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.
Conservatism: An Abstract Philosophy or a Mode of Governance?
There is no question that the rise of Donald Trump has created a schism on the right. I’ve certainly had my run-ins with folks here on Ricochet, most notably @garyrobbins and @georgetownsend. While I vehemently disagree with these gentlemen on a lot of things, arguing with them has had its benefits, namely that they have pushed me to constantly refine, redefine and clarify my beliefs.
In a recent lengthy back-and-forth they provided me with this question on the state of things in the post-Reagan era: Is Conservatism just an abstract utopian philosophy, the inverse of theoretical Communism, or is it an actual and practical mode of governing?
If it is an abstraction, this explains the Progressive Lite ways of the national GOP. They can give lip service to the ideal (especially when raising funds and campaigning) while still governing in opposition to those ideals simply because they are impractical.
Many here, including the aforementioned gentlemen, insist that Conservatism is indistinguishable, even 30 years after the fact, from Reaganism. Is it? Or has that been abandoned?
I have constantly issued the call to examine whether American conservatives are indeed committed to fulfilling Reagan’s dream. To this end, I spent time rereading President Reagan’s re-election platform. As in all political manifestos there are a lot of vague “we encourage this” and “we urge that” and a lot of “we embrace the idea of” platitudes that are not easily translated into specific political action. I have identified a list of 32 concrete actions that the Reagan Administration told Americans they wanted to accomplish in regards to domestic policy in a second term. (By all means, please read the document and see what I may have missed.)
The third item on this list, the line-item veto, was accomplished yet struck down by the Supreme Court. It was asserted by the Court that it would be permissible if pursued through the amendment process.
Are these still goals of Conservatives or are they obsolete? And if they are obsolete what does it mean to call oneself a Reaganite in the 21st Century?
I fear that Conservatism has become nothing more than catchphrases, things said religiously by rote instead of through critical thinking. What does it mean to say “Government shouldn’t pick winners and losers” without acknowledging that even policies advocated by Conservatives do just that? And how do you change things so that it no longer happens?
What does it mean to say, “Never blame your troubles on someone else?” Does that suppose that all government action, whether from the left or right, is benign? (I’d say that’s just demonstrably wrong.) And isn’t pointing to specific policy far different than the Left’s ethereal bogeymen of racism, sexism, ageism, and a plethora of “phobias?”
If Conservatism is no longer a mode of governance but merely a theory, something that can only be accomplished in an ideal world then we need to re-exam it and ourselves, especially if the governing class is playing a giant game of bait-and-switch with the electorate. If we are to go forward Conservatism can’t be a mile wide and an inch deep.
Published in Domestic Policy
Conservative thought, no matter what you call it, is neither philosophy nor purely practical. It is an abstraction which is fundamentally experiential, based in reality. If there is any science to it, it is Engineering. It is a world view, that can be determined slightly by oneself through observation, or better by transmitted knowledge from teachers, or better still by reading and extrapolating a knowledge of historical examples. I expect most every great past civilization was known by the founders in one way or another or alluded to.
Conservativism is not principle, but a world view based on principles that have been gleaned and proven over time. Hence the name. They are also inextricably based on the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian expansion and explanations, and the basic morality which were prevalent and commonly accepted at the time of our founding. And yet they all are still based on lessons learned form history.
It looks like everything on your Reagan’s Conservatism list is fully in agreement with the Holy Scriptures of both Jews and Christians. I can’t think of any single thing in the Scriptures that contradicts or contravenes anything in the Constitution. In fact the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution refer to these concepts and principles however non-religious the writers try to present them. No Confucian, no Hindu, no mohammedan society could ever have created either of these documents.
The fundamental differences between conservatives’ views and goals and modern progressives’ views and goals can also be seen between the conservative (small “c”) nature of the Constitution and the progressive nature of those who would discard it.
The spiritual aspect of the Constitution is the driving principle in conservativism, and those who fight the Constitution and conservativism can also be identified as those who deny that same spiritual aspect. That is why the Republic requires a moral citizenry. And as the citizenry becomes more and more amoral or immoral, the Republic and the Constitution on which it stands mean less and less, and become less functional, and more chaotic, and the democracy (small “d”) of man’s desires gains more political and governmental power — over everyone — to their spiritual abasement and material loss.
The only way this happens is if the government forces it. If it ever worked, it isn’t working any more.
I’ll grant you Gorsuch. We won’t know about the other until the decisions are announced in June.
