Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
I went to a fascinating community event last night, held at a high school, on "political identity" where I was asked to define what conservatism is in a few bullet points. Following that was a lively discussion about left, right, and center politics. Here's what I came up with as the principles that animate my conservatism:
1. An aversion to change, which I see as a disruptive force. This makes me skeptical of all ideology and fanaticism that advocates revolutionary change. I think, here, of William F. Buckley's mission for National Review: it stands athwart history yelling stop. My sense that change was a disruptive force was by far the most powerful instinct that led me to conservatism.
2. But the real world does change, so what's a conservative to do? I think we have to calibrate our ideas to the facts, rather than adjust the facts to fit our ideas. That boils down to aggregating the facts and applying our analysis to them. That analysis and deliberation should be inspired by common sense and prudence.
3. Of course, there's more to life than mere empirical facts--there are also our abiding principles, the permanent things, as Russell Kirk once put it, which make life worth living: truth, love, beauty, God, and family to just name a few.
4. Government is necessary for two reasons: A. to bring order to society and check the base instincts of men, and B. to allow men to flourish and lead their best lives, which can only be achieved if men are free. So government is limited by our freedom. Striking the balance between A and B can cause tension among the different strands of conservatism--but America as a whole has done a good job, historically, of striking that balance.
What did I leave out? What am I totally wrong about?
The event was attended by about twenty or thirty people--all parents--and their political identities ran the spectrum from communist revolutionary to staunch libertarian. There were only a few moments when the discussion grew slightly acrimonious (like when one liberal claimed that conservatives don't care about poor people, only to be corrected by a conservative who pointed to our support of school and healthcare vouchers).
But what really struck me was the amount of common ground there was. Most people agreed on the problems that our society faces. Two issues in particular worried the crowd: the state of public education and the deficit (and, as a sub-category of the deficit, entitlements). Like I said, the crowd was composed of parents, so their anxieties were tied to how these two issues would ultimately affect their children. Everyone agreed that we need to change the way we handle these two issues, but the conservatives and liberals just disagreed on how: do we do it through government bureaucrats, or through more market-based solutions? The liberals, when confronted with the facts of government waste and inefficiency, were reluctantly open to the more market based solutions.
It was an event that made me hopeful about the political future of America--liberals and conservatives outside of Washington are talking to each other about these major issues, and doing so in a civil and intelligent way. That's a reason to be optimistic, I think.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Things you may have glossed over: Tradition. Self-governance. Property rights.
Sep '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Em, you're doing good work, there, one soul at a time.
I think it has taken a near-crisis or two to wake some otherwise unthinking liberals up.
Look at your No.1--"..skeptical of all ideology and fanaticism that advocates revolutionary change..." And No. 2--"I think we have to calibrate our ideas to the facts, rather than adjust the facts to fit our ideas. That boils down to aggregating the facts and applying our analysis to them."
These require extra thought, like Sowell's thinking beyond stage one. That's something that many liberals didn't do prior to this current financial mess. Now some liberals are more open to free market solutions.
Dec '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Emily, I think you did an excellent job from what I see here! I've spoken at similar events in the Chicago-land area, and I am responsible for teaching 50-60 high school students every Sunday morning at church, and when asked why I am a religious conservative I give essentially the same answers you did.
Your first point is so very important, and needs to be properly and persuasively articulated to my generation (the under-30 crowd). "Change" and "progress" are two words that my liberal friends (and even some of my well-meaning Center-Right friends) use incessantly and with a near-religious fervor (even if they are not themselves religious). Change to what? Change from what? How do we go about making these changes? Have these changes been tried and failed? Have they worked?
These and other such questions are never asked of young people...and I think that is because they are rarely thought-through by the adult conservatives who need to be asking them (and explaining their answers).
I'm glad to hear that thoughtful people like yourself are out there articulating this stuff to parents. Thanks!
Dec '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
GK Chesterton, speaking about the "false theory of progress":
This theory basically says that we should perpetually alter the test instead of trying to pass the test. We hear it said, for instance, "What is right in one age is wrong in another." This is quite reasonable, if it means that there is a clear and fixed aim, and that certain methods work better at certain times to attain that aim. For example, if women desire to be seen as attractive by men, it may be true that at one point in history they had to gain weight and at other times lose it. But you cannot say that they are improved by ceasing to wish to be attractive and beginning to wish to be oblong.
If the standard changes, how can there be improvement, which implies a standard?
It is true that a man – a silly man – might make “change” itself his object or ideal. But as an ideal, change itself becomes unchangeable. If the change-worshipper wishes to estimate his own progress, he must be sternly loyal to the ideal of change; he must not begin to even flirt with the ideal of repetitiveness. Progress itself cannot progress.
Jun '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
My one beef about the claim that conservatives are averse to change is an economic one, i.e. success and failure and how it benefits the economy. Free markets demand meeting customers' demand. If they don't, they fail, and the money is better spent elsewhere. This is a very powerful demonstration of how conservatives embrace change. Who is trying to save the parasitic unions, who are propping up failed businesses, who is trying to remove risk from the market? Liberals are doing that. Conservatives drive change because it is essential to human and economic growth. In the meantime, Emily, I admire your upright explanation and defense of our most cherished principles.
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
The only problem I have Emily is that two guys at a lunch counter can't repeat it. I had a brief conversation about that with George Will while I was conducting a survey on the meaning of Conservatism at CPAC 2 years ago.
My research resulted in this definition of Conservatism: "Conserving the freedom of the individual from the trespasses of government and the trespasses of others."
