I have to disagree with Michael Oakeshott in
that sociobiology affirms Alexander Hamilton's claim that the sacred
rights of mankind are written in the whole volume of human nature and
cannot be erased or obscured. That is, politics can be reduced to a
few rational principles in that there is a strong biological base to
cultural behavior which cannot be blocked out, and in this,
conservative behavior and ideas most closely resemble the actions of
real human nature. This means that ideology can be valid in
politics.
I agree with Oakeshott that the “admitted
goods” of a political community can change the community whether
there is an amendment to the written ideological constitution or not.
This happens when the admitted goods are seen as people, that is, as
the people change the culture changes.
These two thoughts suggest that we can
have both ideology and practical non-ideological action in
politics. The founding Constitution of America makes room for the
changing population by calling for the separation and independence of
regions and states, while protecting that independence. Calling for a return to this ideology and this changing, non-ideological,
practicality is valid.
(This was my response to an excellent
review of Oakeshott in the January 2013 issue of the “American Conservative”)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment