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.
No Is Not Enough
Insufficient.
Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. — F.A. Hayek
I come to praise conservatism, not to bury it. For as much as I tussle with my fellow conservatives on Ricochet, as a conservative libertarian, I consider myself a fellow traveler and a member of the tribe.
In my post from yesterday, I made reference to Hayek’s seminal essay “Why I am Not A Conservative.” Written over half a century ago, it nevertheless contains many elements more relevant today than when it was penned. Among its many important points about the nature of our current politics are the following:
- Conservatism, defined as resistance to radical change, is a necessary and important instinct in society.
- That conservatism, as such, is defined by what it opposes, rather than what it favors; think of Buckley’s “Standing athwart history yelling stop.”
- This lack of a destination, so to speak, inevitably means that conservatives lose out to progressives and socialists, whose sole objective is to drag the polity in a statist direction.
- That the definition of conservatism depends on the condition of a given society; as a society drifts further towards statism, conservatives find themselves on the side of what was considered progressive merely a generation ago.
- Politics is more properly understood as a competition between progressives and liberals (in the classical sense, those primarily concerned with liberty), with conservatives standing in between them.
- It is an unique quirk of history that puts conservatives on the side of liberals in the United States; we were fortunate that our Founders established this nation as a liberal society and those that seek to conserve that founding are on the side of liberty.
Hayek further describes the important differences between liberals and conservatives, but not before acknowledging the debt modern liberals have to conservatives for stressing the importance of mediating institutions. There is a lot to like in the rest of Hayek’s essay and a number of things with which I disagree; I think he gives short shrift to the commitment many American conservatives have to liberty for example. However, I think he makes some very important points:
- In lacking a well defined principle concerning state power, conservatives often fall into the trap set by Progressives of conceding power to the state so long as they have the reigns of power themselves. Consequently, conservatives often pull the locus of liberty closer to that desired by progressives than by liberals.
- Conservatives suffer from the pretense of knowledge that they know what the superior road to the “good life” is, thus making them ill-equipped to govern those that reject their premises. A proper commitment to liberty does not require one to abandon morality or your culture; one must simply have trust in its strength.
- That democracy and majority rule are a means to an end and not an end in themselves; the proper end is maximum liberty for all members of a society.
- A preference among conservatives for the established over the new sometimes leads to a rejection of new, but valid, knowledge in favor of what was previously known to be true.
Hayek did not consider himself a conservative, and many of you may consider his essay to be off-base or even offensive to your worldview. Nevertheless, I find that it gets at something I consider eternally true: Conservatism is necessary but insufficient as a governing philosophy.
This election cycle has demonstrated beyond a doubt that a vast chasm that exists between conservatives and liberals in terms of governing philosophy, and yet I do not believe that this needs to be so. What we need is a realignment of what is important about our political system, and that is liberty. The modern nationalist populist movement is right that conservatives have failed to stop progressives. I contend that this was inevitable when we treat conservatism as a governing philosophy because conservatism lacks a goal. A re-commitment to the liberal foundations of America in all their messy glory would provide the goal we lack and focus everyone on the steps necessary to achieve it.
It is in this world of messy liberty that conservatism upholds the traditions and institutions necessary for liberty to thrive. We may not always agree on what is important for our society, but we can each live our lives as we see fit. A conservatism that upholds the values we cherish, and allows for so much human flowering, will surely thrive.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Well said.
Governing is a messy business, and requires the constant tradeoffs of resources, desire, the future, the common good, justice and the effective operation of functions assigned to the State, while minimizing human tendency to corruption and graft.
So, is conservatism a tool in that endeavor, or is it above the fray as those tradeoffs are bargained in the marketplace of liberty?
Conservatism is the saucer in which new ideas should be allowed to cool, but it cannot be the driving force resisting Progressivism – it is ill-equipped for that.
But a footnote in our inexorable toilet flush in to the cronyist Atlas Shrugged toilet bowl.
Novel thoughts for a moral society. We however shall have sold our freedoms for food coupons or the illusion of safety.
The edifice of a new American Century requires strong foundations.