The analysis is found in this link - hope you enjoy:
http://justifiedright.typepad.com/justified_right/2009/03/george-will-cant-define-conservatism-but-we-can.html
Edited on Feb 18, 2011 at 10:28amRe: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Be careful about point 1. WFB's standing "athwart history" was half-humorous, of course, but it also had in mind a specific meaning of "history," namely, the Marxist notion, then remarkably widely accepted among liberals and academics, that "history" was determined and inevitable--and that it would culminate in socialism.
Conservatism, properly understood, places a lot of emphasis on tradition--particularly the great moral lessons of Judaism and Christianity--but it has no gripe with change per se. Conservatives can feel right at home in the modern world. Heck, they can even use modern technology to set up sites such as Ricochet to find each other.
Sep '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
“An aversion to change” – I would call WFB a disruptive force and the country is better off because he was. Instead of having a dislike for change he made change happen. A conservative neither worships change nor has an aversion to it. Liberty implies the capacity to remain the same or be something different. Wisdom and circumstances determine which is best. Circumstances always change; wisdom can only be hope for if one has an unchanging adherence to a sound set of basic principles. Conservative implies having an adherence to a set of principles and an aversion to changing them.
Nov '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
1. Free markets.
2. Personal responsibility.
3. Limited government.
4. Genuine appreciation for and aspiration to truth and beauty.
Number one includes the freedom to suceed and fail. Number two includes timeless principles: Wisdom, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance. Number three includes strong defense, courts, police, fire, roads, and not much else. The rest of community is much better fostered and served by private institutions (church, Rotary, private enterpriese, etc.). Number four includes pride in our civilization, in the exceptional place of our country in history (both Western and world), objective standards of truth and beauty, and genuine humility when encountering great truth and beauty... like hearing Mozart's or Verdi's Requiem, watching Puccini's operas, seeing Winged Victory or Daniele da Volterra's Le Combat de David et Goliath at the Louvre, reading Shakespeare or Dickens, hearing Whitney Houston sing the Star Spangled Banner ('91 Superbowl, still gives me chills) or just hearing an interview with Andrew Klavan (rarely have I had such an immediate affection for another man's ideas or his ability to express them).
Well, I started to give four brief points... evidently brevity is not the soul of.. the conservative. Cheers All Rochetois!
Nov '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
You need to be careful with that last part, though. Most liberals will respond that "Conserving the freedom of the individual from ... the trespasses of others" is exactly what their redistributive efforts are meant to be. It opens up the debate to the old socialist canard of "What good are rights if you don't have the means to enjoy them?"
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Charles Lavergne
You need to be careful with that last part, though. Most liberals will respond that "Conserving the freedom of the individual from ... the trespasses of others" is exactly what their redistributive efforts are meant to be. It opens up the debate to the old socialist canard of "What good are rights if you don't have the means to enjoy them?" · Feb 18 at 11:54am
It doesn't say "for others" it says "from" others.
But I know what you mean, Charles.
The intent of that part of the definition is to cover law enforcement and the redress of civil grievences (like the 7th amendment promises).
If I lived alone on an island, I'd need no such laws. As soon as one other person moved in, I'd need those laws.
Edited on Feb 18, 2011 at 12:00pmAug '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Agreed. I would add just one thing: in part, conservatism emphasizes tradition because of a belief that traditions represent generations' worth of learned lessons. They hold value as a store of cultural knowledge, or as a check on some behavior which caused harm to society.
Traditions also form the backbone of social institutions, but progressives seem to disregard all institutional forms of social regulation except for the state. Reject tradition, and you necessarily wind up relying on the state... and the power-happy technocrats who would govern you "for your own good".
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
In the survey I did on defining conservatism, "tradition" came n 10th place. CPAC as I understand it is primarily a younger person's event.
Could this be a generational divide?
Feb '11
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
My post from last year: <a href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/11127.html">liberals and conservatives</a>
Feb '11
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Link messed up, sorry: liberals and conservatives
Oct '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
I thought it was a very good summary Emily. You definitely didn’t get it wrong and I thought it was interesting reading about what animates your conservatism. I do have one suggestion though and I learned it from WFB too. It is the belief in the potential of free men (I mean people, but since I’m a conservative…). This should be foremost in our minds because it is concrete and absolute and positive. It doesn’t paint conservatism in a negative light, as just a disagreement with liberal proposals or a diet liberal alternative of slower gov’t expansion and cultural decline. The only way to attain the good life is to have the privileges and responsibilities of liberty. A life dependent on the state and deferential to power diminishes our character and our ability to pursue our purpose in life.
It make me wonder how I would summarize conservatism the way you did. Quite an interesting exercise.
May '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Emily, if asked to think on my feet, my definition would probably vary somewhat from conversation to conversation. But I would always begin the same way:
Conservatives believe human nature remains basically the same throughout history and across the world. So we emphasize free will.
Progressives believe human nature can progress and place faith in utopian visions. So they emphasize education.
We emphasize liberty. They emphasize security.
We focus on individuals. They focus on groups and classes.
In other words, I would drive home the point that our political differences derive from fundamental differences in perception of humanity and our role in the world.
Or you could just ask, "Is the bank half empty or half full?" ;)
Dec '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
Charles W. Dunn in 2007 complied what I consider to be definitive lists of conservative values.
Here is the one for conservatism.
Oct '10
Re: Conservatism in 4 (Easy?) Steps
I have always defined the mission of conservatism as "the preservation of the distilled wisdom of the past for application in the future". I agree with Peter that change is not inherently worrisome -- as long as it is understood that the person advocating change has the burden of proof. I'm a conservative because I think the presumption of truth must always favor established knowledge over the impulses of the moment. It's the understanding that your elders are entitled to deference, because wisdom is a product of experience.