What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I am a big fan of Ricochet, and of its mission to provide a space for people with "right-of-center" political views to hang out and chat. Rob's belief that having skin in the game tends to create a more collegial atmosphere than exists on other websites seems to be holding true so far, but that doesn't mean that there aren't heated arguments on the Ricochet stream. There have been some very heated discussions, especially with regards to certain politicians (Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin) as well as certain political movements (the Tea Party). Very often these discussions include assertions that an individual that supports/doesn't support a particular candidate or organization isn't a true conservative. In fact, we have a few people here -- myself included -- who refer to themselves as "RINO squishes" as a means of self-deprecation that is meant to diffuse harsh criticisms. I recently saw an interview on Reason TV where the "conservative" former VJ Kennedy distanced herself from traditional conservatism and portrayed herself as a moderate conservative with libertarian leanings. She did so, as if creating a nuanced stream of modifiers would provide a true picture of her political beliefs.
But are such qualifiers necessary?
Should we allow those who are the keepers of "conservative purity" define what it means to be conservative or right-of-center, or should we look to find what it is that binds us politically? I think we should attempt the latter, and one way to do that is to ask what exactly conservatism is.
My dear friend David Bobb has often posited that the essence of conservatism can be found within the word itself. Conservatives seek to conserve something. One might argue, that American conservatives seek to conserve the principles of the American Founding -- Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. One could argue that, and many have, but that would only cover some conservatives.
Since becoming a conservative, something that happened after encountering and appreciating philosophy, I have found Russell Kirk's discussion of "the idea of conservatism" to be of great use. For Kirk, conservatism is in many ways a political belief without "ideology." To quote him at length, and I apologize for the extended quote:
Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogmata; conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time. As a working premise, nevertheless, one can observe here that the essence of social conservatism is preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors (this phrase was Strafford's and Hooker's, before Burke illuminated it); they are dubious of wholesale alteration. They think society is a spiritual reality, possessing an eternal life but a delicate constitution: it cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine.
His definition is similar to that provided by David. Kirk's goal was to find the similarities and unifying themes between American and British conservatism, which I think to be a worthy goal. While Kirk didn't believe that conservatism had "dogmata," he did believe that it had six central concepts that guided it. He called them the "six canons of conservative thought" and they were:
- Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems...
- Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems; conservatives resist what Robert Graves calls "Logicalism" in society.
- Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a "classless society."
- Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked; separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Economic levelling, they maintain, is not economic progress.
- Faith in prescription and distrust of "sophisters, calculators, and economists" who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs. Custom, convention, and old prescription and checks upon man's anarchic impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power.
- Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.
One may not agree with all of these as some might interpret them, but I find them to be a pretty good list. Belief in transcendent morality doesn't require a belief in a creator, only in morality beyond that of individual preference. It could be genetic or rational, but it applies equally to all.
Key for me is the connection between freedom and property. It is no accident that those who champion a "revolution of society" also favor the pirating of music and literature stating that "information wants to be free." Never mind the labor that went into the creation of the work, or the artist's desire to pay rent or keep the art to him/her-self. To people like Cory Doctorow, the internet demands that all creative works be shared -- for free -- whether the artist desires it or not. If one has no right to one's own creations, what rights do they have?
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
To me conservatism is animated by what Thomas Sowell calls the "constrained vision". I don't think it's defined by positions on one issue or another; it's a world view that allows for many differences on particular policies.
Dec '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
In my mind "Conservatism" is the belief that a Countrie's culture determines its future more than is economic or political policies; therefore the people of a country should be able to use the coercive power of government to control that culture.
"American Conservatism" A subset of "Conservatism" characterized by a distrust of government and a strong emphasis on self-reliance.
"Federalism" is the idea that governing decisions should be made at the most local level practical and that the more controversial a decision is the more weary we should be of enforcing it at a national level.
"Libertarianism" is the idea that as long as an individual is not using force or fraud on their fellow citizen then that citizen should be allowed to to as they please and that no outside coercion is morally justified.
"Liberalism" is the idea that a countrie's future is determined by its conomic or political system/policies regardless of its culture; therefore no effort if any should be wasted trying to control that culture.
"Multiculturalism" is the idea that all cultures are equal viable/desirable/have something to offer and that therefore diversity of cultures in and of itself is desirable .
