Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Is A Conservative?
When philosophers want to define a thing, we sometimes try to generate necessary and sufficient conditions for that thing. Just to be clear, X is a necessary condition for “being Y” if all Y’s are necessarily X. X is a sufficient condition for being Y if every X-thing is a Y.
For example, I would say that “having human DNA” is a necessary condition for “being a human male.” But it’s not sufficient, because of course you could have human DNA and be female. “Having a Y chromosome” is a sufficient condition for being a male. (Or, well, I think so; we’ll push aside the transgender skeptics for now.)
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being an American conservative? Russell Kirk came up with a list once, but it might be fun to make our own.
The two most obvious components of conservatism are 1) commitment to freedom and especially free enterprise, and 2) respect for human tradition. Your classic fusionist pairing. Some people are a lot more committed to one than the other, and we sometimes call those people RINOs, though maybe it would be more accurate to call them “half-men.” They’re in, but they’re only holding up one end.
So, would we say that commitment to one of those two components (and of course people are free to further refine them) is a necessary and sufficient condition for being conservative? Would we want to add a requirement that the other be at least nominally respected or tolerated? Anyone want to make the argument that true conservatives should be passionate about both? Or just formulate another definition entirely?
Published in General
The belief that all people/entities should be treated equally under that law in all manners for a given action or requirement. If there are logical circumstances of which one should be treated slightly differently, (sexes in family law and children) then the burden of proof should be on the person proving the law should discriminate. Hopefully it would be based on common sense.
Now we have never lived up to that principle in our nation. That does not mean it should not be be the guiding principle for all policies and laws and a conservative should have to explain why they think in a specific case we should not follow this idea.
No conservative elected politician that I know of even comes close to following this principle 100% of the time. Therefor one could say it is idealistic. I just merely believe this the founding principle of moral society. Therefor a nation should always governor itself both formally, information, in business, family and on a personal bases by this political ideal. This is merely the political implementation of the Golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The two you listed are not even primary factors, in my uneducated opinion. I think questions of anthropological philosophy are more important to answer because from those beliefs flows every other belief that can be labeled as conservative or liberal. I’m thinking something more akin to adhering to Sowell’s constrained vision.
Wittgenstein’s concept of “meaning” comes into play here. Wittgenstein argued that words frequently don’t have a clear minimum requirement of qualities, or of any specific quality that must always be present. He talked about the word “game,” and how he doubted that there was any single quality (competitiveness, skill, athleticism, strategy, etc.) that had to be present to allow you to describe an activity as a game. In general, like a family resemblance, as long as you had a few common qualities with others in the family, you didn’t need any one quality to appear in every instance.
I suspect conservatism is the same way. I’m not sure there’s any one belief or disposition that uniquely identifies a conservative. We all tend to promote individual freedom, hate collectivism, promote traditional values, resist change for change’s sake, etc. But how many of us display every value in the list? And is there any single characteristic that appears everywhere? I tend to doubt it. Conservatism is a general family, but without any necessary quality that defines us.
Ultimately I think conservatism defines ones general cultural outlook. That is to say Conservatives are those people that seek cultural stability. It is not defined by freedom or free markets and often can run opposed to these. What makes an American conservative is their determination to maintain the institutions and practices that have defined their lives up until the present. Thus in reality a deep south segregationist is as genuine an American conservative as a small government New England Yankee. In reality if you are defending the status quo you must be a conservative (irrespective of the merits of that status quo).
KP, I would love it if you would expand on that. Just to fill in the gaps in my ignorance. I don’t fully understand the argument.
I think it begins with presumptions. It is less how much the government is involved in some area than whether (a) Government claims complete control and magnanimously grants broad exceptions and liberties for now; or (b) there is a presumption of freedom constrained only by necessary and reasonable clearly defined regulation. The outcomes (a) and (b) can look the same in practice but they are radically different.
A simple fair tax or an unfair tax festooned with thousands of political compromises that empower those who grant them?
A non-conservative regards checks and balances, separation of powers, enumerated rights and other limitations on government as unnatural barriers to progress. For such persons, the natural condition is unlimited authority for whoever claims to be the most enlightened. A Conservative is one who opposes that point of view in its entirety.
In general I would say it can be summed up by a bit from Federalist 51:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
It takes the pre-Rousseau view of humanity as unchanging in its aspects, especially the negative ones. This means that mankind will always require government of some sort, but as Paine would have it, only as a necessary evil which must itself be similarly controlled because it is built of the same crooked timber it is intended to control, not change.
Here’s a review from Commentary that gives a little better data on what Sowell actually wrote.
