Whither Conservatism?
Andy McCarthy over at NRO’s The Corner speaks for many:
The likelihood is not a post-Bush Republicanism but a post-Republican conservatism. Most of us care about the party only insofar as it serves the movement, not the other way around. If the party is no longer doing that — or, worse, if it is setting us backwards — then it’s time to abandon the party, not the movement.
Conservatism is all about first principles - so let us re-state for the record just what conservatism came about to do. There wasn’t in the days of yore a “conservative” society upon which liberalism started to work - there was the society, and liberalism came along in the mid-18th century and proposed a series of radical changes in how this society worked. Please note that - it came along in the mid-18th century…there was 18 centuries of this society; 18 centuries in which there was massive changes in society, but the fundamentals of that society remained in place and were generally accepted without question. Liberalism didn’t want to tinker around the edges, but wanted wholesale and fundamental change - a complete re-working in the relations between men, between men and government, and between men and God, if there was even to be a place in this new society for God. Conservatism arose after liberalism - it was a response, and it started towards the very end of the 18th century, as Burke observed the excesses of the French Revolution and started to carefully state what was right about the old ways, and what was wrong about the underlying beliefs of those who wanted to change it completely.
Conservatism, at bottom, is the defense of the old, Judeo-Christian civilization against all of those - for whatever reason - who seek to overthrow Judeo-Christianity and replace it with a new paradigm. In this conservatism is equally opposed to liberalism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, libertarianism, communism - but, also, to those elements in society which are not of the political “isms”, but are in direct opposition to Judeo-Christianity. These would be things like consumerism, welfarism, pornography - and in a certain but very real sense, against laissez-faire capitalism, that bastard outgrowth of 18th century liberalism which became, in time, merely an excuse for the rich to grind the faces of the poor. Having no problems with the free market and no objection to a man gaining great wealth through his diligence and hard work, it is still a Judeo-Christian principle that the mere piling up of money is immoral, and as the enterprising build their wealth, there must be care taken to ensure that they aren’t doing so without any thought to the needs of society as a whole.
The source of conservative trouble has been the so-called division of conservatism into “social conservative” and “fiscal conservative” lines - truth be told, the only real conservatism is “social conservatism”. Fiscal conservatism is the latching on to the political power of social conservatives by those who will take the conservative desire for low taxes and non-intrusive government and use it as a means of advancing the cause of mere money-making. Conservatives don’t want low taxes because it helps the economy so much as they want them because in Judeo-Christian principle, God makes the person contained within his family the steward of wealth - to pass the wealth of the family to government is to abdicate one’s responsibility. Fiscal conservatives want low taxes because this makes it possible for them to make money faster and in larger amounts - something no conservative really gives a darn about. The artificial division - which is really a marriage of convenience for political purposes - in the consevative movement is what leads to our current crisis of confidence - as fiscal conservatives bemoan things like McCain’s global warming plan due to its possible deletrious effects on economic growth, while conservatives remain fixed on what is really important to conservatism…the appointment of conservative judges, the winning of the war for this nation established by God to be the bastion of liberty and religion in the world, the prospect that the powers of government will be used to defend the family rather than attack it.
This is not to say that conservatives can’t or won’t take exception to various aspects of McCain’s global warming plan, or other efforts of his (notably things like CFR) - but the crucial battles for conservatism are not whether we’ll have “cap and trade” and absurd restrictions on campaign spending, but whether marriage will remain between one man and one woman; that parents will remain the ultimate authority in a child’s life; that religion will be permitted in the public square; that - God willing - we’ll one day end the scourge of abortion upon our nation. Next to such fundamental issues, how money is moved around in capital markets is trivial. McCain is a conservative in the most vital sense of the word - he’s for family, for God, for country and he’ll enact policies which will defend all of these. Obama is an ultra-liberal - in spite of his high sounding rhetoric about family, God and country, the fact of his policies is an unrelenting war on all three and, indeed, on all of the fundamental principles of Judeo-Christian civilization. Given this stark choice in November, conservatives won’t have to “hold their nose” and vote McCain, but will enthusiastically do so - and then be more than prepared to battle McCain over some of the things he wants to do (such as the aforementioned global warming proposals). But these battles will be carried on between ladies and gentlemen who are all of the same fundamental beliefs - and so real solutions can be found and compromise effected…unlike the impossibility of real compromise between liberalism and conservatism.
Between those who are conservative and those who are fiscal conservatives, there is a community of interests - most notably in the desire that government be restricted in its scope. When someone wants to help you out of a ditch, you don’t worry if he wants to help you out because of altruism, or because he’s hoping you’ll give him a reward - you just want out of the ditch - and so he’s your friend. Conservatism and fiscal conservatism can travel a long way together with no problem - and can politely agree to disagree on some things and battle for their own views in the public square. But conservatism cannot become an adjunct of fiscal conservatism - that would mean conservatism was abandoning itself. If someone out there wishes to work with me to lower taxes, then he is my ally on that issue - if after that he wishes to fight to keep abortion legal, then he and I will part ways on that issue…but I won’t compromise my basic principles - and I won’t ask someone else to do so, either - just to feel better about my prospects at election time. Fiscal conservatives will have to decide for themselves what they want in November - while McCain is not with them 100%, he’s certainly more of an ally than Obama will ever be, so a fiscal conservative failure to vote for McCain is the acme of silliness…but others will do what they think is best. Meanwhile, as a conservative, I will fight hard for McCain because he’s one of mine - in spite of disagreements on this or that policy, he is a kindred spirit and a man who defends the same things I defend.
It is my view that the American people are broadly conservative in their views - as all people have been at all times. People do prefer the tried and true to the innovative. Innovation there must be from time to time, but there’s never any rush and any change should be done with great care. We conservatives can, by sticking to principle, win the support of the majority of the American people - and fiscal conservatives can be helpful in this endevour. But as we speak of a general conservatism, we must never lose sight of the fact that this doesn’t mean a wholesale subscription to the ideas of the Chicago School of economics. The most conservative Americans in the world are ticked off at high gas prices - they don’t go for the stupidity of leftwing thinking on it (ie, an evil cabal of Big Oil making prices go higher), but the high prices are annoying, and if supposed conservative leaders want to offer a series of excuses for the high prices - even if the most carefully reasoned in terms of basic economics - then they are going to get blindsided by the guys who are proposing solutions, even if foolish solutions (such as those offered by the Democrats). One can disdain plans for lowering the price gas, but unless there is a plan for the party going into November, it will be a severe drag on votes…and such a drag is not just a risk to conservatism, but very much to fiscal conservatism, as well. Better to work out a plan - even if parts of it are in technical violation of laissez-faire capitalism - than to have no plan while the other guy does.
So think about it, fellow conservatives (social and fiscal) - for all our differences, we have far more in common with each other than either of us do with the other side. We can split into hostile camps and ensure the eventual socialist destruction of America, or we can unite and save what we hold dear - and then engage in friendly argument over those things we disagree about. If conservatism - both parts - hangs together and puts out a comprehensive plan encompasing economics and morality, then conservatism can carry the day in November and beyond. Each side will have to give a little (without given up on essentials) in the service of the common fight - and we’ll find out over the next few months whether there is this wisdom within our ranks, or whether we’ll be united only in our mutual defeat.
33 comments May 16th, 2008
