I consider myself a conservative and an optimist.

I happen to believe that when people live in free, rule-of-law, capitalist societies, they will have a happier life, a better standard of living, longevity and make continual progress in all these regards. I believe that the more we duplicate this model in the world, the safer and more peaceful the world will be. And I believe that in the end, this viewpoint will triumph.

"The experienced person realizes that institutions such as marriage evolved for a reason, even if the reason is hard to articulate."

Substitute "slavery" for "marriage," and you'll understand why institutions should always be questioned. Of course, that demands that the believer should come up with an answer, and live by that conclusion. Some people never do.

Bill,

Actually, it seems to me that the reasons for slavery are relatively simple to articulate. They aren't very good reasons — abominable ones, actually — and putting them forward with a view toward legitimizing the practice would earn a person justified scorn. I'd say we're dealing with essential differences of category when we address marriage and slavery, but then, those differences are difficult to articulate... (a lack of the language, not the actual difference).

At any rate, nobody, including Burgess-Jackson, is suggesting that institutions oughtn't always be questioned. He writes in the following paragraph:

To a conservative, beliefs are presumed innocent until proven guilty. To a liberal, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Tradition and beliefs are the default, but not untouchable.

I wish all conservatives agreed with you that "tradition and beliefs are the default, but not untouchable." Burgess-Jackson's "epistemic conservatism" -- especially his approval of "entrenchment" as a factor -- bothered the heck out of me, because I believe in logical conservatism. Too many religious conservatives refuse to acknowledge the horrors committed in the name of their religion, and I fear that Burgess-Jackson (perhaps unwittingly) supplies them with ammunition for further smugness, and denial.

I like your blog!

I must say, I debated whether to blog the referenced article. On the whole, I agree with it, of course; but it seems to me that it is not as well written as it could be, both rhetorically (so to speak) and logically, especially considering the writer is a philosophy professor. It may be, however, his first approach to the topic in such a public arena, and I give him a lot of credit for it.

I think the point of saying that conservatives are pessemistic is exactly the point you make when arguing the other side. What you both are ultimately saying is that conservatism represents a fundamental disbelief -- of claims to authority, absolute value, or objective truth. Conservatives are just as harshly disbelieving of institutions, but they are also capable to balance those concerns. They realize that an imperfect existing system is preferable to an unstable and only ephemeral one.

The lack of change we generally associate with conservatism is more a doubt of the potential for rapid transformation than an actual support of entrenched structures. Indeed if the current neocon accession teaches anything, it's that conservatism can be far more radical than other ideologies. When its concerns for stability and measured improvement, rather than balancing against one another, point in the same direction, they are powerful precisely because of their realism. Donald Rumsfeld's brand of conservatism -- the question-everything, are we doing well?, never-overestime-your-position kind -- is the practically-useful for military and diplomatic progress.

And that is ultimately the point of saying that conservatives are pessemists. They ultimately hope for good to come, but in the persuit of it are constantly assessing their position and shoring up any weaknesses. That's the price of realism, always having to look over your shoulder, and under the bed, and in the closet, and in France, etc.

Eric,

I don't think smug people in denial require a philosophy professor to provide them ammunition. That said, I think there are far fewer such religious people than the popular storyline suggests. (Although, to be open, I think the popular storyline also places more blame on religion than need be, with other human institutions splitting the weight almost every time.)

------------

Lane,

I think Burgess-Jackson's academic background shows through in his writing in ways that make it a bit turgid for a general audience. "Epistemic conservatism"? I also think he's still working out the threads of his thought. And let's not forget that his is a relatively rebellious position to take in the American university.

-----------

Adam,

I think there's some disagreement, here, about what constitutes "pessimism." Liberals are pessimistic in the sense that they don't believe people can ever work things out on their own — that things just won't work out without gargantuan effort among "progressives." I think, generally speaking (inasmuch as one can speak generally on such matters), that conservatism seeks for realism without the pessimism. Sort of: "if we just accept the reality, then we can work with it to make good things happen."

I also don't agree with your characterization of conservatives as sort of "slow progressives." There is great variety, on this count, largely having to do with religious emphasis, but it seems to me that the approach of conservatives is (and ought to be even more) to admit that change can be good, if approached with circumspection, but to remember that change isn't necessarily good. There are authority, absolute value, and objective truth. The problem is that, consisting of imperfect beings, our society will never line up perfectly with them. That means that to change or not to change is a legitimate choice, depending on our approximation of absolute, objective Truth.

Reminds me of the quip made by William F. Buckley (I believe). To paraphrase: If your are under thirty and conservative, you have no heart. If you are over thirty and liberal, you have no brain.

Guess I must be a curmudgeon then, I was no where near a liberal in the sense we speak of when I twenty, let alone thirty.

Mr. Katz- I disagree that liberals are pessemistic. Arguments for big government are policy proposals, but I don't think they stem from a belief in a degraded human nature. Instead it seems that liberals view humans as inherently capable of solving problems when they work together, but plagued by outside interests: the warmongerers, the rich, the conservative. They very dearly lay claim to the 'true' being of the human, that all people if jolted out of their regular social-norms-created shell will clearly want to help their fellow man and create equality. That is the optimism that prods them to government action as simply the means of capturing the essential human spirit of kindness.

Your definition of conservative is closer to correct than the one I implied. Perhaps to say that conservatives are selectively progressive, that is, that they can see the benefits and costs of social change outside of the realm of the 'forward march of progress' mindset that motivates liberalism.

So the practical difference is that the liberal views change as a matter of necessity to keep mindsets changing and to maintain momentum towards the attainable ultimate good. Conservatives value stability as a sort of 'ok, we're here; now what?'

Adam,

[Liberals] very dearly lay claim to the 'true' being of the human, that all people if jolted out of their regular social-norms-created shell will clearly want to help their fellow man and create equality.
— Well, to focus on the best among them, yes, this is true. However, but it still accords with the "sense" in which I said liberals are pessimistic: they believe that the jolting must be done through action on their part. People can't free themselves from the bogeymen without being enlightened by those who believe they understand the intricacies of the cage.

As I said, conservatives accept reality; liberals don't believe reality is actually reality. It can — must — be changed right up to the point of whatever essential goodness they believe exists in human beings. But if you look at the M-W.com, you'll find a second definition for "pessimism" as "the doctrine that reality is essentially evil." If the power structures from which people must be freed, right down to language and the most basic interpersonal relationships, represent reality, then liberals are clearly pessimistic. (Again, with all the notes about generalizations left tacit.)