To add my personal spiel, I’d say that the two things you listed (freedom and tradition) are best for mankind because of its inherent nature. If one takes a different view of that nature, then the most rational approaches to governing will necessarily be different. If there is a singular binary dividing left from right, I would put it at the basic concept of human nature as fixed/maleable, or possibly good/bad (I’m set on the first one, still waffling on the second.)
Racist
Bigot
Homophobe
If you expand “tradition” to include “God based morality” I think that pretty much covers it.
I could extrapolate all of the other qualities I consider conservative from those.
OK, so KC gives us a reasonable Wittgenstinian analysis of the limitations on the necessary/sufficient condition game. So yes, analytoc philosophers can be childish that way, and it’s not always helpful for “thick” concepts. And yet. Thu problem with Wittgenstinin language games is, they’re clear enough when you’re in thin perhaps, but wildly confusing when you’re trying to figure out thE limits. I feel like conservatives are doing that now. (More later, my phone isn’t cooperating.)
We discussed Russell Kirk’s list here.
To be fair, Kirk was a traditional, religious conservative (which pretty much describes me, although I probably view economic policy in a more libertarian fashion than Kirk).
I agree with the comment above that “conservatism” is rarely just a political creed, but represents a much broader cultural outlook.
For me, the two most fundamental principles from which a larger conservative outlook grow are:
1. Confidence that there is an objective moral order. Religious people tend to find this in religious principle, but it is certainly not necessary. Concepts of natural law flow back to Greece and Rome (natural law is central to Roman law), then found its way to us in the works of Aquinas, Locke, and others. C. S. Lewis (Abolition of Man) and Hadley Arkes (First Things), while both religious men, do not rely on religion for their defense of objective truths. The alternative is relativism, which is fundamentally inconsistent with a conservative outlook.
2. The Belief that Neither Mankind nor Human Society is Perfectible. Given history, one would think this is a no-brainer. But the utopian impulse lives on despite thousands of years of empirical evidence to the contrary.
Sometimes it makes it easier to define what you believe when you see a good description of its opposite. Charles Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and an all-round smart conservative, gives us a view of the progressive impulse (which seems to be situated about 180 degrees from conservatism):
Perhaps, but I’d say that the proof is in the pudding — we are (indeed) having trouble defining the concept, aren’t we? That evidence suggests that we’re at a stage where trying to define it further will cut off people who had previously (and legitimately) considered themselves conservative.
I would add: an understanding that these two principles don’t always coexist easily. A belief in objective morals tempts one to want to impose those morals; while a belief in imperfectibility tempts one towards antinomianism.
The first prong of Rachel’s test strikes me as more like the definition of “liberalism,” before that word was stolen by the socialist progressive utopians. The second prong may well be inherently “conservative,” but please note that the second prong is somewhat at odds with the first prong: Respect for tradition constrains the freedom of choice that liberty confers. I think, perhaps, the various brands of American Conservatism (and Libertarianism) are defined by how one reconciles that conflict.
“. . . mankind will always require government of some sort, but as Paine would have it, only as a necessary evil which must itself be similarly controlled because it is built of the same crooked timber it is intended to control, not change.”
I wonder if Paine could be characterized as conservative. His enthusiasm for the French Revolution probably weighs against it.
I also have my doubts about the characterization of government as a necessary evil. I kind of like Mortimer Adler’s description of it as a limited good — in other words, appropriate, well worth having, life is better with it that without it, but too much of it is toxic.
Does that get me kicked out of the clubhouse?
Yes, we’re having trouble defining it, which is precisely why a test like this might be useful, even if it seems a little hackneyed and oversimplified.
Like I say, a Wittgensteinian language game is all very well and good provided everyone is inside it and happy. When people start testing the limits of the game, that way of looking at things doesn’t provide us with much help. If I say that my favorite game is watching TV, and someone says, “Wait, but that’s not a game”, we’re then basically going to start talking about necessary and sufficient conditions (even if not in those terms).
It seems to me like we have some people who self-identify as conservatives but don’t clearly believe in a moral order; they’re mostly here because they think the government is too big and too intrusive and they don’t like it. But they might be materialist hedonists. Are they conservatives?
Of course you also have people who do believe in a moral order but who are fine with huge government. Can they be conservatives? (Not all of them regard themselves as such, of course.)
Intellectual history is wonderful for helping us to understand why we think what we do, but of course most of us are influenced by different strands of it to different degrees. So while I certainly agree, for example, that belief in a fixed human nature is extremely significant to the motivating philosophy of conservatism, I also know people who regard themselves as conservatives who definitely don’t subscribe to any robust idea of a human telos. What makes them conservative, if anything?
Thanks for reminding me! That was a great thread, which I think I only got to experience in reading mode due to phone complications. Though I didn’t explicitly remember it, that was probably the thing that left me with an un-alleviated desire to discuss the boundaries of conservatism.
I had similar concerns actually. And if we’re out, so is Roger Scruton, who recently wrote a lengthy essay on the subject…
The definition of a conservative is a pure and beautiful thing: “There are no free lunches.”
Many on this site believe in the power of religious doctrine, but few seem to respect the power of self- interest. Perhaps this is why I consistently support my Presbyterian background because this country was founded upon and succeeded because of the adherence to the principle of the Protestant Work Ethic : “God helps those who help themselves.”
Well, Kirk’s own list supplies general principles only, and (deliberately, I’d say) avoids pinning anything down to necessary traits. Why do we need any more precision than that?
There’s a distinction we have to make; it’s sort of obvious, but it may help to make it. Do individuals support positions because the positions are “conservative?” Or do we describe the individuals as conservative because they support particular positions?
Case in point: William Buckley supported legalizing drugs – mostly on the general ground of “prudence,” but it was also a clear deviation from tradition and long-established practice. Which principle (prudence or tradition), therefore, defines the conservative position? I don’t think we can say … we can only say that Buckley’s opinion (on that topic) preferred prudence over tradition. And of course, the person was William Freaking Buckley, the conservative di tutti conservatism.
How are religious doctrine and self-interest necessarily (as you seem to imply) at odds? Our most important founder is George Washington- our law-giver closest akin to a Lycurgus or Solon of ancient Greece. He said in his First Inaugural “the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.” This means: the line between church and state does not run, as it did for John Locke, between the soul and the body. For the Founders, the dividing line is not between the soul and body, but rather within the soul itself, distinguishing the right of the exercise of conscience with its concern for revealed truth from the consciousness of moral right.
More concretely: a religious people of a specific sort — of an essentially Lockean-Protestant framework — are going to govern themselves properly and make minimal demand upon government power. The greatest catastrophe this country has ever faced is Americans having stopped going to church.
Some doctrine simply is. (And BTW, Washington was a Deist- a marginal believer at best.)
Read my comment again and see my PM.
“American conservatism” centers on responsibility. A conservative is more likely than a liberal or libertarian to hold a person to account for his actions. Responsibility, the ability to rule oneself, enables a person to enjoy honor. Doing so requires good laws to make good citizens and good citizens to make good laws. That’s the central paradox of republican political theory- ruling and being ruled in turn.
Differently put, any conservatism worth its salt is rooted in human nature. Politics is about drawing the lines. Politics is the argument about morality- whose version of political correctness is going to be imposed onto reality? Drawing the lines — knowing the limits to human nature — is a limit on government. Much libertarian, certainly liberal, thought *explicitly* deny their theories derive from human nature (Rawls, Nozick). Propaedeutic to longer commentary to Sal Padula, I commend Mark Blitz‘s 12 minute discussion Conserving Liberty: Virtue and Responsibility.
The great divisions in American political life are going to occur along the “moral” issues — they go to the core of responsibility — not along arguments about efficiency, utility, economy.
“Fi-cons” are rightly outraged by government largesse. They ought match that anger with arguments from justice and virtue. They otherwise cede the ground. Whether to have free markets or not is not an economic argument. It’s political. “That we get angry if we feel cheated, or that we succumb to the charm of salesmanship, shows that self-interest does not explain even commercial transactions.” Efficient markets presuppose people having already been morally habituated by good families and moral upbringing, thus, ultimately by good laws so as to allow these same people properly to exercise their freedom and rights.
As Blitz nicely puts it in that 12 minute talk, you can’t ground libertarianism in mere self-interest — i.e., relativism — “because it may well be the case that my use of my liberty is very much satisfied by denying you the use of your liberty. Why is it that I should respect your liberty? There needs to be an argument which grounds individual liberty [in nature].”
As someone who often finds himself rhetorically expelled from both the libertarian and conservative movements by self-appointed gatekeepers (… not talking about ricochet members, just to be clear) this thread interests me on a personal level. For those of you who’ve offered a definition, I would like to know. What side does an Anarcho-Capitalist who supported the war on terror fall on?
I think that Kirk was very aware that conservative was a French term meaning, roughly, someone who thinks like Burke. It’s my understanding that he was trying to turn that into a digestible platform, which could only be done at a pretty abstract level.
That said, Kirk leaves out Burke’s efforts to defeat the evil empire of his day, perhaps because Kirk felt uncomfortable defining conservatism in ways that excluded Kirk, even though the rest of the tests clearly give him a sufficient quantum to qualify.