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.
Picking and Choosing our Conservative Values
Many of us spend a lot of time ranting against our politicians, who don’t seem to know what a Conservative is supposed to do in Congress. We expect them to be legislating on our behalf and not necessarily making friends with those on the other side of the aisle or planning their re-election campaign. But when we think about the legislation they could pass (or stop) that would actualize our conservative values (assuming you hold conservative values), what are we expecting? Do we believe that they have the intention of acting within conservative values? Have we articulated our expectations clearly? Do they even pay attention to our priorities? Do we know what our own values are? Or are we busy criticizing them for disappointing us and acting more like progressives?
I raise these questions because I think in all the political chaos, we have lost sight of our conservative values, and so have our legislators. There seems to be no values framework out of which our aims and actions would be enacted. Instead, I wonder if we are acting like the nightmare of a manager who doesn’t quite articulate his or her expectations, but can only declare, “That’s not it.”
I’m not looking to place blame on anyone—on us as an American society, or only on the legislators. I know Andrew Breitbart is often quoted as saying “Politics is downstream from culture.” I’m not sure if that idea is still relevant or not. What I do believe, however, is that we need to get much clearer on what are the most important Conservative values, which are the ones we must not compromise on, and how we can make sure that Republicans understand where their priorities should be since they work for us, and they have no reason to focus on their next election campaign—because we will refuse to vote for them if they don’t commit to the Conservative agenda.
Clarifying our values
Since conservatives value the individual, we can’t expect everyone to embrace the same list of values. Yet if we can’t agree on some key values, then how can we expect our legislators to get on board? I think one of the most significant problems we have as conservatives is that we pick and choose the values we like: the ones that we prefer, that are convenient to maintain, that make our viewpoints acceptable to others. And our legislators follow our lead.
I’d like to propose, after reviewing lists of conservative values here, here, and here, a list of conservative values for your consideration. You may include other values or disagree with my list, and I welcome your input.
Moral order: List this value as encompassing the preservation of the family, having a mother at home for the children, two parents, a job, truth and integrity, dignity of the individual (including life), a moral framework if not religion, self-reliance (rather than government funding), responsibility, and accountability; acknowledging the existence of evil.
Custom, Convention, and Continuity: Define what helps us live peacefully together; how we’ve agreed to follow the law; linking the generations through tried-and-true tenets.
Prudence: Anticipate what will happen in the long term, not just in the short term. The Respect for Marriage Act is an example where the long-term implications were ignored by many.
Imperfectability: Acknowledge that greed, narcissism, selfishness, thoughtlessness, and emotion over reason are a part of the human condition. We can never be perfect, but we must hold each other accountable.
Connection between property and freedom: This quotation of Russell Kirk speaks volumes about this value:
To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.
Voluntary Community: Build and maintain churches, youth groups, community centers, volunteer fire departments and other service groups, rather than relying on the government.
Limit and balance political power: Make a concerted effort to stop passing legislation that will be regulated at the federal level and move responsibility to the states.
Reconciling permanence and change: Identify what truly needs change. It’s worth noting that Roe v. Wade was criticized at its outset for being poorly written and outside the Constitution, and the change was long overdue to move laws concerning abortion to the state level.
* * * *
I have a belief about the definition of values that I have worked hard to maintain most of my life. A value is only a value if we act upon it. If we don’t demonstrate our consistent commitment, then that value is only a belief. There is nothing wrong with beliefs, but they do not rise to the level of importance of values. Beliefs often change over time, and there are minor and significant beliefs. For example, I believe a sign of respect from another person is being on time. Now you may not believe that is important, but I do. It doesn’t rise to the level of a value, but behaving respectfully toward others is a personal value of mine under which my belief about timeliness falls. You could even say that respectful behavior would fall under the value I listed above, “Moral order”; if we don’t act respectfully towards others (which is different from needing to actually respect them), we risk jeopardizing the moral order.
A fascinating contrast to these beliefs is our former understanding that if families have children, a parent should stay home full-time with the children, at least until the children attend school. Now in many families, both parents work. (I’m not convinced that the stated need for two incomes is always relevant.) But that value of having a parent at home has gone by the wayside; no one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation for that change.
* * * *
I’d wager that many Republicans, even the religious ones, don’t understand the meaning of values and actualizing them in their personal lives and in their work. It may seem a low priority compared to keeping their jobs in Congress. But I believe that if we citizens could agree on the importance and relevance of these values and communicate to legislators that these will be key to the election of every Republican, we might have a chance to save our country. If we are ambivalent about making that kind of commitment to our own values, why should our legislators feel any different?