I remember when we though John Roberts was a “Rock-Solid Constitutionalist”. Good times, Good Times.
Just for fun, this was the Democratic Party platform in 1984, the second Reagan election–that is, his reelection–the period covered in the chart in the OP. The Preamble alone is interesting to read given our modern debates (interesting too that the writers can’t seem to decide if they want commas or dashes :-) ) :
I always get irritated when political Conservatism is blurred with a general approach to life and culture of conservatism. Political Conservatism, which I tend to identify with a capital “C,” are the policies that come and go with the political winds. You implement some, you get stymied in others. You change your mind on some, you stick with others. But conservatism as a philosophy is essentially an outlook that utilizes the collective wisdom of the ages, adjusted to address modern issues and perhaps modified based on new data, to form a life orienting philosophy which guides your political advocacy. Take Edmund Burke, G. K. Chesterton, and Russell Kirk, blend them together and you have the core of small “c” conservatism. I try not to get hung up on political Conservatism any more. It’s a waste of time.
Baloney. You are on Ricochet. And you see what the two individuals write. You don’t have to agree with it, but you cannot say it is unclear, filled with platitudes, scolding nor circular reasoning. I don’t agree with a lot of what Gary’s written, either, but he’s articulated his case well.
It may just be that you are guilty of reading with the intent to respond, with projecting on them what you want them to be saying, or simply not trying to understand what they are saying at all.
Again, you don’t have to agree with Gary or George, but you simply cannot say with that they’ve not made their case clearly.
I realize I’m beating a dead horse here, but a lot of you guys simply see what Gary or other write and you just stop reading. You go right to “Here’s another NeverTrump cuck with his boneheaded, don’t wanna win, nonsense.” So around and around we go.
My own view of Trump has of course evolved in the last two years, and while I’m not the full on MAGA hat wearin’ guy some of you are, I freely admit that he has done a lot better than I’d have hoped, and accomplished quite a few good things since his election. But what I think I’m more free to do than the MAGA and NT crowds is to see the arguments between the two groups a little clearer than they see them. And from my perspective, both sides are guilty of the exact same thing: you both immediately go to the knee-jerk reaction, and you both blame the other side for being the ones that are creating all the trouble. At some point I hope both sides get over themselves, and I hope it happens fast. Because we can’t afford to lose the White House to any of those idiots the Democrats are running.
I think it’s a way of living your life.
Conservativism is basically the cultural set of valences, (which results in acceptable ranges of trade offs between competing priorities, which results in policy preferences), for the mostly white, mostly protestant ethnic identities that pre-existed the mass immigration waves of the early 20th century and late 19th century.
Which is why it does not exist in any real measure outside of it.
Then there is the other kind of conservativism:
Tradition and Received knowledge (wisdom) has the benefit of being the null hypothesis, and novel innovations require sufficient proof in order to justify a change.
(liberals tend to demand that tradition and received knowledge justify themselves while holding their novel innovation as null, see gay marriage).
I may sound like a MAGA hat wearing guy, but I’m not very far from you in my journey, it just happened for me earlier and probably because I knew his personality, the bad – but also the good. I knew he was no closet Democrat. I knew he was a good executive and I knew he cared about our country. I lived and worked in Atlantic City and read about him nearly every day in the nineties. In fact I worked at two of his casinos and read the Art of the Deal when it came out. I was no ‘fan’, but I wasn’t fed this toxic bile that most people got. I was a Cruz guy until the end.
But the issue(s) I have with those two and other NTers basically predates the DJT phenomenon and the rift centers around the threat-levels of the left and the urgency and methods we must employ to counter it. As far as I’m concerned they aren’t on my side. They are hurting more than committed Democrats actually. Those tactics and methods have been proven ineffective and now obsolete. These are not people who are capable of keeping Democrats out of the White House.
And theres a judgementalism that comes from them regarding Trump and his supporters that I can’t abide.
You used quotation marks, Spin. Who wrote that quoted language?
Far be it from me to point out that in your defense of Gary and George you cite no examples, offer no quotes, but simply repeat your conclusion.