I agree with much of this–certainly insofar as it delineates the difficulties inherent in conservatism. But I disagree that the defining characteristic of true conservatism is “resistance.” All political movements have an element of resistance inherent in them, and conservatism is no different. But I’d say that there’s room for staking out positive ground between (modern) liberalism and libertarianism, and that doing this does not have to mean the conservatives must inevitably yield to a slide into statism (despite some present evidence to the contrary). That’s a matter of will, not inevitability. And finding the correct intersection of freedom and government is an appropriate role for conservatives that goes beyond “resistance.”
Wow. I didn’t know you were that smart. :)
I’m not.
So is Conservatism a tool in the endeavor? I’d probably agree that the ‘Ivory Tower Boys’: too many in the NR, AEI think tanks aren’t much of a tool.
I would argue that Constitutional Conservatism is, the type practiced by the hated Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and some of the hated Freedom Caucus.
The Constitution is simply the rule book, it assigns roles & responsibilities. It allows for modification if there is consensus. There are some many facets of our nation that seem broken or non-functioning. One looks at the ‘owners manual’ and sees that 70%? of the stuff gov’t does, it isn’t supposed to.
There is ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’ in it’s strict adherence. An new era of recommitment to the Freedom & Liberty, a recommitment to Federalism could be an attractive sale. That means: pot is some states, traditional marriage in others, a spectrum of ‘reproductive rights’ throughout the states, gay marriage/polygamy in others – it also means respecting and honoring those boundaries.
I think here is an example of the happy accident of history that puts American Conservatives on the side of Liberalism – the conservative instinct as defined by Hayek is not inherently a liberal one and often stands in the way of liberalisms long march towards liberty. I think what we are seeing play out in our politics now is the conservative instinct clash with the liberal philosophy of the American Right.
I’m LUVVIN‘ this, and I don’t even think I’m halfway.
So how should I view conservatives as the political fray gets underway? If Hillary wins, I see them retreating to the cruise ships for extended seminars in places with good weather.
If Trump wins, do they play a role? Do they propose policy? Do they offer ideas and solutions? Or do they retreat to the cruise ships for extended seminars in places with good weather?
Do we have a small cabal in the Federal government aid the rebuild of our school systems by allowing the private sector access to the state education monopoly without restrictions?
Do we continue to privatize our space exploration and commercialization effort? Do we make Bezos and Musk the next robber barons via land grants?
Do we tell the insurance companies to fix the damn process they asked for in healthcare by removing restraints and rediscovering what insurance really means?
Do we ask our best conservative thinkers how to refire the melting pot and make America work again so we can absorb immigrants and make Americans?
Do we ask our best conservative thinkers how to ensure we have an economy that supports the needs and dreams of our population? That offers gainful and meaningful work for a large majority of our citizens?
Or are those all things that are out of bounds for a conservative to do?
That wasn’t really the point of this post but these are all interesting ideas for discussion that deserve their own hearing.
It is an unique quirk of history that puts Conservatives on the side of Liberals in the United States – we were fortunate that our founders established this nation as a liberal society and those that seek to conserve that founding are on the side of liberty.
Dang quote function!
As I said on your other thread, Hayek says in the essay that you link to that he follows Burke. You cannot claim to ally with Hayek and to oppose Burke. The “unique” thing about the US constitution is, to a large degree, it being based on the English constitution. The founders claimed that they were fighting to vindicate their rights as Englishmen, and they based their notion of those rights on Burke more than any other contemporary. In particular, the US Bill of Rights is based (partly indirectly, via the Virginia version) on the English Bill of Rights. The reason that American conservatives revere the constitution is not simply that it exists, but also that it embodies the ideals that conservatism was founded on, by Burke, said ideals being the best that Burke saw in the English constitution, a mix of the 1688 stuff and the (kinda mythical, but believed in by Burke, Washington, Adams, and such) ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution.
Hayek objected to the politics of Churchill and DeGaulle, and of the people who wanted a return to the Hapsburg Empire. These Teddy Roosevelt/ Newt Gingrich/ Larry Arn conservatives are still a problem for the definition of the movement, but they are far removed from Burke.
