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.
Are We Really “Conservatives?”
Is this really us?
Ricochet is home to a lot of debates; typically among those of us on who identify with the Political Right. As a matter of convenience, we call ourselves “conservatives” and our opponents “liberals.” Much has been written about the derivation of these terms and how they came to be in common usage today. I don’t want to re-hash that history lesson. I’m more interested in figuring out if we here are actually conservatives or if we are … something else.
My Random House Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “conservative” as: “Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., and to restore traditional ones, and to limit change — or — cautiously moderate.” Certainly, there are plenty of people at Ricochet who want to restore traditional institutions. There’s nothing wrong with that per se; there have been some great and admirable times in the nation’s past. There have also been terrible times which are best remembered with a shudder and fear. As to the rest of the definition? I’m not buying it.
To take this definition and apply it to the events of, say, yesterday — when the Congress voted to repeal Obamacare — one could conclude that those actions were not “conservative,” unless you place focus on the “restoring traditional institutions” portion of the definition. We “conservatives” should cheer this action in the sense that Congress is seeking to “restore” the status quo ante that existed before progressive nannyists jammed this camel down the throats of the public. I like it. I approve. I want it to happen. But in my mind, it wouldn’t go far enough even if it had been successful. We ought to appreciate the adherence to process here that the president disdains, but don’t think that goes far enough to explain what we long for.
“Conservatism” of restorationist flavor boils down to a matter of dates. If you limit your view of what is right and good to some specific point in the halcyon past when things were “great” — you know, when we’re staring into the void — you’re nothing more than a “reactionary.” By this definition, one could just as easily claim that someone who wants to restore Woodrow Wilson’s fascist police state, arguing that it was the height of American civilization, is a conservative. In a certain sense, too, he’d be right.
We have to consider: What, precisely, are we attempting to restore? Are we attempting to return the nation to how it was in 2000, before the horrors of 9/11 and the opening of the American mind to the idea that we are involved in an existential struggle with people who are even more “conservative” than we are? No, thank you. Perhaps it’s 2007, before the scourge of Obama-ism? Fat chance. How about the 1950s (as I recall one person suggesting) when our civilizational confidence seemed to be at an all-time high, the economy was growing steadily, and life seemed to have a predictable, peaceful rhythm, with the caveat of the threat of global thermonuclear war? I’ll pass.
I’m asserting that there was no time in the past that holds up to scrutiny so well that we should seek to “restore” it such that it becomes our ideal of the future. In my estimation, the only way out is moving forward — not longing for the past — and I think have some decidedly un-Conservative ideas about how we need to do that (in the sense that “restoration” of traditional institutions is insufficient).
For starters, I’m in favor of the complete voucherization and privatization of the education system while maintaining public funding. This acknowledges that we aren’t going to return to a time when there isn’t publicly funded education, but makes it more efficient and to stop punishing people who choose to send their children to private schools by what boils down to double taxation. Competing studies quibble about the effectiveness of private/charter schools — the secret sauce for academic success seems to be family cohesion) vs. their public school brethren — but most of them miss the fundamental point: even though charter/private schools tend not to produce remarkably better results, they produce similar (or better) results at lower cost. We should do it for that reason alone if nothing else.
This is a radical, borderline revolutionary, position; there’s nothing “conservative” about it.
I’m also skeptical about our capacity (in the long run) to eliminate the welfare state. In some form or another, Section 8 housing, AFDC, WIC, SNAP, SCHIP, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are all here to stay; there are simply too many people who are too deeply invested in them and capable of voting to prevent eliminating them entirely. What I do think we could accomplish is transforming them into something different.
Borrowing from my earlier point, why don’t we voucherize Medicaid? We could also incentivize people to save unspent voucher monies in health savings accounts, rather than what we do now, which encourages them to view the program as a bottomless well of money from which they can pull up a bucket or two as needed. Something similar could be done with most of the rest of the programs. Again, this is not necessarily a “conservative” position, but reflects the reality of where we are today and how we might better incentive our existing structures.
These are revolutionary concepts that would drive progressives — and, I’m sure, plenty of libertarians — crazy. There are a lot of ideas like this on the Right and yet, we call ourselves “conservatives.” I think we do ourselves a disservice by downplaying just how different our thoughts about government and public policy are from from those of the Left. In doing so, we allow ourselves to be tarred with the brush of “regressive” when, in reality, we might have a far better claim on being “progressive,” in the sense that we seek to improve human flourishing. It’s the Left, in this sense, who look downright reactionary in their defense of moribund and failed institutions.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
If you have simply shifted the abrogation of natural rights from the Federal to the State level what have you accomplished?
Are you addressing that to me? I think you’re understanding of the American Revolution has been warped by the spirit of Libertarianism that has crept into our national consciousness. The American revolution was not fought over liberty specifically – the English already considered themselves free – but over taxation without representation. It was the without representation part of governance that was the cause of the split. Given representation and given the basic freedoms of the Bill of Rights, then self rule through republican governance, i.e. elected representatives, could legislate whatever the electorate supported. There is no right to absolute freedom.
What also confuses people are the restrictions placed on the Federal government. Those restrictions, I believe, were placed to restrict Federal power, not guarantee absolute freedom. There’s a difference.
I’m asking a more fundamental question than this. Regardless of the specifics of the American Revolution, which I do not concede you are correct on here, the very concept of natural rights as espoused in the Declaration indicates that there are certain rights that it is wrong for any government to abridge. Do you reject the concept of natural rights?
Tom it is important to remember that the reason for the 10th is because the Founders realized the fallacy of trying to list them all and thus “left them to the States and the people thereof.” This means that the people in the individual states determine what rights exist for them in their states, so if Texas citizens through their elected representatives decide that there is no right to sodomy, then there is no right.
A great many state constitutions include articles in their state bills of rights that do not appear in the Federal Constitution. For example, the Texas Bill of Rights includes:
As a historical matter, women’s suffrage was recognized by some state constitutions long before the 19th Amendment’s passage.
Agreed.
Yes, but it’s also correct that — rather than grant their state more powers than does the federal constitution — citizens of a state might enact even harsher restrictions on their state governments than those on the Federal constitution.
Again, I agree that Lawrence was wrongly decided as a matter of federal jurisprudence (Just. Thomas nailed it as far as I’m concerned). I disagree that it necessarily follows that — simply because the Federal government had no power to tell them otherwise — Texans should have permitted such a law on their books.
No I do not reject it. I believe and accept Natural Rights. However, I don’t know if the Constitution addresses natural rights. Do you think it does? I never thought about it.
I figured you were going to quote state constitutions. Isn’t that the same thing as people deciding what legislation to pass? The people decide what is a freedom and by implication what is not.
Manny- I think you’re structuring your question in a way that necessitates your answer. Morally, the state at any level has no authority to act in violation of the Natural Law. Practically, might makes right so the state is only bound by either its own positive law or armed resistance.
I’m not sure what you mean I’m structuring my question.
Bottom line as to what I’m saying: Outside the Bill of Rights, government (federal or local) can limit any liberty it wants.
Caveat: SCOTUS continuously finds freedoms in the Constitution that aren’t there, such as abortion and SSM.