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.
What Is A Conservative?
When philosophers want to define a thing, we sometimes try to generate necessary and sufficient conditions for that thing. Just to be clear, X is a necessary condition for “being Y” if all Y’s are necessarily X. X is a sufficient condition for being Y if every X-thing is a Y.
For example, I would say that “having human DNA” is a necessary condition for “being a human male.” But it’s not sufficient, because of course you could have human DNA and be female. “Having a Y chromosome” is a sufficient condition for being a male. (Or, well, I think so; we’ll push aside the transgender skeptics for now.)
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being an American conservative? Russell Kirk came up with a list once, but it might be fun to make our own.
The two most obvious components of conservatism are 1) commitment to freedom and especially free enterprise, and 2) respect for human tradition. Your classic fusionist pairing. Some people are a lot more committed to one than the other, and we sometimes call those people RINOs, though maybe it would be more accurate to call them “half-men.” They’re in, but they’re only holding up one end.
So, would we say that commitment to one of those two components (and of course people are free to further refine them) is a necessary and sufficient condition for being conservative? Would we want to add a requirement that the other be at least nominally respected or tolerated? Anyone want to make the argument that true conservatives should be passionate about both? Or just formulate another definition entirely?
Published in General
Yural Levin’s book on Burke and Paine uses Paine as the quintessential opposite of a conservative in an argument that I don’t believe was all that controversial. Paine arrived at plenty of conclusions that agree with conservatives today (all historical political thinkers are right on some issues, wrong on others), but at the core of his thought was a belief that we could construct the world rationally.
We’re not that smart, individually, and conservatism recognizes that the price mechanism and other astonishing features of society let us work together far more effectively than one might imagine if left in our current social context (some people say without government, but we do need protection of property rights etc., for that stuff to work).
I’d say that it was hard for an anarcho-capitalist to be a philosophical conservative (you need too high a view of human reason), but that you’d generally find yourself with the conservative team on most issues, such that it would be reasonable to term yourself a conservative, and that, depending on where you fell on the anarcho-capitalist spectrum (Does the desirable level of restriction on violence protect the unborn, for instance? In the period before the revolution while we still have public schools, do you care if we have school choice and approve of it?), you may be a solid political conservative.
I would note that I once saw a diagram of Republicanism which described it as a three-legged stool, those being moral, fiscal, and pro-military. The three-legs supported each other. The moral conservatives were supposed to understand that fiscal restraint on the part of government (at any level) meant that they would have more money available for the support of the family. The fiscal conservatives should understand that the moral conservatives were their allies in a political fight to control government expenditures for the reason noted above.
The pro-military conservatives had to understand that support for the military means that moral conservatives would champion the defense of this country even to the point of recommending service to themselves and their children (enlistment) and of fiscal conservatives being willing to vote expenditures to support the military.
It was a recognition of overlapping interests supporting each other.
The assumption that one part of this triumvirate can succeed politically without the other two parts is insanity. I have seen insanity expressed here at Ricochet. Perhaps a bit of re-thinking is in order?
I would not necessarily connote conservativism with Republicanism, although they are the closest political match nationally.
Conservatives believe government should be arranged with it ever in mind that all of us will do terrible things to others when tempted by our desire to be able to have and do whatever it is we want to be able to have and do.
They seem to believe that, in the long run, limited government does the least to enable the human impulse to abuse power because it does the least to enable power and freedom to be severed from responsibility at the local level.
I agree that having a constrained/limited view of human malleability is a key feature of conservatism, i.e., that systems that do not account for or understand this nature are destined to fail and will probably hurt millions in the process.
If I may pick a nit, though, we needn’t say that human nature is utterly fixed. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that human behavior has changed subtly within the last few 10,000 years and, perhaps, even more recently. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens when we really figure out how to manipulate our genomes (not necessarily in a good way).
That said, our natures are much more, much fixed than Leftist efforts to engineer utopia assume.
Well put. Paine was a radical with a lot of ideas that were compatible with conservatism, but he certainly wasn’t a conservative.
This tops the list for me. The inability to grasp this fact accounts for nearly all of the horrors of the 20th Century (and beyond).
I just noticed that no one had linked to this. It’s not perfect, but in terms of describing policies that would allow the sorting hat to put you into house conservative rather than house liberal on a political rather than philosophical basis, I’m not familiar with a close rival to this, basic though it is.
I like your original definition, Rachel:
“1) commitment to freedom and especially free enterprise, and
2) respect for human tradition.”
Maybe I like it because it includes me. (Oftentimes folks like me — pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-separation of church and state guys who care more about Republicans winning than about ideology aren’t thought of as conservative enough or conservative at all.)
If commitment to free enterprise is the ascendant unifying force among conservatives, count me in.
It’s easy (at my age or) just looking at what’s going on, to also respect the best of human tradition.
Children are most often best raised by two married parents.
Democracies require brave protectors.
Charities, often run by people of faith, make indispensable contributions to civil society.
Moral codes matter.
Comedy was funnier before taboos came down.
Dramas need heroes.
The DH and the Wild Card made things too easy.
Drivers read road signs, not smartphones.
College kids earn their first cars, and are not gifted luxury vehicles.
Restaurants play quiet music for customers, not loud music which the staff enjoys.
And Presidents mean it when they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
I tend to think of conservatism primarily as a sensibility rather than a worldview or a set of political doctrines. I like Michael Oakeshott’s characterization of that sensibility:
“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 convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”
I doubt that conservatism can be defined. Nietzsche gives the reason why: “Only what has no history can be defined.” It’s a foundational insight for Nietzsche – and one that’s independent of the wacky stuff about the Übermensch and Eternal Recurrance. Because traditions change over time they have no stable essence by which they can be defined. We can answer the question “What is a triangle?” with the reply “A triangle is a shape with three sides,” but a complete answer to the question “What is conservatism?” would be a history of conservative thought and politics. Of course we can still produce a stipulative definition for some particular purpose and some definitions will be more useful than others.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams, Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798
I think that one can be a moral and religious deist.
“The Western world has been attempting to preserve the fruits of Christianity after having surrendered the roots.” — Fulton J. Sheen
Although Rachel specifically asked about American conservatism, some have tried to answer this more generally. In my view, the great divide is between those who live culturally and those who live ideologically. Neither conservatism nor progressivism is a particular belief or set of beliefs. Rather, conservatism reflexively defends the culture one was born into, while being willing to change specific things about it. Progressivism is the great meta-ideology, the belief that through perfect adherence to this or that ideology we can perfect the world. Ideology in that sense is the antithesis of culture.
The lines are often blurry. Islam is an old culture, but in the past century or so has spawned an ideological version of itself. As usual, where ideology rules, the result is catastrophe.
Libertarians make me nervous because, despite their frequent agreement with (American) conservatives, they seem to elevate many of their specific beliefs to the level of ideology. They believe in free markets, and would extend it to prostitution, drugs, etc., as a more perfect expression of that ideology. Conservatives believe in free markets because it’s part of our culture, one that seems to work well and is therefore deserving of loyalty.
Sure. Christ prefigures the claim with his parable of the sower. Deists can preserve some of the roots, though, and bad soil yields considerably better harvests than stone. Self identified Christian deists have always provided a significant portion of America’s social and spiritual cohesion, and it is the loss of that culture that has stopped Christianity from being the default in much of Europe, to immense costs in prosperity, salvation, and culture.
I think everything I would have to say has already been mentioned. But at Imaginative Conservative, Alfred Regnery just had a piece on “The Pillars of American Conservatism” that sums a lot of it nicely. Here’s the take away: freedom, tradition, rule of law, belief in God. Worth a read:
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/06/the-pillars-of-modern-american-conservatism.html
Not at all: you can stay right where you are. I had similar thoughts in response, but your thoughts are nicely articulated and referenced.
So that’s what the F stands for!
Ok … that might have been a …. nickname …
I’m late to this thread and horribly ill-read on the great philosophers of conservatism, so mine are observations and conclusions I’ve drawn coming from a misspent youth of brain-dead liberalism to a convicted conservative.
Yes, conservatives believe in freedom, but it’s an ordered liberty — ordered to virtue as defined in the development of Judeo-Christian thinking over millennia. This is where we sometimes part ways with (particularly secular) libertarians. As read in the Goldberg File today, an argument made by WFB: if some men push old women in front of trains and others push them out of the path of oncoming trains, it isn’t helpful to call both groups “social engineers” as a pejorative. Ordered liberty frees man to use his free will in a virtuous manner, not in any manner he pleases.
Conservatives are also vehemently opposed to central planning for both practical and moral reasons. We see organically developed complex systems of human interaction (like free markets) as beyond the ken of so-called experts. It is not only unfeasible for planners to organize such things, it is immoral to deprive men of the use of their free will by compulsion.
Of course, a functioning society is dependent, as Mike quotes, on a virtuous people. Our society has become so heterogeneous in its opinions of what “virtue” is, that we can’t even begin to agree on how to order it. And, yes, I blame secularism.
Western civilization is rooted in the church and in a God who makes moral demands. We’re not supposed to start an argument from that basis anymore. The ground of our western worldview has undergone liquefaction. Good luck keeping that structure upright!
And, btw, I’m coming ’round to a more libertarian perspective on immigration. There seems to be an irresistible osmotic effect on our southern border. It is natural that people in high density poor countries would find their way to a neighboring low density poor country. We not only seem to lack the political will to secure the border, I’m not sure we even know what we need to know about the consequences of strictly controlling immigration. I’m not quite at “open borders,” but, just as I ask liberals about redistribution, I ask myself about immigration — “Who decides?” (Milton Friedman’s “Which angels among us?”) and “Based on what evidence?”
On immigration (as on all matters), the citizens of the nation decide through their representatives. As far as evidence: that’s up to each voter and representative to decide for themselves.
I’ve lived the consequences twice already and likely in the midst of thrice; I know what came before and I know what comes after since I’ve seen both. While I acknowledge that the transformations I’ve endured had many causes, a flood of immigration was certainly one of them. In particular, the people whom more-open-immigration proponents particularly seek to regularize – the people who just want to work and aren’t interested in citizenship – have to live somewhere and people uninterested in setting down roots don’t exactly bolster a community. The neighborhoods I lived in were never perfect, but one look at the map plotting the types of crimes reported tells the gory tale. The effects are more diverse, but that is a major dealbreaker for me. If people want to come and live here and be a part of what we have then I’m all for it – in a slow and orderly manner.
Not to hijack the thread. I’d be happy to talk further, but let’s go to a different room if you want to continue the immigration conversation.
WC- a massive push for identity politics and a welfare state within our own borders combine to make open borders — or anything approaching open borders — political suicide. 4th generation Hispanics vote 80% Dem- the main reason for CA’s immortal Electoral College lock-up for Dems. The problem with accepting a deluge of Central/Latin American immigrants is that Hispanics have a clientelist view of the political world. Immigration should be entirely skills-based; we shouldn’t be admitting people strongly disposed to being clients of the welfare state.
Political habituation, not race.
It’s a political issue first/foremost, not economic. Would that Troy Senik interview someone who understands this.
Democrats have established identity politics as the ground of our politics. (Of course there’s always been “identity” politics of some sort. Prior to 1965, it was ordered toward assimilation).
This means that Republicans, if they were smart and political, would respond to Democratic racial demagogy on immigration with charges that Democrats themselves are racists. Which is actually the truth.
This is what Romeny should have done to Obama. Called Obama a flat-out racist.
The desire to overcome human nature seems part of human nature itself. Which means human nature isn’t as fixed as many libertarians seem to think. For instance, it’s something to behold — it’s truly remarkable — that feminists have gotten women to believe in killing their own babies. Or to believe they can have casual, emotionless sex like a man. Both of these — the main drivers of the welfare state, as they militate against the family — have led to untold social, cultural disaster. Perhaps the most remarkable, hard data driven manifestation of this are longitudinal studies showing clear, massive decline in female happiness since the rise of feminism.
As women have become more free, they’ve become less happy. Which, I would argue, means they are less free.
TR- happy to see somebody reading Kesler’s important book. (I’m late to reading the rest of the thread). As I mentioned earlier, there’s an outstanding interview with one Mark Blitz — it’s with Kesler — in case you’ve not already seen it, that addresses what I think the heart of conservatism is- responsibility, pointing to honor, and human nature.
Blitz & Kesler- we’re talking two Harvard honor program undergrads (i.e., perfect SAT’s) and Harvard PhDs who came out as rock-ribbed conservatives. The very antithesis of liberal caricature/slander.
When Blitz says the natural is what humans don’t make; “the ‘natural’ about anything is what covers it in some sense universally; the natural is what’s essential about it; and all of that is an object of reason,” he’s of course pointing to natural law as the basis of Constitutional legal reasoning.
We look to nature as a standard in order to place our opinions and pretensions before the tribunal of the only reason that we possess. Word to Sal.
It’s a political issue for us, Robert. It’s one chiefly of economics for immigrants though. People don’t tend to upend their lives unless they’re hoping for major improvement in their lot.
Help me with this. I’ve heard Dennis Prager talking about the problem with Latin American immigrants being their political sensibilities. As you say, the “clientele” view of politics. How do we make the case that we shouldn’t allow so many Latin Americans to immigrate because they’re likely Democratic voters? — To a populace that reelected Obama and that has essentially given up on Americanism and bought into the idea of the “right” to healthcare, to “public” education, to untouchable social “security.” We’re all European socialists now.
Maybe the crisis on the border will help Americans wake up, but I’m skeptical that anything but a terrible collapse will bring about significant political conversions here.
As for calling Democrats racists, I don’t see it working. Obama is the Left’s perfect storm. If we could somehow reveal how they exploit the poor and various minority groups for political gains, maybe we could make some headway. This border crisis might be an opening.