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 (3)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Nathaniel Wright: ... the "six canons of conservative thought":
It's interesting to consider which of these principles libertarians would chafe at. To me, they frequently seem to fall afoul of number 5.
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
A.J. Chianese: 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. [snip]
I also think conservatives view the family as a social unit that is at least almost as important as the individual.
Total agreement here, just want to add this point: That families are important is actually a corollary of humility, because with that humility comes the notion that we should respect what social structures our ancestors worked out over thousands of years in preference to what we think might work.
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Paul DeRocco
Nathaniel Wright: ... the "six canons of conservative thought":
It's interesting to consider which of these principles libertarians would chafe at. To me, they frequently seem to fall afoul of number 5. · Oct 25 at 8:42pm
Actually, I disagree with that. I think, in order of priority, libertarians are most likely to differ on 1, 3 and 6, followed by 5, with 2 and 4 bringing up the rear.
You might be surprised by #1, but having read a TON of libertarian philosophical literature back in the day, I can assure you that there is a distinct effort to find a "third way" between natural law and positive law. Gauthier's "Morals by Agreement" is an exemplary title.
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
"Conservatism is that paradigm of essences toward which the phenomenology of the world is in continuing approximation."
Jan '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I wouldn't know. But, as a self-described classical liberal and minarchist, I do like what I read from Ricochet and feel like I can contribute to the conversation without being a troll. Does this mean anything?
Edited on October 26, 2011 at 7:17amApr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
This is accurate but imprecise.
Conservatives want to conserve something. A conservative wants to conserve the original meaning and intent and governing practices of the Constitution.
This immediately raises uncomfortable issues all around. Clearly, the reforms of FDR were wholly unconstitutional. The whole progressive program is not conservative. The entire administrative state erected by Progressives is out the door.
But, what of neo-conservatives? They clearly do not believe in constitutional rule, either. The Patriot Act is blatantly at odds with the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Neo-conservatives have used the same, silly, progressive "commerce clause" arguments to enact all kinds of intrusive, big government regulations.
Are libertarians conservative? No. They are paleo-antifederalists. They want the Articles of Confederation back. But comparing libertarians to neo-conservatives, libertarians are more conservative.
Libertarians, especiallyRepublican Party, really will scale back government and limit the regulatory scope of the administrative state
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Gabriel Sullice: Valiuth, I couldn't disagree more. I see man as inherently good, but corruptible....
....Holding your view, there is little explanation for the great men of history, e.g., Plato, Martin Luther King Jr., et al.
Edited on Oct 25 at 08:03 pm
Man is also inherently meant to walk up right, but gravity is always pulling us down. Thus the act of walking is a constant battle to prevent ourselves from falling over. All our instinct and training work to keep us up right, yet inevitably we always fall.
Recognizing that man is capable of evil and needs to be controlled and also desirous of good and in need of encouragement is at the heart of liberal democracy, and our governmental system. The knowledge that our abilities are limited gives us the humility to try to fix what we can how we can rather than squander our efforts on unatainable goals.
I would also like to point out that while MLK had a noble vision in his life he fell well short of achieving it, despite having gotten further than many expected.
Sep '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Valiuth
Man is also inherently meant to walk up right, but gravity is always pulling us down. Thus the act of walking is a constant battle to prevent ourselves from falling over. All our instinct and training work to keep us up right, yet inevitably we always fall.
Recognizing that man is capable of evil and needs to be controlled and also desirous of good and in need of encouragement is at the heart of liberal democracy, and our governmental system.
Walking upright but fighting gravity seems to be the same as inherently good, but corruptible. Indeed, we walk upright more often than we fall.
I argue, and maybe this is not mainstream conservative thought, that man need not be "controlled" but rather subject to consequences imposed by society. In minor cases, this is accomplished by the "cold shoulder" &c.; in cases of greater wrong, society contracts with the state to impose consequence. Therefore, I see conservatism as being anti-regulatory and pro-consequential insofar as we recognize the existence of evil by dissuading immoral action through heavier consequences, i.e., more convictions and harsher sentences, but leave private life unregulated believing that men will most often do good.
May '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I'm with Russell Kirk here.
Oct '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
"To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. Familiar relationships and loyalties will be preferred to the allure of more profitable attachments; to acquire and to enlarge will be less important than to keep, to cultivate and to enjoy; the grief of loss will be more acute than the excitement of novelty or promise. It is to be equal to one’s own fortune, to live at the level of one’s own means, to be content with the want of greater perfection which belongs alike to oneself and one’s circumstances.