In the US, there were two great waves of progressivism, but Harding and Coolidge beat the first wave back, such that the second wave never made it over the flood barriers. In the UK, there was never the landslide for conservatism that Harding delivered, and the consequence was that conservatism essentially died. Read Pitt and Gladstone and you’ll find Burkean reverence for the constitution alive and well. Churchill and Lloyd George don’t just wipe the constitution out, they destroy even the language of constitutional conservatism. As an immigrant, I’m sure that you have British friends. Ask them about the Bill of Rights; not only are they not likely to revere it in the manner of their 19th century predecessors, they’re unlikely to have a clear sense that it exists, or what it was. Although most of his destruction of the constitution took place while he was a Liberal, the Conservative party under Churchill ran on nationalizing healthcare just like Labour; the difference was in the details.
British conservatives were thus cut off from their history to the point that Burkean thought wasn’t meaningful. European conservatives had it worse; there really was no conservative history to connect to. Thus conservatism was shorn of its self definition and defined solely by the leftist definition that Hayek uses (i.e. “Not the left”).
America still has a deep and rich connection to its founding Burkean ideals, because, essentially, Harding won. There is a classical conservative/ classical liberal structure to be preserved. That doesn’t mean that anywhere it is right to suggest that Burkean conservatives should not be reformers. Burke was a great reformer. Buckley, who you quote, advocated for free trade, and we have trade that is more free than ever in history. He advocated for welfare reform and for school choice. He supported the Reagan Tax Cuts and the defeat of the Revolutionary French of his day, the Soviets.
Thatcher took Hayek’s history free Burkeanism and claimed it as her credo (although some argue that she didn’t follow through as faithfully as they’d like). Scott Walker and ALEC implement Burkean reforms. It is true that avoiding the horrors of totalitarianism is the first and founding priority of conservatism, and that often means resistance to change, but despite his quip, Buckley never believed that to be the whole deal, and I do not know of a respected conservative who has thought that.
More later; busy night.
As I said in the other thread Burke and Hayek are fellow travelers but there is an important distinction – as a Statesman Burke was concerned with among other things the power of the British Empire. It is for these practical reasons that he adopted classical liberal positions of power devolution in the American colonies not out of any ideological commitment to Lockean notions of individual liberty. You will note that I mention Hayek’s admiration for Conservatism’s reverence for, and preservation of, the mediating institutions that make liberal governance possible. This is what I think Hayek means when he talks about his “Old Whiggishness”. However, Hayek is that great pains to illustrate the ways in which Liberalism and Conservatism diverge and how Conservatism exists not to pursue liberal ends per se but to prevent the erosion of existing institutions.
As an empiricist I believe that the best I can say about Burke regarding Liberalism is that he borrowed the elements that he saw as valuable in order to preserve the order to which he was dedicated – the rule of the British Empire. In that regard Burke demonstrated a very practical and praiseworthy distillation of some classical liberal principles, but there is a reason that the American Founders rooted the ideological foundations of the Revolution in Lockean notions of the natural rights of man.
Your analysis of the American conservative tradition is spot on, but I would only point out that my piece accounts for this. American conservatives, by virtue of the history surrounding the founding, has liberalism at its core. However, I would argue that when American conservatives champion things like Free Trade or Natural Rights they are acting as ideological liberals and not ideological conservatives.
This then is the paradox of American conservatism and the source of our current divide. The conservative instinct to preserve the existing order is a deeply rooted and at war with ideological tradition it seeks to conserve. This manifests as a conservative desire to preserve existing economic relationships, or an “American” culture – as if the American culture has not always been in flux – expressed most obviously in the Nationalist Populism currently holding sway on the right. What should be preserved, in my opinion, is the American ideology of liberalism. This does not mean that conservatism is wrong, or useless, but rather incomplete and lacking direction and purpose as a governing philosophy.
By the way for a great primer on Burke I recommend the book by Yuval Levin. He agrees with both JoE and myself in different measures and suffice to say this is a much more complicated topic than probably either of us have the knowledge and wisdom to find an answer to.
