« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What is Conservative?

By: Ed54 (Diary)  |  December 30th, 2011 at 03:51 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

A lot of people talk about being Conservatives on this site.  Most posters speak strongly of applying conservative principles to government.  However, there appears to be a varying understanding of what those principles are.  In particular, many people mistake positions for principles,  and some seem to define Conservatism as “all the positions I agree with.”  Certainly there is limited discussion of the underlying  philosophy of conservatism, and how it differentiates us from other political philosophies and groups.

So I thought it would be useful to start an discussion on Conservatism.  What do you consider the philosophy underlying Conservatism?  What are the core principles that derive from that philosophy?  How do you apply those principles to arrive at specific policy approaches and political positions?  How does Conservatism differ from other political philosophies?

I’ll go first.  I consider the underlying philosophy of conservatism to be the belief that society should be organized according to hard earned lessons and proven principles of governance.  Conservatives appreciate the limits of human capacity and we recognize the fundamental flaws in human character.  Therefore, we avoid radical change and mistrust the impulses of others to use government to improve society.  Conservatism is ultimately a pragmatic approach to governance, sticking with proven principles until new approaches have been thoroughly vetted.  We “conserve” that which works and put the burden of proof on those who would change it.

That respect for the past separates us from Liberals and Progressives, who believe that the imperative to improve society justifies radical change.  They are willing to accept error as the price of progress.  Conservatism prioritizes outcomes while Liberalism prioritizes intentions.

From this philosophy, I see a group of core principles:

  1. Limited Government.  The biggest lesson of history is that government cannot be trusted with excessive power.  People are simply too vulnerable to the impulse to control others.  Further, centralized government control is ineffective, and centralized funding means centralized control.   Therefore, government authority should be constrained to the minimum necessary for a functioning society, and government activity should be funded at the lowest possible level of community.  These principles form the basis of our Constitutional system of government, a system proven by 235 years of success.
  2. Economic Freedom.  History contains 3 major economic lessons:  A – Capitalism is the only economic system proven to increase standards of living.  B – Absent profit motive and self interest, the only way to increase productivity is coercive power. and C – Government intervention always leads to unintended consequences and usually makes things worse.
  3. Respect for social institutions.  The family is the strongest and most enduring social institution in human history.  Anything that weakens the family weakens all of us.  Churches have likewise been a force for social good for thousands of years, and their place in society should be respected.  Finally, our common moral code is the source of our strength as a society, and should be respected.
  4. National defense and law enforcement.  History has shown that only those people strong enough to defend their freedom will keep it, and that allying with other free peoples makes us stronger.  Ignoring or appeasing evil only allows it to become a greater threat.  And civilization must have some base level of rules and order, otherwise chaos thrives.  These lessons apply abroad and at home.
One interesting challenge is how to differentiate Conservatives and Libertarians.  Obviously there is a good deal of overlap on principles, which is why we often make common political cause, but ultimately the two groups are different.  Conservatives look at the history of civilization and realize that, while individual freedom is critical, it must be balanced against some degree of social order.  Experience teach us that pure self interest does not work in the long run, and that absolute freedom is not possible.  Libertarians appear unwilling to apply any degree of pragmatism to the application of their principles.
How doe these principles translate into positions?  Well, obviously that could be a very long list, but here is a sampling of my views on issues:
  • Taxes and spending: threat to limited government and economic freedom.  Must always be constrained.
  • Education:  No federal funding.  Schools are too important.
  • Abortion: violates our common moral code – Thou Shalt Not Kill.
  • Drug laws:  drug abuse causes incredible destruction in our society and must be combatted with the full capacity of government at all levels.  Sorry Libertarians, you’re clueless on this.
  • Immigration: legal immigration is a source of economic and social strength and should be fostered.  The history of the US proves this.  But illegal immigration brings chaos and weakens society, and is a national security issue.
  • Health Care: government mandates and health care spending are threats to limited government and economic freedom.  But people without medical care violates our common moral code and weakens our society. “Let them die” is not Conservative, and the market is broken (probably because of government intervention in the tax code).   This is an area where common cause could have been found.  Unfortunately Liberals chose to ram a one sided solution down our throats instead.  After ObamaCare is repealed, it should be replaced with a more considered solution.
  • Foreign Policy: the best way to ensure our own liberty is to support it elsewhere in the world, with force in extreme cases.
Well, this was helpful for me.  Articulating your thoughts makes you clarify them and question the assumptions they are based on.  I invite you to do the same.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • nuclear139

