Conservatism Defined

 Tom Shactman, in his biography of Eric Hoffer, American Iconoclast, The Life and Times of Eric Hoffer, Pages 201 and 202, writes: "In Hoffer's final decade he produced his most profound analysis of the basis of conservatism. It was a natural force, he wrote, the counterpoint to an 'innate anarchy' that got loose at various points in history and wreaked havoc but was usually kept in check by mankind's equally-innate striving 'to wrest a living from grudging nature.'

My response: Humans naturally are savage and lawless, but they also crave order so both of these warring drives are biologically originated. Our chaotic or lawless tendency is kept in check, ordinarily, in lawful civil society, democracy or tyranny of whatever kind, by most people struggling to keep food on the table, and that keeps them busy, structured with purpose and meaning in their lives.

Shactman continues: "But since then the industrial and technological revolutions that have allowed mankind to conquer nature also allowed us to banish scarcity. Quelling the need for the majority to work si hard then unleashed the current iteration of the 'innate anarchy' in the form of the 'explosion of the young, the dominance of intellectuals, the savaging of the cities, the revulsion from work.' In Hoffer's view, social order was and should always be 'the product of an equilibrium between a vigorous majority and violent minorities.' Today's 'violent minorities,' he charged, were no different from those of the past; what has changed was the majority's willingness to take action--the current 'meekness' of the majority was spurring the violent minorities to greater excesses. To counter those 'violent minorities,' order must be restored by force."

My response: Hoffer is brilliant in capture the modern mood of malaise and emotional drift now that forces of inner anarchy are no longer easily kept in check by most adults just keeping busy and fulfilled working just to keep food on the table. Now, luxury, wealth, comfort, riches and technology allow millions of people not to work at all or enjoy unearned leisure for extended periods of time.

When millions of people have nothing to do, boredom drives them to seek ideological solutions to their boredom and feelings of emptiness. The current mass movement of Progressivism/Marxism fills that slot quite nicely. 

What people need to do is to work for money, and to be taught to maverize, so that, through millions of young or idle adults self-realizing, they boredom will disappear, their self-esteem and sense of meaning will be met, and they will be disciplining and improving themselves. This keeps their inner feelings of innate anarchy and id impulses in check or sublimated.

Hoffer long yelled at the silent majority for their meekness. Counter-cultural minorities are welcome and not to be suppressed as long as they remain nonviolent, but the silent, conservative majority should oppose them openly and critically, stay armed so the violent ones are not able to bully the majority, and the majority must support their local police departments in maintaining law and order. That is reasonable, justifiable conservativism, not fascism. Where the majority are meek and cowardly, the violent minorities will keep attacking and getting bolder until they revolt and overthrow society, and they must be opposed early and often to keep them in check.

 Tom Shactman, in his biography of Eric Hoffer, American Iconoclast, The Life and Times of Eric Hoffer, Pages 201 and 202, writes: "In Hoffer's final decade he produced his most profound analysis of the basis of conservatism. It was a natural force, he wrote, the counterpoint to an 'innate anarchy' that got loose at various points in history and wreaked havoc but was usually kept in check by mankind's equally-innate striving 'to wrest a living from grudging nature.'

My response: Humans naturally are savage and lawless, but they also crave order so both of these warring drives are biologically originated. Our chaotic or lawless tendency is kept in check, ordinarily, in lawful civil society, democracy or tyranny of whatever kind, by most people struggling to keep food on the table, and that keeps them busy, structured with purpose and meaning in their lives.

Shactman continues: "But since then the industrial and technological revolutions that have allowed mankind to conquer nature also allowed us to banish scarcity. Quelling the need for the majority to work si hard then unleashed the current iteration of the 'innate anarchy' in the form of the 'explosion of the young, the dominance of intellectuals, the savaging of the cities, the revulsion from work.' In Hoffer's view, social order was and should always be 'the product of an equilibrium between a vigorous majority and violent minorities.' Today's 'violent minorities,' he charged, were no different from those of the past; what has changed was the majority's willingness to take action--the current 'meekness' of the majority was spurring the violent minorities to greater excesses. To counter those 'violent minorities,' order must be restored by force."

My response: Hoffer is brilliant in capture the modern mood of malaise and emotional drift now that forces of inner anarchy are no longer easily kept in check by most adults just keeping busy and fulfilled working just to keep food on the table. Now, luxury, wealth, comfort, riches and technology allow millions of people not to work at all or enjoy unearned leisure for extended periods of time.

When millions of people have nothing to do, boredom drives them to seek ideological solutions to their boredom and feelings of emptiness. The current mass movement of Progressivism/Marxism fills that slot quite nicely. 

What people need to do is to work for money, and to be taught to maverize, so that, through millions of young or idle adults self-realizing, they boredom will disappear, their self-esteem and sense of meaning will be met, and they will be disciplining and improving themselves. This keeps their inner feelings of innate anarchy and id impulses in check or sublimated.

Hoffer long yelled at the silent majority for their meekness. Counter-cultural minorities are welcome and not to be suppressed as long as they remain nonviolent, but the silent, conservative majority should oppose them openly and critically, stay armed so the violent ones are not able to bully the majority, and the majority must support their local police departments in maintaining law and order. That is reasonable, justifiable conservativism, not fascism. Where the majority are meek and cowardly, the violent minorities will keep attacking and getting bolder until they revolt and overthrow society, and they must be opposed early and often to keep them in check.