Ideology and Dialectic Concluded

in the end, however, it is not the hypocrisy of either party that concerns me, and there is plenty of that to go around.  The willful ignorance that seems to be a growing position within conservative ideology is much more a cause for concern.   Elitists condemning the elitism of other elitists has long been a staple of American politics, but Rick Santorum's attacks on education have an air of sincerity about them.  It is perhaps true that a collegiate curriculum is more liberal and encourages more liberal attitudes, if by a liberal education one means what has been traditionally been meant by a liberal education, "the interaction of individuals, possessing different knowledge and different views," to borrow a phrase of Hayek.  The values underlying a liberal education are clear enough, and it begins with the tolerance of an open mind, the willingness to engage in dialectic aimed at 'truth,' even if it is the provisional, instrumental truth of the here and now, a 'truth' that will be challenged and amended, but always fundamental to a liberal education is "the belief that it is desirable that men should develop their own individual gifts and bents," to again borrow a phrase from Hayek.  One suspects that it is precisely the values of a liberal education that Santorum rebels against, and one credits the visceral origins of his rebellion against those values, particularly when it comes to the development of women's sexuality and to "gifts and bents" that are, well, not straight.  Although Santorum is much more enthusiastic than Romney, both have fallen sway to the right's growing insistence on the purity of an inadequately comprehensive doctrine.  Both are vying for the title "true conservative," and the nomination for their parties lead seems altogether too contingent upon gaining the title of "true conservatism."  On the economic side, the motivation is clear enough.  One need only follow the money, and if one follows the money, it becomes less and less about the freedom of individuals qua individuals to exercise their discretion in the selection of goods and services within an open market, more and more about the "freedom of the corporation" to exercise their will without the regulatory impositions of the state.  On the social side, however, one strongly suspects that Santorum's recent diatribes in favor of "freedom of religion" are not quite what the framer's of the constitution had in mind with the first amendment.  It is not so much the individual's freedom to follow his bent and practice religion as one might please, but rather the "freedom of religion" to exercise its will through the two coercive instruments of employment and the state.  American conservatism ultimately is the party of coercion.  "To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives," to again borrow a phrase of Hayek's, American conservatism "began increasingly to make use of the promise of a 'new freedom,'" but it is ultimately not freedom of the American people to shape his or her destiny.