial one.
My understanding of the Trials was that it can't be put neatly into one description. Yeah there were the strange old ladies but there were also several people regarded as upstanding. The priests didn't invent the concept of witchcraft, it goes back thousands of years and exists in probably every culture. And IIRC it wasn't priests who pressed the thing, it was the civil authorities. Ergot or not, it seems undeniable that without the girls nothing would have happened -- nobody was particularly looking forward to a witch hunt at the time.
While there are many valid criticisms of the Puritan project here, the author relies almost entirely upon the fictional work of Nathaniel Hawthorne, who wrote almost 200 years after the Puritans arrived. Hawthorne (1804-1864) was neither a contemporary of the Puritans nor an historian of their era.
How anyone can think a person like Vance is puritanically working towards some kind of control is beyond me. From my standpoint, if there was ever an example of an individual doing his utmost to reject community control and exert his individualism it would be J. D. Vance. Good grief, he even wrote a book about it.
Methinks if he were a black man he'd be glorified as a living god by the author of this essay.
Which brings me to this:
''Oikophobia'', coined by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, is used as a non-clinical description of an 'anti-culture' prevalent among Western artists and intellectuals. It is a combination of:
''oikos'' - from the Greek meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation” and ''-phobia'' - extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Hellenic Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
> politicians such as JD Vance seek to turn the government and courts into active arbiters of right and wrong
Surely politicians such as AOC want to do the same? All in all I find the woke to be far more likely to attempt to run my life for me than the righties. Individual freedom is a cornerstone of conservatism is it not? 'Progress' is the comparable cornerstone of the left and to achieve progress the left requires control over you -- otherwise perhaps you'd not progress the way they want you to, yes?
Individual freedom is a cornerstone of (classic) liberalism, not conservatism. Those two things are often overlapping to some extent in US contexts though.
Actually it occurred to me to edit my post just so. Go back far enough and 'conservative' equated with the old aristocracy -- not exactly freedom loving. Yes classical liberalism -- JS Mill liberalism centers freedom. Since the ascendancy of progressivism tho I'd say that conservatives are the ones valuing freedom just as those who don't make the rules always value freedom -- until they are in power. The modern progressive of course values freedom in everything but opinion. Still I doubt that JD Vance would suppress freedom nearly as much as would AOC.
I agree with your overall idea about the ways in which the progressives do not value freedom today. However, you don't have to go back all that far to find the moral majority, the conservatives who wanted to be in the business of telling people what to do in the bedroom, with music, violence in video games, etc. Also, there are plenty of conservatives who want to make divorce considerably more difficult. The picture of who values freedom more is nuanced in my opinion.
Absolutely. I'm not looking for good guys vs. bad guys here, the moralist urge to impose values can come from left or right. As I like to say, all fundamentalists are equally dangerous. Furthermore, all sociopolitical terms are very difficult to use usefully. God knows what 'liberal' even means anymore. But there is a school of thought that basically teaches the traditional values of western/liberal civilization and as those values are eroded it is the 'conservative' mindset that wants them defended cuz that's what conservatives do -- defend established values and institutions.
Just a plug for my version of White Supremacy here: the solution to the dilemma of how much government control is appropriate is to manage one's cultural/racial/religious/ethnic makeup such that the nation will naturally tend towards common values and thus accept common laws with a minimum of coercion -- if we all agreed on what was 'moral' then there'd be no need for any laws on the subject at all. Diversity is not our strength. Unity is our strength.
False dichotomy! Our motto is (as it should be) "E Pluribus Unum."
Excellent essay. Thank you