    These presidents are my heros of conservatism because they used what has worked to make this country better. They persevered the environment with out going to extremes like liberals, Bush 1 admendment of the clean air act in 1990, Nixon with the clean water act allowed generations to enjoy nature without destroying jobs They trusted and built relationships with business so that millions of Americans can have not only a job but earn a living without having to depend on government. Conservatism is about protecting individual freedom, persevering life as well as celebrating the human spirt to achieve great things. Reagan did not just talk tough he brought down the original Evil Empire the Soviet Union, Americans walk on the moon under a conservative president, and we put a nation bowed down by high interest rates, joblessness and low morale back to work with higher spirts and a since of pride in our American heritage. Conservatives are more than preservers of the American Dream we are the keepers of that can do spirt which is sorely missing today.

  • justonevoice

    You have hit on what I think is needed on this site. This is a private site so the editors can obviously post whatever they want on the front page and they can ban whomever they want. But at the risk of that (a risk worth taking), I must say that I have been extremely disappointed on the tone and content of the front page over the past week or so. In savaging certain candidates (particularly Gingrich, Santorum and Paul), the discussion has lost sight of what brings people together on this site: we are not just Republicans but conservatives. And I certainly think of myself as a Christian first, a conservative second, and a Republican third if not fourth. So it naturally begs the question, What is a conservative?

    You have inspired me to write a diary (which would be my first) to discuss my ideas more at length. But I will add a few comments to your very good list.

    I will put this out there: there needs to be more dialogue between libertarians and conservatives instead of both sides shutting each other down. I do not consider myself a libertarian because philosophically I do not believe the State is per se evil, but I often come out on the same side as libertarians.

    I think your list is very good. Where I would add a nuance is in the foreign policy area. In your category of “national defense” I would add that guiding principles of military action must include: 1) war and violence are only used as an absolute last resort; 2) when military action is taken it must be clearly because a US interest is at stake; and 3) Congress must declare war.

    In this arena, I believe there is quite a bit of latitude in analyzing situations within the family of conservatives. I tend to take a very strict view of just war theory and oppose preemptive attack absent imminent hostility. Consequently, I did not support the initial invasion of Iraq and I more than a bit skeptical about whether Iran poses as much of a threat as most of the candidates think. This is something on which people can reach different conclusions.

    Thank you for your excellent diary and I hope people comment on your thoughts, including developing their own diaries setting out the principles they believe in. I also think it is important that if a conservative or libertarian disagrees with the mainstream of conservative thought, the person sets out their reasoning. That will help promote dialogue. Another area I differ with many fellow conservatives is in my opposition to the death penalty. I will explain that in my diary.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    So glad that you found it interesting. And I totally agree with your observations about tone and dialogue. In fact, the tone on Redstate is what inspired me to write it in the first place. People are quick to label some candidates “not a real conservative”, but I nave not seen anyone articulate what a real conservative is.

  • justonevoice

    I hope you get more discussion!

  • ghostship

    I’m not so sure of that as I used to be. From what I’ve seen most of the support for small government tends to come from the Libertarian wing of the party. In my experience many Conservatives seem more focused on better management of the government instead of reducing its size and scope.