...[T]o state my view briefly before elaborating it, what makes a conservative disposition in politics intelligible is nothing to do with natural law or a providential order, nothing to do with morals or religion; it is the observation of our current manner of living combined with the belief (which from our point of view need be regarded as no more than an hypothesis) that governing is a specific and limited activity, namely the provision and custody of general rules of conduct, which are understood, not as plans for imposing substantive activities, but as instruments enabling people to pursue the activities of their own choice with the minimum frustration, and therefore something which it is appropriate to be conservative about." Michael Oakeshott, On Being Conservative (pdf)
Edited on October 26, 2011 at 2:33pmRe: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
You know, by this definition I'm not sure that I qualify. By modus tollens, therefore, there's a problem with the definition.
Nov '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
This is an interesting argument, but I disagree with it. I think the case for liberty arises directly from the deeply corrupted nature of human beings. If all people are deeply flawed, then it follows that giving one group of people--in the form of government--too much power over others is always dangerous. This is why the Founders were so careful to try to balance the power of one branch of government against another.
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Lucy Pevensie
This is an interesting argument, but I disagree with it. I think the case for liberty arises directly from the deeply corrupted nature of human beings. If all people are deeply flawed, then it follows that giving one group of people--in the form of government--too much power over others is always dangerous. This is why the Founders were so careful to try to balance the power of one branch of government against another. · Oct 26 at 6:52am
It's interesting to note how a belief in man's inherent nature (corrupted or good) results in very different ideas about the size and scope of government.
Nov '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I'm also interested in exploring the concept of what "conservative" means in other countries and cultures.
Joseph Stanko brings up the question of what "ultraconservative" means when applied to Middle Eastern countries. That one is sort of interesting, in that if you check out, say, pictures of the graduating classes of Cairo University you can see that Islamicization is a change in mores, rather than a conserving of mores, at least when compared with behavior of a half century ago. If you define conservatism as the opposite of utopianism, then you probably can't consider Islamists conservative, since Islamism seems (at least to this outside observer) to be largely focused on a vision of a radically different, perfected, theocratic world.
Perhaps we really need another word, since when we speak of conservatism, we are talking about conserving the American tradition. LowCountry Joe's formulation, "classical liberal" would be the best, except that the term "liberal" has been usurped by a group of people who don't have a clue what it means.
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Some problems with definitions here:
So instead of trying to fit us into the suit of those who conserve [an historical accident], define "conservatism" as the Weltanschauung and program of those who seek ordered liberty.
Oct '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
You know, by this definition I'm not sure that I qualify. By modus tollens, therefore, there's a problem with the definition. · Oct 26 at 6:00am
Ah, but you have to actually read the article to see how he deploys the conservative disposition - as described in that passage - to politics. He's not saying that one has to have that disposition towards all things at all times to qualify as a (political) conservative. Indeed he says that the modern character is chiefly disposed in the other direction. And that is one of the reasons to be disposed to conservatism in politics as set out in the second part of the quote.
Sadly, Oakeshott defies (my) attempts at a brief summary.
Aug '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
To use Messrs. Long and Robinson's own words:
"We're a right-of-center community -- one that's united not just by shared principles, but by a desire for a smart, civil and above all lively discussion of the world around us."
Right of center, not center-right. Big difference.
Jul '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
James Jones
A.J. Chianese: 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. [snip]
I also think conservatives view the family as a social unit that is at least almost as important as the individual.
Total agreement here, just want to add this point: That families are important is actually a corollary of humility, because with that humility comes the notion that we should respect what social structures our ancestors worked out over thousands of years in preference to what we think might work. · Oct 25 at 8:50pm
James, very much agree with your corollary, thanks for explaining that. Now it all fits together even more.
Dec '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I was going to say the prime tenet of conservatism is that human nature has no history, but, Valiuth said it better. I would only add that a conservative understands that Man has his limits in understanding his own nature. That is why a conservative acknowledges that tradition and custom should be honored (not blindly accepted but honored) since we do not necessarily know or can know why some behaviors or institutions are as they are.
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Nathaniel Wright: To use Messrs. Long and Robinson's own words:
"We're a right-of-center community -- one that's united not just by shared principles, but by a desire for a smart, civil and above all lively discussion of the world around us."
Right of center, not center-right. Big difference. · Oct 26 at 8:07am
On the other hand, on the Ricochet Podcast every week Rob Long et al. make their "skin-in-the-game" plea for Ricochet as a site for "center-right conversation" (e.g., #88, JL right at the beginning; RL at c. 5:50-6:05).
I was taking issue with your limiting the "mission" to the right of center. Perhaps that is a fair description by-and-large of those who participate in the discussion. I don't get the impression that the politically savvy Messrs. Long and Robinson intended to exclude candidates for persuasion in the center.
Edited on October 26, 2011 at 8:11pm