|
· The left is becoming more concerned with individualism than altruism
· Conservatives must foster altruism
*****
There was a time when the standard-issue lefty intellectual saw himself as a man of the people. Not for him the ivory towers of academe or the smart salons of polite society. His vocation was that of secular missionary, a bringer of art and philosophy to the working class. On many an evening, the bien pensants of Hampstead would sally forth and the foetid alleyways of the East End would ring with conversations rather like this:
"Beggin' your pardon, kind sir, but we was hopin' you'd tell us that one about the post-Hegelian and the logical positivist."
"But, my good man, have we not already discussed that very subject in the public house, or the 'rub-a-dub-dub' as the good people of Bethnal Green are wont to describe the aforesaid establishment?"
"Yes sir, and it ain't that we're not 'umbly grateful, but just once more, kind sir, for the missus and the kids ..."
"Oh very well."
"Gawd bless you, guv'nor!"
In actual fact the foetid alleyways rang with nothing of the kind. The old-fashioned intellectual may have had fond thoughts of talking Proust with a prole, but held back fearing the great unwashed might be a bit on the smelly side. Still it's the thought that counts.
The rise of low culture
Nowadays, the standard-issue lefty intellectual is a bit smelly himself. Thanks to Irvine Welsh, Tracy Emin and the like, there's no shame in stains. Indeed, crusty is cool, dirt is dandy and grime always pays. Where once the idea was to bring high culture to the low born, the culture vultures now pick from the underbelly of human existence. Of course, it's not all tattoos and drug abuse, the fascination with working class life is sufficiently comprehensive to alight upon the good things too. Hence the fashion for football. Historically, appreciation of the beautiful game is at a low ebb amongst its traditional supporters, but, no matter, the intellectuals have 'discovered' it - much as the great explorers 'discovered' and despoiled lands already well known to their inhabitants.
Individualism and the left
In this, as in so much else, the liberal establishment has turned itself on its head. It is this capacity for contradiction that leads me to predict the next big thing in lefty-land: Ayn Rand. This may cause some surprise as the Russian-American novelist who died in 1981 was the godmother of hardline libertarianism. More than just a philosopher, Ayn Rand was an evangelist for the individual, who used her best-selling fiction to propound the shocking idea that there is no greater interest than self-interest: 'The secret dread of modern intellectuals, liberals and conservatives alike, the unadmitted terror at the root of their anxiety, which all their current irrationalities are intended to slave off and to disguise, is the unstated knowledge that Soviet Russia is the full, actual, literal, consistent embodiment of the morality of altruism, that Stalin did not corrupt a noble ideal, that this is the only way altruism has to be or can ever be practiced.' (Ayn Rand, Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World, 1960).
As the opposite of self-interest, she saw altruism as evil. How then, can the Left love Ayn Rand? The answer is that they are already halfway there. Social liberals of all stripes unite in a lack of regard for others. Abortion, drugs and divorce - the common thread is selfishness. As government grows weaker and the public purse gets tighter, the Left will wonder, "what is in it for us?" Take away the sinecures of the state, and the liberal elite will be ready to extend the doctrine of self-interest from the social to the economic sphere.
The importance of altruism
But what of the conservative? Unlike liberals, we hold altruism to be more than just a means of achieving an efficient distribution of resources. We regard the interests of others to be a moral imperative, absolute and eternal. How do we answer the challenge of Ayn Rand? In part, we would agree with her analysis. The welfare state is indeed based upon the use of force. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be dragged to a prison cell and kept there until you do. Cautiously, conservatives are facing up to this underlying immorality, we are exploring alternatives to coercive welfare, among them the potential of faith-based welfare.
But Ayn Rand's philosophy is as much personal as political. Her attack upon altruism was total. Genuine charity was a denial of the self, a betrayal of one's individuality. An atheist, she had nothing but contempt for the Christian ideal of self-sacrifice. In answer, I leave you with the words of St John Chrysostom who made clear that to freely give of one's self is to commit the ultimate act of individuality:
'A covetous man is not the same as a rich man. The covetous man is not rich. He wants many things and while he lacks them he can never be rich. The covetous man is a keeper not a master of wealth, a slave not a lord. For he would sooner give away a portion of his flesh than his buried gold... Since he has not the ability to give his riches to others or to distribute them to the needy... how can he possibly call them his own? In what way does he possess them when he has neither the free use nor the enjoyment of them?... To be rich is not to possess much but to give much.'
Related links
The ccfwebsite.com briefing on poverty
Compassionate Conservatism is the big 'new idea'
| |