I think you have this reversed. Burke was, as you note, a Whig, not a Tory (the other party). He wanted reform and pursued the liberal ideas because he fundamentally believed in human freedom and the dignity of all. He believed in defending institutions against erosion because that preserved the liberal ends of prosperity, freedom, and rule of law. Radicalism is bad because it leads to tyranny, essentially for the reasons that Hayek identifies. Hayek just gets there through theory while Burke gets there through history. They also have roughly equivalent reforming instincts competing with their concerns about the knowledge problem.
There was a Jeffersonian element to the Revolution, but it was not the whole, nor the dominant side. There’s a reason that Anerica did not join in the revolutionary wars until the theory driven part was done and Napoleon on the throne. The bulk of the Founding Fathers were distinctly cautious about the French experiment. There were no temples to reason in America.
I think you’ll find that the preference for free markets was a fundamental Whig ideal and that you should explore Burke more. I agree about natural rights, but I don’t think natural, as opposed to Constitutional rights appear much outside the context of Life.
You’re talking etymology here, not ideology. Hayek and Burke were highly aware of the dangers of stepping into the unknown, and saw that everything was the unknown, but they did not seek to preserve the existing order for its own sake. Both sought diverse and serious reforms. You should avoid tyranny, which includes a strong awareness of slippery slopes and the dangers of power, but Burke founded the tradition with the tension central to it; it is not extrinsic to it.
One of Burke’s defining issues was his objection to populism. He was pretty universalist with culture, too. Institutions were important to him, and history, but I don’t think you’ll find a lot of concern for culture as currently fought.
If you think that Burke and Buckley did not pursue reforms for reasons that were fundamental to their philosophies, then I can see why you would find the philosophies incomplete. I have no idea why you’d think that, though.
I like Levin, but I think that he may have given rise to your overemphasis on Burke’s right wing affiliation. He was on the leftist/ reforming side of British politics, albeit on the right of the left wing party. To use Marxist categories, both French and American Revolutions were Capitalist revolutions, as were the Whig revolitions in the UK (1688 and 1832). They were thus leftist only inasmuch as the bourgeois was the revolutionary class; those same bourgeois supporting ideals of facial equality and such become right wing when the Capitalist revolutions are complete and the momentum moves to Communist revolutions. This, they don’t look revolutionary from here, and Burke was keen to see his revolution be deliberate, but he was nonetheless keen to consolidate and extend the Glorious Revolution.
You’re on much more solid ground with the natural rights stuff, which Levin is also strong on. As with Hayek, Burke’s thought is somewhat dominated by epistemology (or possibly that aspect is overdeveloped in my mind because I came to him through my Theology background, which focused on epistemology).
There is a lot of discussion on this thread about how to define the political divide in America – both currently and historically. There is a case to be made that the dividing line is more simple than it seems from some of this discussion. I will let Thomas Jefferson make that case, since he is far more articulate than I:
@jamesofengland You have definitely given me more food for thought regarding Burke’s liberalism – I have read many of his writings, but a long time ago. Can you suggest any good books on this subject?
The Republican Party was supposed to be the vehicle to accomplish these complementary goals of resisting the progressive agenda and of moving us back to our foundations of limited government and separation of powers.
It has not always been successful. It has not always been in power, i.e., it has not lately held the presidency and/or a veto-proof or filibuster proof majority. Even when it had sufficient power, it has not always had the correct vision. Perhaps that was because in order to gain power it had to promise the somewhat progressive middle (the 47%?) that it would not be overly conservative.
But what a shame of historical proportions it would be if the party were to lose its ability to fight that fight in the years ahead because it had abandoned the principles for which the fight is being fought.
It’s true that limited government doesn’t necessarily have anything specific to target as a policy. That’s a good thing.
Sometimes, there’s a problem that a government problem is trying to fix, but it addresses it so badly, or causes so many unintended consequences, that it’s better to stop trying to get government to fix anything. And there are other times when the problem itself is government-created. Wholly. From the ground up.
Conservatives start from a traditional understanding that government has certain functions that it should legitimately focus on. That’s why the Founders included statements in the Preface, etc., about why we create governments in the first place. That traditional understanding depends on a philosophy that coercive government power should not be used unless necessary. That also presumes that if there is some problem, we should try to address it through every other local institution – market, church, neighborhood, family, etc. – before resorting to government’s police/tax power. That power shouldn’t be the only tool we have.