Edited on Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56pmApr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I take some issue with the concept that art belongs to the artist. Once the art has been displayed and presented it belongs to the public. The artist should be allowed to profit from their art, but they can not really claim to own the line, color, sound or words of their art. Sorry, this is a strong point of contention I have with many libertarians, about intellectual property. Many I have found seem to ascribe to a absolutist view of who owns ideas and art. But, ideas and art are too amorphous to be treated with the same set of rules one would use for apples and oranges.
I apologize if I have detracted from your posts original intention, perhaps another thread can be started to hash this out if people want to.
Jun '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
On a related note I've noticed the frequent use of the term "ultraconservative" in articles about the Middle East, for instance:
Abdullah has been seen as a reformer, making cautious changes to improve the position of women -- such as granting them to right to vote in elections scheduled for 2015 -- and seeking modernize the kingdom despite some backlash from the ultraconservative Wahhabi clerics
Of course one important proviso about the term "conservative" is that the meaning varies from culture to culture, so Saudi conservatives are conserving a very different tradition than American conservatives. Still, is there such a thing as an "ultraconservative" in the American context?
And if so, is it a good or bad thing? The Buckley Rule is to vote for the most conservative candidate who can win, but is there such a thing as a candidate who is "too conservative?" Is too much conservatism a bad thing?
Jul '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Great, great topic. My take: Underlying much in the passages from Kirk, and the essential idea of conservatism, is the view that life is unavoidably imperfect and that human beings are eternally fallible, thus occasioning the need for a great deal of humility on our part. One could see this idea motivating "respect [for] the wisdom of [our] ancestors," "[a]ffection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence," "distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs," and a conviction that classes and property - things that have always existed in human society - are part of what it is for humans to live well together.
I also think conservatives view the family as a social unit that is at least almost as important as the individual. Example: my immigrant great-grandfather had less opportunity than some people of his generation, but due to my family's effort over the generations I have had great opportunities. I have this thought that this country has been fair by my family, whatever inequalities of opportunity there have at times been, and that that is enough. I think that's a conservative thought.
Edited on Oct 25, 2011 at 4:11pmJun '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Nyadnar17:
"Liberalism" is the idea that a countrie's future is determined by its conomic or political system/policies regardless of its culture; therefore no effort if any should be wasted trying to control that culture.
I beg to differ, liberals are far more eager to use the coercive power of government to control the culture than conservatives. For instance, liberals want to eradicate racism, sexism, and homophobia and are quite willing to use means such as affirmative action, speech codes, hate crimes laws, and so forth to do so.
Jun '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Valiuth
I take some issue with the concept that art belongs to the artist. Once the art has been displayed and presented it belongs to the public. The artist should be allowed to profit from their art
But how do you propose to ensure artists profit from their art without intellectual property rights?
Sep '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I would very much like that discussion, Valiuth, I invite you to start it.
As for the definition of Conservatism, I agree with most, but not all of your assertions. Like Valituth, I think, I take an outlying position on patents and copyrights and hold that they are contrary to rapid innovation and that much of the intellectual property (IP) we protect does not constitute the Constitutional "useful arts."
I also think you leave absent a fundamental belief in the supremacy of Rule of Law. From this conviction we express a defense of the founding principles whilst defending our Constitution, perhaps by proxy. I take this idea from another Ricocheteer, but I can't track down the conversation to give him/her proper credit.
I also contend your "order and classes" point is false. But perhaps you can explain it further. Properly defined, I can see how it may be correct.
Finally, I would lessen the strain of Burkean Conservatism you espouse as it does come across as contrary to progress. I suggest that Conservatism conserves the structures of the past because we believe in an evolutionary principle, in society tending towards progress, and eschew revolutionary means of societal change.
Aug '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Valiuth
The artist should be allowed to profit from their art, but they can not really claim to own the line, color, sound or words of their art. Sorry, this is a strong point of contention I have with many libertarians, about intellectual property.
We can have another conversation about this at another time, but suffice to say that I disagree with you sharply. It is distinctly anti-libertarian -- in the sense of individual rights -- to believe what you just wrote. You are in fact making an argument for the society over the individual. That is a distinctly communitarian/statist view. You may not see it as such, but our Founders -- Madison in particular -- would argue against you.
I cannot state strongly enough that if I am not allowed to write stories for me and whoever I want to share it with alone, with no other access, then I have no rights at all. If I have no right to my "creations," then I have no right to my thoughts. These are highly reductive statements -- I know -- but they are none the less true.