    It seems to me that what Conservatives really support is to conserve an image of what the America they remember to be like. The problem with that is many of us came after The New Deal, The Great Society, Feminism, and much of Progressive ideology. The progressive ideology has seeped into the American mindset that it’s difficult for the average person to contemplate a reduced role for the federal government.

    Asking what is Conservatism is a good question and it’s one I’ve pondered myself. How can we defeat the ideology of the Progressives if we’re not sure of our own beliefs?

  • acat

    Y’know, you *could* just ask some of us.

    First, it’s “Enlightened self-interest” that libertarian thought depends upon, not pure self-interest. The “Enlightenment” part is key, recognizing that one is part of something larger than merely onesself, and that the interest of both often go together rather well.

    Yes, some particularly hidebound Libertarian-party doctrinaire docents miss this, but then, hidebound Religious doctrinaire docents miss things too .. should I judge all Catholics by the Pope, or all Evangelicals by that Vander Plaaats character in Iowa? Do us the courtesy of not judging all libertarians or libertarian-leaning conservatives by Ron Paul.

    As for the rest, I have no particular argument with you on abortion – life clearly begins when egg and sperm meet, the process starts, and will proceed unless interrupted. Every life ended prematurely reduces our diversity. Ever look at a Lee Atwater or an Erick Erikson or a Michael Jordan or a Tiger Woods and think “Wow, he’s one in a million” ? Now, think of the 30 out of 30,000,000 who we never got a chance to see.

    I’d suggest that, instead of guessing, you try engaging a libertarian in a conversation next time. There’s a small number of us here on Red State who would be happy to help you understand our side.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    If 80% of the population of country believes that apostates should be executed, liberty and elections are incompatible.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    The main subject of my post was Conservatism, not Libertarianism. Lilbertarianism and Liberalism were only addressed where the differences helped define Conservatism. If you would like to expand the conversation to what Libertarianism is, you are certainly free to, and that would be appreciated.

    Not everything has to be an argument.

  • gekster

    they have the right to vote, but have very little liberty.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    on limited government is one of degree. I think it may stem from why we believe in limited government. Conservatives believe in limited government because the lessons of history have shown that limited government is more effective than intrusive government. Government action reduces individual initiative and self reliance, and government taxation deprives the private sector of capital needed for growth. In other words, we view better management to be synonymous with reducing government size and scope.

    I won’t speak for Libertarians, as Acat took me to task below for doing, but my perception is that their belief in small government stems from a core belief that government and liberty are incompatible. I understand that belief, but it does not leave much room for good government, and it is easily caricatured. I realize that is an exaggerated statement, and would hope some actual libertarians will refine it.

    I do think we need to articulate WHY we believe in limited government. I also think that we sometimes take it to far. Reducing government is not always the answer at alll levels, and govenrment is not always bad. When we state categorically that all government is bad, we look foolish, because that statement is easily refuted. Obviously SOME government is required, so the question is not either/or, but how much. If the conservative answer is always “less than now”, just like the liberal answer is “more than now” ,that may be satisfying but it’s not very intellectually rigorous.

    One nuance often lost is the concept of levels of govenrment. I don’t think any thinking person can argue that schools, roads, and emergency services are bad, or that we have too much of them. But liberals often set us up with this strawman, and then attack it. In reality, the conservative position is that the most important government functions should be locally controlled and funded, because that is the most efficient delivery of services and gives people the most control over those services. If you don’t like your sheriff or school superintendent, you can get of him or her, which you could not do if he or she worked for the federal government. So I think that rather than arguing that all taxes are bad, all the time, we should be striving to push the tax base back down to the state and local levels, where communities can decide what levels of service they want and how much they are willing to pay for them.

  • ghostship

    I may be mistaken but I don’t think the Libertarian view is that government and liberty are incompatible but that a correlation between the amount of one and the amount of the other exists in that more government tends to equal less liberty and vice versa.

  • acat

    I would also point out that Erick touched on this recently in describing Santorum as a “pro-life statist”, that is, someone who takes a very narrow definition of conservative.

