Traditionalist conservatives and classical liberals need Charles Darwin. They need him because a Darwinian science of human nature supports Burkean conservatives and Lockean liberals in their realist view of human imperfectibility, and in their commitment to ordered liberty as rooted in natural desires, cultural traditions, and prudential judgments. Arnhart's email address is larnhart1@niu.edu.
Friday, September 12, 2008
David Brooks, "The Social Animal"
In today's New York Times (September 12), David Brooks has a column on "The Social Animal". In arguing that conservatives need to recognize the natural sociality of human beings as rooted in their biological nature, Brooks manifests Darwinian conservatism. (Thanks to Andy Schott for bringing this article to my attention.)
Larry Arnhart-
ReplyDeleteBig fan of your blog. But are you saying here that Neocon Brooks could actually ENDORSE Darwinian conservatism? I highly doubt that.
I am also a big fan of your blog, but I hope that you are not intending to endorse the remainder of Brooks's essay. Sure he briefly mentions that we "need to recognize the natural sociality of human beings as rooted in their biological nature," but the remainder of the piece is drivel. It sets up a straw man of people who believe that freedom is based on their being no societal influences on people -- which no one believes -- and then argues, without any basis, that big government will solve our problems.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Brooks' claim that Goldwater's argument for individualism and limited government denies the social nature of human beings. The social nature of human beings can be satisfied in civil society--that social order of natural groups and voluntary associations that stands between solitary individuals and the state. I would say that Goldwater is arguing for what Hayek called "true individualism" as opposed to "false individualism," which is a theme of DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM.
ReplyDelete