The progressive philosophy, on the other hand, is that if you should be able to use coercive state power whenever you want. If it’ll do some good, use it. (“If even one life is made easier …”)
So, basically, conservatives don’t propose many “positive” ideas for using power … because we believe we shouldn’t.
Lots of food for thought, thanks for this.
Personally I’m not sure I’m conservative as much as I am a Jacksonian as defined by Walter Russell Mead in his 1985 essay “The Jacksonian Tradition”:
Although I’m less fond than a traditional Jacksonian of
At the end of the day the base questions about a statute, government program or policy for me is whether compliance by the majority of citizens, or a sizeable minority, has to be encouraged by force or fear. If so I’m probably against it.
What long march toward liberty? As far as I am concerned its all been downhill in most areas since the founding. Harding and Coolidge beat back the progressives only because Wilson horribly overreached by jailing dissenters during WWI. Even Reagan only changed rhetoric with hardly any real changes of facts on the ground.
There is a large difference between a “conservative” instinct and American conservatism. With the libertarians deciding that the right to drugs and not having ones feelings hurt are more important than the right to guns and ones conscience, and the GOP deciding to collectively fall for a huckster, things are not looking good for either American conservatism or classical liberalism no matter what you call it.
Yes!
Lacking a well defined principals as to the appropriate role of government also leads ‘conservatives’ to look at each proposal as to whether it ‘sounds like a good idea’ not whether it is an appropriate role for government.
For example, it might be a good idea for us to eat less sugar and drink less soda, but should the government impose a sin tax for our own good?
It might be a good idea to take the gardasil vaccine to protect against certain cancers, but should the government force people to vaccinate their children against non-casually communicable diseases for their own good? I bring this up because I got in an argument with ‘conservatives’ when republican governor Rick Perry wanted to make it mandatory for Texas school girls to have received gardasil. (you could get out of it but only by jumping through a serious of government directed hoops). I argued it was wrong for government to force vaccination for non-casually communicable diseases, and ‘conservatives’ told me Perry was right to do it because it “will save lives”. This is when I understood that limited government as a concept in the US was over.
We never talk about the ‘blessings of liberty’ any more, and we certainty don’t teach it to our kids. (well, I did, but I’m strange that way).
We also never talk about the risks of government controlling our money and decisions (and there are great, great risks) – it seems people just take it on faith that the government cares and can/will take good care of us if only we let them. And anyone who doesn’t want government to control our lives / money is a selfish bastard who hates everything good.
Doc, keep changing your avatar. I’ve liked them all, but haven’t found one, yet, that I LUV. (And, you could use some more contrast in some of the images.)
This could all be true, and the name, “conservatism”, can’t be changed at this late date, but I think names and words have much more influence on thought than most people believe. That the entire edifice is called “conservatism” means that that is its essence, and that it will work against people’s thinking of an overt, positive philosophy in subtle ways.
It’s also been a while since I read most of his writings (I read Reflections a couple of years ago after Levin’s book, but other than that nothing since college). I took a class with Levin that had a good collection of extended quotes as part of an NR regional fellows program, and found that and other people’s contributions expanded on his book usefully. There’s a program in San Francisco this fall if you could manage the commute. If not, hopefully LA soon.
It was Hague’s biography of Pitt that really helped me to appreciate what Britain lost in terms of Constitutional reverence. It’s also not a bad angle from which to learn about Whiggism and the divides within it.
In terms of the classification of revolutions in Marxist doctrine, there’s a lot out there but Fukuyama’s End of History is a good place to start. It’s an enthusiasm of mine, so if you want more I can keep you supplied for a while.
Antonia Fraser’s Perilous Question, on the 1832 reform act is pretty good. It’s about the post-New Whigs, obviously, but she sometimes comes to family gatherings (she’s a distant cousin), so I’d feel bad if I didn’t recommend her. Also in family terms, I’m a descendent of Bishop Jonathan Shipley, which may lead me to exaggerate their friendship (they were leading figures together on the American issue and Burke wrote of their friendship as part of a literary club, but they split over Hastings), and I don’t know where I’ve read his writings other than the famous sermon (which you should read if you have not), but they’re worthwhile.