    Mew

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    is that Libertarian philosophy views the tradeoff as between government and liberty, whereas Conservative philosophy sees the tradeoff as between government and prosperity. Of course most Libertarians are Conservatives, and most Conservatives are Libertarian, so many people believe that more goverment tends to equal less liberty AND less prosperity. Focusing on the difference tends to draw an artificial boundary, but it is nonetheless useful to understand why we think as we do.

  • acat

    A diary along these lines, seeking to define Conservatism crops up on Red State every couple months, pretty much like clockwork. Google around and you can find previous examples.

    The reason for my post was because your assertions regarding the divide between libertarian and conservative are obviously influenced by Ron Paul, who is – as I said – a poor example. I offered a correction.

    I do not see an argument as necessary, do you?

    Mew

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    of Libertarianism. Extreme examples are useful for comparison purposes because the distinctions are sharp, but they do tend to exaggerate differences at the expense of common ground.

    Most of the posts I have seen tend to define Conservatism in terms of positions and issues, whereas I am trying to get at WHY we hold those positions. Input from a thoughtful Libertarian would be quite helpful in that process, I think.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    of SOCONs, FISCONs, and DEFCONs, the three legged stool that defined our party in the 80′s. The term FISCON has been expanded to include Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and others for whom limited government is the defining issue. It is inevitable that in such a coalition, there will be some who are apostates on one or more legs of the stool, and that each leg will seek to define their leg as a non-negotiable litmus test. I think the term “narrow” is inverted from that perspective; Santorum takes a broad defiinition of conservative as someone who supports one or more legs of the stool, while Erick takes the more narrow view that a conservative must support all three legs of the stool. For purposes of nominating a Presidential candidate, I agree with Erick. You can’t have a coalition where one of the major groups is left out. Hence Paul has no chance of being the nominee because he fails the DEFCON test, among other things.

  • acat

    Wikipedia has an article that isn’t too dreadful. The Paul Ryan quote makes the visit worthwhile, IMO.

    In case I haven’t been clear enough, I would not spit on Ron Paul if he were on fire. I would not put him in charge of anything more complex than a Sunday brunch, and I will not vote for him. Ever. Primary or general. Period.

    The reason for this is very simple – he is a wedge. His bat-{guano} crazy views have been used to split the libertarian-leaners away from the alliance – often times by social conservatives who otherwise mean well and would be fellow travelers.

    Ron Paul is a cancerous tumor upon the fusion, and should have been excised years ago.

    That said, we do have other disagreements in the reasons for our goals – I seek smaller government so that I can conduct my life as I see fit. This would necessarily result in lower taxes that the fiscally-minded seek.

    The hard sell, I’ve found, is to the social conservatives – especially the religious-right subset – who are often surprised when I, an atheist libertarian, say that churches should run most of the schools in this country.

    The logic is simple. Churches will do a much better job than government, having their own motivation to be good, efficient stewards, so it will be more efficient. The church as a whole is a separate institution from the government, so while some dabbling in indoctrination may be expected, it’s not likely to be the pro-statist pro-communist garbage kids are learning today. There are many different denominations, some left-leaning and some right-leaning, so we will end up with a variety of viewpoints, not the uniform mindset produced today. Finally, most church schools today produce kids who are ready, when they go to college, to challenge the status quo – making the revolving door between colleges and Democrat government appointments a bit less comfy-cozy.

    This, by the way, is why I tend to focus on mutual goals, rather than on the reasons why I want to achieve those goals. You and I may want the same thing, but it’s very unlikely that we’ll want it for the same reasons, y’see.

    Mew

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    about Paul being used as a wedge, and about other conservatives often being complicit in this. I don’t consider him to be representative of all Libertarians, insomuch as I recognize there is about 80% overlap between Libertarians and Conservatives on issues, and many people can credibly call themselves both. It’s also worth noting that people tend to come into a coalition over one strongly held issue, and to adopt the other viewpoints of the coalition over time as they are exposed to the arguments of the other legs of the stool.

