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:
Sep '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
For me this is exactly on the mark. And that humility expresses itself in the language used by many here to describe their own conception of conservatism: we are inclined not to bank too much on anything or anyone being a particular way all of the time, or of any policy being right all of the time.
I think that's all inherent in the conservative soul, and yet at the same time we are fond of bold statements, big ideas, and revolution on occasion. It's a bit paradoxical.
Mar '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Conservatism is Constitutional originalism.
Jun '10
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
I'm still not sure I understand the definition of conservatism. I get the idea that Conservatives are all about preserving the liberties and rights granted by the Constitution, yet "conservatives" in 1776 would have been totally against the Constitution. Conservatism seems antithetical to the advancement of mankind, preferring to preserve the status quo. I know unbridled change is chaos, so where does conservatism advance mankind? I'm not trying to be a devil's advocate nor a nay sayer here. I've described myself as having liberal ideals and conservative values (I don't mind helping someone in need but I want to know where the money is coming from).
Apr '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Robert E. Lee: Therein lies an argument for federalism. We need ways to advance without radicalism. Federalism gives us a national Petri dish, where each state can try different things (within boundaries set by the Constitution). Those states that find the most workable solutions "win" by attracting more citizens (which puts pressure on other states to adopt similar measures).
Federalism isn't a panacea, obviously. But that's OK; conservatives rarely worry about panaceas.
Feb '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
This is a great topic. Thanks. I'm gonna write a speech for my local Toastmasters club on the subject.
Regardless of historical definitions of 'liberal', 'conservative', etc, may I offer this:
Liberals practice 'group politics'. If you are a member of a certain group (black, white, Hispanic, 'working' union member, etc) you are supposed to believe, and vote, a certain way, for which you are awarded special 'group' rights. Rights that other 'groups' do not enjoy. If you don't, you are an 'Uncle Tom', or a 'scab', or 'greedy', etc.
Conservatives, at least these days, are more concerned about the individual and his/her rights AND responsibilities. The rights should be the same for all citizens. The responsibility mainly is to not impose upon your fellow citizens.
I'll have to flesh this out, but that's my two-dollars' worth.
Liberal=group, "We are all unique!"
Conservative=individual, "I'm not!"
(Monty Python's Life of Brian)
Sep '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
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. · 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. · Oct 26 at 7:05am
Molly, I'm not so sure, I think we've actually come to the same conclusion, a limited government.
Lucy, I'd say power is corrupting and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, you can still have a belief in man's inherent good, fallibility does not necessarily make us evil. So, we restrain the power given to men in order that they not be corrupted by it.
Sep '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
This goes back to the earlier comments about separating temperamental conservatism from the political. A conservative temperament might indeed be antithetical to progress, but the conservatism we espouse may be closer to classical liberalism, whose taxonomy more accurately describes our views. It is an American phenomenon that we are labelled conservatives insofar as we are conserving the classical liberal principles of the founders. In France, for example, our closest ideological brethren are labelled liberals.
Mar '11
Re: What is "Conservatism?" A Serious Question for Fellow Ricochet-aliens
You ask? Harvey Mansfield answers, broadly. His answer shows, both by history and philosophy, some of the tensions that we have broached on this topic.