What We Might Learn from Young French Conservatives

From “Two Roads for the French New Right,” by Mark Lilla, The New York Review of Books, Dec. 20, 2018.

In France, a “third force” form of conservatism is growing as an alternative to the “neoliberal cosmopolitanism” that arose in response to the parochial sentiments that contributed to two world wars during the 20th century. Young French conservatives distinguish their brand of conservatism from the reactionary populist nationalism that is recycling some of the worst beliefs and attitudes from the modern period in European history. But the new French conservatives also differ from their American counterparts in a number of important ways:

1. Like critics on the left, they oppose unregulated global financial markets, fiscal austerity, genetically modified foods, consumerism, and the dominance of the Apple-Google-Facebook-Amazon-Microsoft technocomplex. They want to restore political control over the global economy in order to support working people. Yet they support immigration, multiculturalism, and other social norms of the left.

2. Their condemnation of environmental degradation is as severe as any views on the American left.

3. Like many conservatives, they are concerned with the decline of the traditional family, lower birth rates, single parenthood, the distortions of pornography, parents too busy to devote adequate time and attention to their children. All this, they argue, is the result of our radical individualism, which blinds us to the social need for strong, stable families.

4. They have an organic conception of society. Nations are composed of families, which are organisms, too, and which work better when family members have different but complementary roles and duties. In their view, the fundamental task of society is to transmit knowledge, morality, and culture to future generations. It is not to serve the indiscriminate desires of individuals.

5. Democracy requires more than regular and fair elections. Democracy is a way of life that needs to be supported and taught through the media, schools, and other cultural institutions. A society that does not encourage the participation of all citizens is vulnerable to domination by undemocratic interests, whether authoritarian, populist, socialist, or liberal-individualist. In large measure, what makes a liberal conception of politics objectionable is that it is modeled on a consumer market.

6. The arguments young French conservatives are strictly secular; they do not invoke traditional religious ideas, values, and principles.

7. They believe an alternative to the globalization and bureaucratization of contemporary life can be based on thinking from both sides of the traditional left–right divide. They are influenced by Proudhon, Heidegger, Arendt, MacIntyre, Lasch and others whose work contains elements of both social democracy and traditionalism. They are fans of Bernie Sanders.

Perhaps an American version of the new French conservatism could find common ground with social democrats who are dissatisfied with the views of both liberals and centrist democrats.

A comment on the foregoing article:

ML: Marion Le Pen "attacked the principle of individualism, proclaiming that the 'reign of egoism' was at the bottom of all our social ills."

MB: I agree with Le Pen’s assertion. But it’s not as simple as blaming egoism. Egoism is a psychological principle – an empirical proposition about human motivation – that is reinforced by the elements of the (conceptual and normative) individualism I critique, viz., its “atomism” and “subjectivism.” It’s the bolstering of egoism that is problematic, because that celebration of individual (unreflective) desire impedes our ability to restrain and temper our egoistic tendencies.

ML: Young French conservatives “imagine there is a clear line separating legacy conservative parties like the Republicans, which have made their peace with the neoliberal European order, from xenophobic populist ones like the National Front, which would … destroy liberal institutions and drive out as many immigrants and especially Muslims as possible.”

MB: A clear line might be discernible in Europe. It is less so in the US. As Paul Krugman observes, “the modern Republican Party is dominated by “movement conservatism,” a monolithic structure held together by big money … and the closed intellectual ecosystem of Fox News and other partisan media. …The people who rise within this movement are…apparatchiks, political loyalists who can be counted on not to stray from the party line.” There are very few visible conservatives who aren’t part of this “movement” — maybe David Brooks, Ross Douthat, David Frum, George Will (and others I’m unaware of). Unlike their young French counterparts, however, even the aforementioned American conservatives can’t be described as “ fans of Bernie Sanders”!

ML: Young French conservatives differ from American conservatives. They share two convictions: that a robust conservatism is the only coherent alternative to what they call the neoliberal cosmopolitanism of our time, and that resources for such a conservatism can be found on both sides of the traditional left–right divide.

MB: Surely, this new French “third force” conservatism isn’t the only alternative to “neoliberal cosmopolitanism.” I’m inclined to think, though, that “resources for [an alternative to neoliberal cosmopolitanism] can indeed be found on both sides of the traditional left–right divide,” including, perhaps, some “traditional virtues” as well as some aspects of “tradition.”

ML: They are influenced by “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt, the young Alasdair Macintyre, Christopher Lasch…”

MB: Arendt, MacIntyre, and Lasch are among my favorites, though I would add many others, such as Charles Taylor, Martha Nussbaum, Garry Wills, Michael Ignatieff, Karl Polanyi, J.P. Diggins, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jane Mansbridge, Seyla Benhabib, etc.

ML: They reject the European Union, same-sex marriage, and mass immigration.

Well, the EU deserves plenty of criticism, but I prefer its transnationalism to the old nationalism that still gives the world such trouble. And I certainly support same-sex marriage and open borders.

But they also reject unregulated global financial markets, neoliberal austerity, genetic modification, consumerism, and AGFAM (Apple-Google-Facebook-Amazon-Microsoft).

