This recent article about Bill O'Reilly's purchase and subsequent demolition of a 1940s beachfront property on Long Island led me to a little reflection about conservatism over the past three decades--not so much about how its power has grown, but about how its essence has changed.
Traditional conservatism is defined by its first two syllables--to conserve. It didn't fight change. It argued for making sure that change did not disrupt what worked, and did not damage the ideals and values all of us share. And, if it argued on behalf of the individual, it did not argue for exalting the individual over the society every individual is a part of. In short, it understood that a democratic society is a balancing act and, in that sense, it had something in common with traditional liberalism. Each perspective embraces a different side of the balancing act, but neither denies the need to maintain a balance.
Which leads me to point out the principal deficiency of conservatism in the Reagan and post-Reagan era. It has been defined mainly by its sacrifice of any semblance of balance, and by a Randian embrace of me-first principals across the board, principals that have corroded every area of public policy and has brought America to the brink of a new Gilded Age, where the suffering of many is embraced in all of the centers of power, in order to embrace the fleeting opulence of a power-hungry few. Freedom of religion is defined solely in terms of the interests of one religion. The international balance of power is defined solely in terms of the need to maintain our interests. The economic life of the nation is defined solely by the need to maintain the interests of capital, not labor--so much so that, when the nation faces an economic crisis brought on by the recklessness of capital, it is labor that must sacrifice to bail capital out. And the cultural life of the nation focuses not on celebrating the fruits of creation, but on sacrificing those fruits if they stand in the way of displaying our egos.
And that, in turn, leads me in a roundabout way to condemn what Mr. O'Reilly has done here. He has destroyed a valuable and even historic property solely for the purpose of getting a better view. He could, of course, have simply bought an existing property with that same view and ocean access, but he didn't. He clearly wanted to make a statement that the property is now HIS, and whatever had come before HIM was not going to be preserved for future generations. Never mind its value, its beauty, or the work and materials put into building it. None of these things should be allowed to get in the way of Mr. O'Reilly's celebration of his lack of awareness that none of us truly, ultimately own anything. Property rights are not natural rights, but rights granted by the State with an implicit covenant of good stewardship, both of the Earth's resources and the people around us. The truth is that any demolition should be balanced, and permitted, only in the context of how it relates to that stewardship.
Enjoy your property, and your proposed use of it, Mr. O'Reilly. It proves that you are just another modern conservative with no desire to conserve. And don't forget: the next person who owns it may put back what you destroyed. After all, they may have an ego to celebrate as well--but it may be an ego tempered by the knowledge that none of us are immortal, and all of us have only one planet to share.
No comments:
Post a Comment