Yes, Conservatism IS Compatible with Science Fiction

Got a comment on my last post that I think warrants an extended polite response, so -- here goes:

The first is the question of whether science fiction is welcoming to conservatives, particularly religious conservatives. The answer to that is probably "no," if only because SF takes global warming seriously, and virtually all near-future stories incorporate it.

Thanks for not being openly rude, Greg, but there are two things wrong with this comment.

First of all, it doesn't accurately reflect the current conservative position on global warming/climate change. Actually, as of today, there's a diversity of opinion on this side of the aisle on that particular subject, ranging from people who, yes, still don't believe global warming is real to those who acknowledge its existence yet reject the hair-on-fire extinction rhetoric and the statist assumptions that undergird the left's proposed solutions. I happen to fall into the latter category, as I've mentioned several times in the past -- and I'm far from alone. Many mainstream conservatives have been evolving on this in response to the evidence. We may not agree with the vocal activists in re: what to do about it, but that doesn't mean we're "deniers" or that we don't take the matter seriously.

Secondly, global warming is simply not what's making recent SF unfriendly to conservatives. How do I know that? Because all of my right-leaning acquaintances are fans of mid-20th-century SF that incorporates overpopulation and ecological disaster in its future histories. Heinlein's works, for example, are often based on those assumptions -- yet in my circles, Heinlein is almost universally revered. Clearly, something else is going on. Could it be that the style of presentation has changed -- has, in fact, become far more obtrusive, doctrinaire, and pessimistic? Could it be that the culture of fandom has become increasingly totalitarian and intolerant of reasonable differences of opinion?

On the religious side, I'm not sure SF can be welcoming to fundamentalists. I was raised Southern Baptist in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and I remember being told it was wrong to read science fiction because setting a story in the future meant you didn't believe Jesus was coming soon.

With all due respect, this is your personal experience of one particular religious community. It's not representative of religious people as a whole. I belong to a group of writers who are conservative and, for the most part, religious, and none of us believe it's wrong to read science fiction because "SF ignores that Jesus is coming soon." As a matter of fact, a number of us are writing science fiction with clear religious undertones (which, if you examine the actual history of science fiction, is certainly not impossible). And that's not because we belong to non-orthodox, liberal sects. Many of us are observant Catholics, in fact. The Catholic Church is certainly not known for its progressivism, as I'm sure you'll agree -- yet the Vatican has an astronomer and has entertained the possibility of extraterrestrial life. (Would we baptize an alien? If the alien asked, sure!)

In broader terms, SF caters to people who're interested in reading about how things might change. Conservatives, by definition, are people who resist change, so, again, it's hard to see how SF can appeal to very many conservatives.

As Chris L. has already observed, this is a stereotypical, oversimplified view of conservatism. Edmund Burke, a critical intellectual forefather of the tradition we recognize in America as conservative once wrote that "a State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." But Burke and other conservatives would further add that one shouldn't change just for change's sake. The reasons for change, we argue, should be rational and powerful, and the methods of change should be prudent -- or, as G.K. Chesterton (another favorite of religious conservatives in particular) once wrote:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

At this very moment, for instance, the world is being forcefully reminded why competing national entities have historically erected hard borders around their lands. As it turns out, there are solid evolutionary reasons why humans would want to restrict movement between groups. If you refuse to grapple with that reality -- well, the news makes the consequences plain. And we conservatives argue that this need for circumspection holds for any supposedly "irrational" tradition. If you want to change something, we say, slow down a bit, try to understand why that cultural oddity exists in the first place, and make sure you're not removing something that's truly needed without providing a suitable replacement. We "resist" change -- but only in the sense that, again, we wish changes to be carefully considered and not precipitous.

And personally? I find your comment above so strange given that every self-identified righty I know is insanely excited about the space program -- to the point that we gleefully squealed and kicked our feet when Trump mentioned a manned mission to Mars in his 2020 SOTU. We're not interested in the future? A likely story!

I'm glad we agree on cardboard apocalyptic fiction at least, but you might want to talk to more conservatives before making such broad pronouncements about what we think. Lots of us would fit in fine in SF -- and once did.