Comparing the “isms” with evolutionary conservatism

James Kalb does an excellent job defining the various political “isms” in America without mentioning sociobiology, (Modern Age, Summer 2013) This is like defining an automobile without mentioning the engine.

"Social conservatism" and sociobiological conservatism relate well to each other because the traditions of family, religion, particular cultures and local autonomy relate to the real preferences for these things inherent in human nature, as evolved thousands of years ago, which helped us survive and prosper.

The revitalized-conservatism (evolutionary conservatism, sociobiological conservatism) reflected upon in this blog has something in common with most of the “isms” as defined by Kalb. Like the left-liberals: people do sometimes need to be protected and led, like the right-liberals (conservatism): most institutions need to be independent of government, like the anarchists: the state cannot manage peoples lives. The “neoconservatives” seem to be phoney conservatives because they promote conservative, nonliberal elements (family, religion etc) because they realized that these things help strengthen liberal causes.

As to the "managerial elite" who dominate our society, evolutionary conservatism does not negate elites, but it affirms sociobiologists as science-oriented managers, not to rule democracies but to actually help people get the mostly traditional things that real human nature wants and needs, and votes for.

But the conservatism of theological materialism, and the Theoevolutionary Church, also affirms the ongoing evolution of man, all the way to Godhood in the cosmos.  It is this which forms the sacred base of our Ordered Evolution.