That’s simply not a credible complaint. As I have pointed out, Trump supporters, Trump sympathizers, Trump apologists, Trump explainers, Trump well-wishers habitually recite a litany of political actions taken by Trump that NeverTrumpers ought to rejoice, not criticize. NeverTrumpers, when they even recognize such political actions as consistent with conservative and Republican Party values, will even go so far as to respond as Bret Stephens did: “But I still wish Hillary Clinton were president.” That bald hypocrisy from Bret Stephens is a far more complete explanation of NeverTrumpism than I’ve ever gotten from Gary or even from Charles C.W. Cooke, the editor of National Review Online. What I get over 90% of the time is repetition of terms such as “lack of character” and “unfit for office,” without defining those terms.
In the aggregate – with very clear examples such as I’ve linked above – NeverTrumpers’ complaints are not nearly as substantive as are Trump supporters’ defenses of Trump. Both sides are not guilty of the same thing. Haven’t YOU been paying attention, Spin?
If that’s true, Stad, then what is it doing in politics?
In the book “The Age of Reagan” by Steven Hayward, published in 2001, Steven said, “Reagan was more successful in rolling back the Soviet empire than he was in rolling back the domestic government empire chiefly because the latter is a harder problem.” If the seemingly unstoppable growth of the state has been a major problem for these last 20 years (in reality more like 90 years), then whatever we call conservatism or conservative philosophy, has not responded to this threat. In addition our center right population has not provided a counter balance to the leftist momentum since Reagan; with the exception of the right to bear arms, the losses have been wide and deep. If we have been yelling stop, I have not heard it nor seen its effect. As E.J., and others have mentioned when conservatism provides no practical path to preserving our liberty then it has become useless.
That makes no sense. It’s the same as telling christians they shouldn’t vote their values.
I don’t materially disagree with you here.
I would totally wear a MAGA hat just to trigger the proglodytes, so so we are clear.
I completely agree with this. There is a long interview of David Stockman on real vision that basically says the same thing. It would be hard to shoot holes in it.
I just listened to this:
This is probably the second best thing I’ve ever heard that shows how the financial system and the Fed interferes with conservatism and libertarianism getting traction. Basically all that’s happening is, the right is slowing down socialism on the march to government being completely insolvent leading to inflation, or some other catastrophe.
There were just too many changes under Woodrow Wilson.
Just taking personal countermeasures and trying to be as prosperous as possible is probably a more sensible way to spend your time.
That is undoubtedly true.
That is also true.
Those are among the moral values which some ideologies hold to. You are saying that yours does. Mine does too.
Holding that no TV show and no sexual behavior is wrong is a moral value that some ideologies hold to. You are saying, I think, that yours does. Mine doesn’t.
One might have been able to define “conversatism” in the era of Reagan using Reagan’s ideas. Almost all of Reagan’s true beliefs are still applicable, but the idea or label of “conservative” is not when Mitt Romney, George Will, Bill Kristol and their merry band of Never-Trumpers label themselves “conservative” and get away with it.
I am not sure what “conservative” means anymore in our current context. “Conservativism” as a philosophy was always subject to much interpretation and could be and has been played with. What are we trying to “conserve”? Is it our Constitutional Rights as originally enumerated in the Constitution? Is it the original set of American Values that gave birth to the Constitution? Or is it to be against change to preserve the “old ways” just because? Or is to conserve and protect the powers of the bureaucratic Administrative State, the Welfare State or the new fangled interpretation of the “living” Constitution as the Never Trumpers seem to prefer?
For me, the idea of “conservatism” originally sprang from a set of ideas that generated the Constitution among them: the right to life, liberty and property – and also the pursuit of happiness, limited government, equal protection under the law, a system of checks and balances limiting government power, separation of power between equal branches of government and enshrinement of a set of inalienable rights like Freedom of Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Assembly, the Right to Due Process, Freedom of Religion, and the Right to Property.
“Conservatism” as it has evolved though has often failed to protect and defend these ideas, the actions of the Never Trumpers being just one recent example. So due to lack of a willing and staunch defense of the Constitution by those who once said or who now give lip service to the idea of firmly defending it, so many of original Constitutional ideals are no longer genuinely followed by our Judiciary nor are they welcomed and defended by many in the populace. I believe that almost all of the ills of today’s American society can be firmly laid at the feet of the efforts to shred the power of the Constitution and to follow a path not envisioned in the Constitution. So many of today’s ballyhooed institutions like the Administrative State, Social Justice, Hate Speech, Public Employee Unions, the Mueller investigation, Obamacare, Women’s Right to Choose, and the absolute shredding of most property rights fly in the face of the original ideas that gave us the Constitution and we have greatly suffered as a result.