    I started out as a DefCon, being a career soldier. I have gradually become committed to the limited government viewpoint, but it was through reflection and consideration as I saw what a royal hash government made of most things I was personally privy to. Oddly, as an evangelical Christian, I am least comfortable with the SoCon platform. Though personally strongly opposed to abortion, I am uncomfortable with it as a political issue. I also disagree with most of the party on gay marriage, because I have gotten to know some gay couples and have had cause to reflect on the fundamental injustice of our party stance.

    Your views on schools are, however, a good example of the limitations of Libertarian philosophy in my view. It seems that some Libertarians think that world history began in 1930, and are willing to ignore the lessons of civilization up to that point. We tried church-run schools before … from 500 AD to 1500 AD, during Medieval times. AKA the Dark Ages. Between the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, every modern industrialized country adopted universal public education. Countries without universal compulsory public education, such as Afghanistan, Sudan, and Bangladesh, also happen to be the biggest shitholes in the country, and one need only look at most Islamic countries for proof that religion should not control education. Again, as an evangelical Christian, the last thing I want is someone teaching my kid some crap about how dinosaurs walked the earth 5000 years ago because that’s when Adam was born.

    I didn’t mean for that be an overly harsh critique, and if I comes across that way then I apologize. I only wished to illustrate how ideology can cause us to overlook the obvious.

  • acat

    Not all who can serve do, although my family includes people from every branch (except the Coast Guard) of the Armed Services.

    I’ll agree with you about the screwed-up nature of Islamic countries, but I don’t think you’d have to worry much about church schools turning into madrases. As J. Sobieski and gekster pointed out below, the Islamic countries’ major problem is not representative government or religious schools, but a fundamental lack of individual liberty; nothing is going to change (and, indeed, nothing has changed since the 9th century in some areas…) short of a significant cultural change. I’m under the impression, Ed54, that you’re smart enough to tell government apart from culture, although they certainly blur the lines between “church” or, more accurately, mosque and state.

    That’s why, by the way, I say you don’t have to worry about religious schools – any school that shifted to a pure anti-science curriculae would quickly be abandoned by all but the zealots, and in a bit of time, the problem self-corrects as the school can’t afford to stay open with only the zealots’ contributions. If one takes a small subset of the current home-schooled population as the zealots, I don’t really see a problem here.

    I would also point out that the Jesuits have always – even in the time frames you mentioned – done a very good job of educating people. Even today, Chicago’s catholic schools turn out superior students – some with no money whatsoever – than the public schools, and do so for pennies on the dollar.

    Yes, there will be problems. There will need to be standards, and standards boards to revise and update and validate them, and these boards will need to be not only non-denominational, but non-religious – the Muslim Americans should be able to have madrases, provided they teach reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic along with arabic and koran, eh?

    The point being, there would still necessarily be a role for government, but it would be at the highest level statewide, and mostly vested at the local, making sure that the citizens paying for the education were getting what they view as good value.

    Happy New Year.

    Mew

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    on varying ways to deliver education. You are right that the Jesuits did a good job of educating their charges, but like English “public” (eg private) schools, that education was only provided to a limited segment of society. Universal education and literacy are non-negotiable for any modern industrial nation, and the government will always be the guarantor of last resort for that capability.

    The critical point, I think we can agree, is that these decisions should be made at the local level, and this is where we can make common cause against the Liberals and their irresistible impulse to federalize everything. Speaking of which, our college and university system is the envy of the world, with virtually every nation sending their best and brightest here to study, and yet the vast majority of our universities are state or private run. There are only 4 federal undergraduate Colleges that I am aware of, one of which I am a graduate of.

    The Islamic world is devoid of liberty precisely because there is no separation between church, state, education, and culture. In Islam they are one and the same. Much as they were during Medieval times in Western Europe, with similar results.