Lifestyle politics

I ought to be polishing (well, writing a conclusion to) my review of this, but instead I’ll dive headlong into Larisonland, a place I often fear to tread, if only out of a pervasive phobia of getting buried and eventually suffocating under a mountain of blog copy.

In responding to my point about the difference between political conservatism and lifestyle conservatism, Larison writes:

Each time I read over Peter’s post, the bit about ideology always brings me up short. On why preserving a way of life focused on natural loyalties and guided by a spirit that values restraint, prescription and prudence, among other things, is not an ideology.

[snip]

It has long seemed to me that ideology is that sort of abstract commitment to a proposition or theory that one makes that has little or no relevance to how you live. Being a good liberal involves accepting a number of rather dubious claims about the nature of man and society and setting policy accordingly. Allegedly, what you do in your own, “private” life is no concern to anybody. Likewise, being a good communist or fascist ideologue has everything to do with toeing party lines and supporting the right kinds of policies. Living ethically is neither here nor there, except insofar as it comes into conflict with policy.

[snip]

Ethics is the heart of real politika, the things concerning the polis or community. One’s ethos, one’s way of life and habitual practices, defines what kind of politics a man has, and what kind of community he and his will create and maintain….If conservatism is a worthwhile state of mind and persuasion, conservatism ought to have something important to say.

Larison has lots of smart stuff to say—often thousands of words of it every day—but it seems to me, once again, that what Larison is doing is making conservatism into a sort of manifesto for living. But to my mind, that’s not the place of political alignment; that’s the job of the church, of the conscience, of whatever overarching ideas about existence to which one subscribes. To be a conservative is not necessarily to be a Christian, though I believe the two go in kind with minimal friction. A religion can, and probably should, dictate, in however general or specific terms, a way of life to its followers.

But a political ideology, a political movement, one that is primarily about figuring out proper means of governing, should be, in fact, the opposite—a way of allowing opposing, contrasting, varied ways of life and belief to thrive with as little interference as possible. Larison’s conservatism would be preached from the pulpit, infused in every minute and every decision of life, and while I have no quarrel with (and, in fact, heartily support) careful, principled existences, I don’t wish to see that sort of all-encompassing belief take over the political realm. There is a place*, for sure, to discuss how one should live their life, what principles, faiths, and notions are decent and good, but the goal of politics, and thus of political movements, should be to clear a space for those ideas to flourish, not try to inject itself into the discussion.

*That place is probably in dorm rooms and on little-read blogs.