So I guess I can’t get all excited by this seemingly very malleable philosophy of “Conservatism” and would like to simply return to the Classically Liberal ideas of the Constitution instead.
Any conservative policy should conserve freedom. And it just so happens that being more libertine (as opposed to free) does not typically lead to more freedom. In fact, it frequently and demonstrably erodes it.
As I go through the responses here I see a lot of “Here is what Conservatism is…” and not much “Here is how you get things done…” and that sort of confirms my own conclusions that the only “movement” we can detect here are GOP lawmakers sitting in the corner moving their bowels and little else, content to raising the stink and then calling it a day.
When Rick Scott was Governor of Florida he seemed to have great success in reducing the state’s footprint. Floridians have fewer state workers and pay less for state government than any other state in the Union. Are there any other state governors that are actually shrinking their states?
Aren’t you sort of demonstrating this observation:
I confess that, as a non-resident of Florida, I only know what’s been printed about his years in Tallahassee. Hence the word “seemed.” If you think otherwise please illuminate.
Your apprehension isn’t irrational, but I think you’re overlooking clear evidence. Kavanaugh has a long and consistent record including 200 or so opinions during his 12 years as a Circuit Court Judge at the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Roberts was on the DC Circuit for only 2 years.
I didn’t comment on the likelihood of his being a “Rock Solid Constitutionalist”, just that we would know for sure in June.
I think he will do fine.
However, people also expected Roberts to ‘do fine’ as well.
However, if President Trump is given the opportunity to replace the MIA Notorious RBG – then it is off to the races.
I think that you are pointing out that Rick Scott shrunk government in Florida. OK, that relies on a number of assumptions such as that smaller is inherently better in all cases all the time. Maybe in some cases government should be “bigger” in some areas and smaller in others.
So hammering nonsense phrases like “small government” is just treating catchphrases as absolute axioms.
Its kind of like tax cuts. To promote tax cuts to spur economic growth and increase revenues, requires that we be on the right side of the laffer curve all the time always.
So here in VA during the economic crisis, we laid off nearly all of the people who look at firearms background checks. Apparently someone somewhere has a name like mine who may have done something dastardly at some point. So my file required a manual review. This went from an hour to a few days due to the reduction in staffing.
So I thought well since there is near universal buy in that this background check system should exist, it should be adequately funded, so lets increase the firearms transaction fee to adequately fund the operation. But apparently I am a big government liberal who hates freedom.
Unfortunately at least one person went and read the platform, looking for that language. This is what was found.
Lot of language right there but nowhere does it wholly state what EJ put there. Maybe it was an honest mistake on EJ’s part, or not, but regardless of his motivation it is factually wrong. The language does state that Reagan aims to end federal funding for international institutions that fund foreign nationalized industries that trade against us. Which makes sense, complete agreement from me.
As the rest of the paragraphs clearly state protectionism is a threat though. And its policies, like reducing imports and higher taxes against them, are to be opposed and increasing productive capacity is to the path out. So at least on this one point in economics, and maybe more, Reagan’s 1984 platform is not in line with Trump’s rhetoric and policy
Oh, yes it is. Especially circular reasoning, evasion and innuendo. No one can argue against Trump other than he is “unfit” according to their own strictly moral and newly discovered fitness test. There is a lunacy in it. That irrational lunacy that yells, “I am pro-choice; you are pro-death!” at pro-lifers is the same emotional but meaningless reasoning never-Trumpers use against Trump and anyone who say they can see any good in his presidency. All never-Trump criticisms come down to an irrational argument for a cartoonish interpretation of what a president must be (as if we must idolize and revere a king), formal but shallow dignity of office, and pomp. And it is tedious and tiresome as well.
Excellent! That’s why conservatism – small “c” – is an application of collected wisdom, not formulas and certainly not formulaic catch phrases.
More puerile nonsense.
I think it’s there because free trade has always been a tough, nonintuitive political sell. The “free trade” agreement approach of the last 30 years attempts to finesse it. Somehow the idea that the smart thing to do is get rid of your own nationalizations, subsidies, and tariffs and let other countries be just as stupid as they want to be doesn’t seem to cut it with electorates. Negotiated “diminished stupidity” seems to be the hocus-pocus that gets something done.
I’d favor “all-in for free markets,” but then I’m a political nitwit. The only ray of hope I’ve ever seen was Senator Cruz running against ethanol subsidies and winning the 2016 Iowa primary. Man, did the clouds reassert themselves quickly on that one.