MB: So do I.

ML: They have an organic conception of society.

MB: So do I, though that doesn’t mean society should be reified (there’s a difference between viewing society as a network and viewing it as akin to a physical body) or that the uniqueness of individuals (i.e., their individuality) may be ignored. Moral and political individualism still have much to be said for them.

ML: They see Europe as a single Christian civilization composed of different nations with distinct languages and customs.

MB: Yes, though the “Christian” aspect is more harmful than helpful.

ML: Nations are composed of families, which are organisms, too, with differing but complementary roles and duties for mothers, fathers, and children.

MB: I think family members can have different and complementary roles and duties without insisting that they be confined to certain roles or that all families should conform to the predominant practice. For example, although I think society ought to make it easier for one parent to spend most or even all of his/her time giving priority to young children, it certainly does not have to be the female parent (in heterosexual partnerships).

ML: On this view, the fundamental task of society is to transmit knowledge, morality, and culture to future generations, perpetuating the life of the civilizational organism. It is not to serve an agglomeration of autonomous individuals bearing rights.

MB: Yes, but… Again, the uniqueness of each individual is important, and we should never assume the individual’s interests automatically may be subordinated to the interests of the group.

ML: “Third force” conservatives consider the European Union a danger because it…tries to found it instead on the economic self-interest of individuals.

MB: It’s not the “cultural-religious foundation” per se that concerns me—it’s indifference to and disrespect for particularity. I agree that "the EU has been conducting a slow coup d’état in the name of economic efficiency and homogenization, centralizing power in Brussels," but what’s being lost is not some mythic “Christendom,” but uniqueness and difference. Many “national characteristics” are worth preserving.

ML: The strong environmentalism criticism of neoliberal economics and environmental degradation as severe as anything one finds on the American left.

MB: Interesting.

ML: The arguments they make … are strictly secular.

MB: As they should be (though I would prefer to say “public” rather than “secular,” because in principle, at least, some arguments grounded in shared religious or spiritual views (which would make those views “cultural”) might be acceptable to people whose outlook is secular).

ML: They point to real problems: dropping rates of family formation, delayed child-bearing, rising rates of single parenthood, adolescents steeped in porn and confused about their sexuality, and harried parents and children eating separately while checking their phones. All this, they argue, is the result of our radical individualism, which blinds us to the social need for strong, stable families.

MB: All this is the result, specifically, of our atomism and subjectivism, not our regard for individuality. Moreover, it’s less the direct result of individualism that it is the consequences of the economic individualism and materialism that underlie the neoliberal infatuation with globalization of markets.

ML: What these young Catholics can’t see is that gay couples wanting to wed and have children are looking to create such families and to transmit their values to another generation. There is no more-conservative instinct than this.

MB: Yes, and that's unfortunate.

ML: A number of young women have been promoting what they call an “alter-feminism” that rejects what they see as the “career fetishism” of contemporary feminism, which unwittingly reinforces the capitalist ideology that slaving for a boss is freedom. They are in no way arguing that women should stay home if they don’t want to; rather they think women need a more realistic image of themselves.

MB: Ok. I take issue, though, with the contention that women need a more “realistic” image of themselves. I don’t believe women or men should blindly subject themselves to the pressure to maximize their productivity in every facet of their lives, with regard to every value they hold. Women, like men, should develop the ability to choose prudently and wisely how to use their time and energy. This ability will enable them, among other things, to recognize and accept that in life all of us have to make choices and establish priorities.

ML: The left opposes the uncontrolled fluidity of the global economy and wants to rein it in on behalf of workers, while it celebrates immigration, multiculturalism, and fluid gender roles that large numbers of workers reject. These French conservatives criticize uncontrolled fluidity in both its neoliberal and cosmopolitan forms.

MB: Yes.

ML: Could one restore organic connections between individuals and families, families and nations, nations and civilization? If so, how? Through direct political action? By seeking political power directly? Or by finding a way to slowly transform Western culture from within?

MB: Good questions. We don’t know the answers. But we need to ask the questions.

ML: Two styles of conservative engagement seem to be developing:

• an ecological conservativism that is open, generous, and rooted in everyday life.

• a conservatism that is aggressive, dismissive of contemporary culture, and focused on waging a Kulturkampf.

MB: The former is desirable. The latter, however, is potentially destructive. Even, so, I’m not sure we can or should try to deter people from pressing their social criticisms and alternative views. The stubborn persistence of racism, homophobia, and sexism requires that the role of “tradition” in protecting them be exposed and minimized.

ML: Our fight cannot only take place in elections. We need to convey our ideas through the media, culture, and education to stop the domination of the liberals and socialists. We have to train leaders of tomorrow, those who will have courage, the determination, and the skills to defend the interests of their people.

MB: I agree. Part of what’s objectionable about liberalism is a conception of politics that is modeled on a consumer market.

ML: The left has an old, bad habit of underestimating its adversaries and explaining away their ideas as mere camouflage for despicable attitudes and passions.

MB: Yes, it does. We have to be careful, though, to avoid swinging too far in the opposite direction, to the point where we overlook or tolerate the camouflaging that occurs.