Published in Culture
Good list, Susan. Thanks.
My one thought is that some of these items may need to be balanced. For example, if we get a strong federal majority, we might want to legislate some issues of moral order at the federal level, to cause positive change in Leftist states, despite the general principle favoring more local control.
I’m afraid the future of conservatism has already been settled.
By those two knuckleheads?
Feh.
So shall we just wring our hands and complain, or are we going to try to change the current situation? It seems like we spend lots of time doing the former, and very little to deal with the latter.
I like the underlying assumption of the OP: that definition and documentation is required. We live in an age of NewSpeak where words are losing meanings. We can’t talk to each other for lack of a common vocabulary. So exercises like this are key.
It’s easy listing a set of values; the challenge is acting on them, whether others are watching or not.
Our values list needs to be simple and direct, much like what you have posted. Every time the dems want us to be bipartisan, ask them to identify the half of the bill that supports our values. Throwing one bone for a couple of RINOs to grab onto is not bipartisan.
Well said!
I don’t even know if we are at this point now. Bipartisan must mean there is more than a single view to be considered. Do the Progressives believe this? I don’t see this in how they are approaching things. I think there can be an amount of variability within a conservative framework ( axiomatic basics with voluntarily agreed upon additions that some may join without agreeing). One can see immediately how this leads us back to the founding framers and federalism. The Progressives approach is we want it all and I can see the dissolution of the States as part of that.
This post expresses valuable concepts that could yield different sets of specifics within any given definition for different sets of people but the Progressive approach dismisses that. I don’t see how a bipartisan accommodation can be reached with the Progressive movement we face today.
I agree with you about the progressives. Americans believe in fairness. In a 50/50 country we shouldn’t fail to appeal to that. Doing things their way, the typical Repub way,just gets them labeled the “party of no.” Time to change that • Demand they show the bipartisan things then accuse them of ignoring the wishes of half the country.
Unfortunately, that’s the way I see the situation, too, Bob. With no movement on their part, we have to be clear and determined to stand by our own values, in spite of their disrespect.
Good list Susan
Defining “conservatsm “ is difficult.
I am not sure I am a “conservative” anyway.
My own political philosophy begins and ends with with strictly upholding the tenets and values of our Constitution.
To my way of thinking almost every malady that drives the now immense and now existential problems facing our nation derives from a failure to follow the Constitution.
The Insane Progressive Left has sought to undermine not only a Constitutionally based Rule of Law which if faithfully followed would prevent the formation and institutionalization of a Marxist Dictatorship which they so desire but also an effective understanding of what the Constitution means and how it is supposed to work.
Most of our populace have now turned their back on the Constitution to embrace a horrific set of fashionably Marxist values that threaten the very dignity of human life and our human existence, in ways I find terribly shocking.
Where many of the populace held “liberal” values not very long ago, these same people now seemingly embrace horrific Totalitarian values apparently without a second thiught that actually threaten their own existence and well being without even realizing it.
It would seem to be simply inexplicable were it not for the elaborate and unbelievably extensive data mined mind control efforts that our Big Tech/Deep State Elite Overlords now foist upon us 24-7.
Americans believe in stealing from each other with government.
What Unsk said.
Im not sure zeroing in on the values, as important as it is, solves it. We were unique and remained so in spite of changing values, notions, ideals, self interests, because we were bottom up. The top, or middle, may say all the right things, but it too is composed of humans. Self interest, however dressed up, has to work itself out. When we were bottom up we had to work toward shared outcomes among incredibly diverse populations and interests. Organizations aren’t the same, private or public and the bigger, the more remote from the bottom, the less diverse and the more innerly coordinated. They’re tied down differently and can go in any direction almost always more narrowly toward a coordinated top. Every civilization I’ve ever read about ended ( or ceased being fruitful, prosperous and dynamic) as the top narrowed and the bottom rotted.
That, too.
One of the best ways to undermine our values is through massive immigration without assimilation. The more diverse the culture, the quicker the undermining
Diversity and trust within communities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities
It’s clear from our history that immigration works with a bottom up approach. We have done immigration wrong since after WWII.
We need more bodies, but immigration is central planning and we are comprehensively screwing it up.
It’s interesting. Nobody ever talks about this, but 2/3 of GDP growth is population growth. We seem to go on and on about everything else related to prosperity. Lately I’ve seen hedge fund guys talk about it more.