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I think a distinction has to be made between conservatism as a temperament and and conservatism as a political movement. Burke, and many of the other intellectuals commonly associated as fathers of conservatism, are more temperamental than political conservatives. The temperament is what says the conservatism is about conserving, no matter what (or at least what isn't evil). But that has led, in different times and places, to quite dissimilar political programs under the guise of conservatism (the same for liberalism). Most American conservatives in 2011 can share both the politics and the mindset of conservatism without dissonance. However, I think few will accept that clause about class in society, believing that to be an artificial, Marxist distinction. British conservatives, on the other hand, may well agree with that tenet, out of the different history of their country. The same temperament leads to different conclusions. I believe the American political program of conservatism is superior. Were I to move to the UK, I would still be skeptical about class distinctions.
May '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
conservatives are people ho don't believe in riding roughshod over the constitution to get things done.
Jun '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Within percentage (of GDP) limits of the last 100 years, you can pretty much measure conservatism by the annual federal budget that you're willing to accept. The more government, the less conservative. For me, it's something less than 15%. I think we're approaching 25% (and rising) these days. Something like that. If government doesn't need to do it, it should leave it to others. The conservative coalition is really the "leave me alone" coalition.
Jun '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
The conservative position in my view is explained best in Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I join you in finding the Marxist definition to be helpful, but do so by generalizing a little more. We are the supporters of bourgeois interests, most importantly bourgeois decency, property, freedom, and rule of law. I do recognize that the Marxist image of our side is intended to be unappealing, but I find it very hard to disagree with.
May '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I find it interesting that many people who really are not all that sympathetic with the attitudes summed up in Kirk’s cannons will still be considered "conservative" in today's parlance. Perhaps this is because when we say "conservative" in the age of Obama we really mean anyone who, for whatever reason (and let's face it, there could be many reasons) dissents from the progressive agenda.
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Those wishing to debate the ownership of art and ideas can go "here".
Here's my view on the characteristics of conservatism.
Man is very limited in his ability to change either the world or other men. What little power he does have it is most effective at the personal level (ie. one's self) and quickly diminishes as one becomes more removed from that spot.
Man is flawed and sinful (for lack of a better way of putting it), and in the absence of a master to supervise him he will more often than not give in to his worst nature. Yet, since no man is perfect no other man can be trusted to be the master.
Man despite his flaws is always capable of great kindness and altruism, and if permitted will show these traits.
I feel these three points lie at much of the heart of conservatism. We conservatives both know that man can not be trusted to always be good, but can be trusted to try doing what is right, and that ultimately we find ourselves powerless to do either good or evil to the degree we desire.
Edited on Oct 25, 2011 at 10:51pmJul '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Valiuth, very well said, gibes with my thoughts too.
Sep '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Valiuth, I couldn't disagree more. I see man as inherently good, but corruptible. Left alone, most men will do good most of the time. If this were not the case, the case for liberty is tenuous at best.
Moreover, I am certainly not so fatalistic. I believe in the the infinite power of men to do tremendous good. I still apply the law of diminishing returns, but this can be counteracted by the will of society to bolster their efforts. This good can be hard to discern as emanating from one man, but indeed it must be there. Holding your view, there is little explanation for the great men of history, e.g., Plato, Martin Luther King Jr., et al.
Our society rests upon the collected gifts of generations past and the particular men and women who provided the intellectual brilliance to leverage the collected actions of men into substantive change. Madison's contributions at the Constitutional Convention, for example, substantiated the efforts of the American Revolutionaries into what is now our great Constitutional heritage.
Edited on Oct 25, 2011 at 8:03pmMay '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I think the essence of conservatism is summed up with two words: Natural Law.
From the belief of the family as the central social unit, to the notion that no man can justifiably usurp the God-given rights of another man, to the laissez faire belief that man always works for his own self-interest first and if given a skeletal framework of rules will help all prosper - all of this is wholly consistent with Natural Law.
Aug '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
If this were true, it wouldn't have taken over 100,000 years to create anything resembling civilization. It has taken countless generations of people treating each other like the animals they fundamentally are, before gradually evolving cultural customs and taboos that rein in the evil and allow the good to flourish. It appears to be a virtuous cycle, as civilization has grown with increasing rapidity over the years, but you only have to look at particularly dysfunctional places to see how fragile it all is.
You credit Madison's "intellectual brilliance" as part of the "collective gifts" of past generations, yet a good chunk of his particular gift to us was his intellectual understanding of the need to restrain the exercise of all power, including that of the majority.