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.
Factional Conservatives
My impression of the Conservative movement over the course of the last 80 years is that we have lost our grip on some things and doubled 0ur grip on others. I was once asked to write what I think conservativism is. That was so long ago. The asker is no longer here, but finally I think I can give an answer.
I wrote in a comment recently that I think the modern conservative movement has had inconsistent results because there is an internal argument on what conservatism should look like. I think a lot of that came to a head with the Ahmari vs. French debate, and while I think Ahmari is smarter than French and I agree with him more than I agree with French, both have good points… I think.
There seems to be a few dominant views of conservatism in the mainstream. This is not a labeling exercise. I may point out certain people promote more dominantly one idea, it is not to imply they don’t hold other ideas. It is all about emphasis and priority.
Preserving the capitalistic structure of our economy and protecting our Constitution (and economy) from the threats posed by Communism and Socialism abroad.
I think this is the Buckley/Reagan version of Conservatism that has been the hegemony of Republican policy throughout the 20th century. It is the neocon branch that has become associated with foreign wars and unlimited immigration as it vacillates between destroying socialism and communism abroad and building up high business domestically and exporting those businesses to the world. If we want to split the baby between the grifters and the true believers, the true believers would be the ones with a genuine goal of exporting the US Constitution to other parts of the world to lift them up. The grifters would be the ones invested in the financial side of it, which undermines the True Believers’ intent by ultimately importing socialism and communism through open immigration and cheap labor.
One of the huge issues with the grifting side of this position is that highly successful businesses are capable of moving to any place in the world, and through policymaking on our Government’s side, compromises can be made with otherwise hostile world powers to give them a place to go. This removes them from a dependence on domestic labor, which ultimately means these companies are not invested in the success of America, but rather in the agreements reached by world powers to allow them to do business wherever they wish. This hollows out the educational institution domestically, as the companies don’t really care how well educated Americans are, they can always find cheaper labor on par with Americans elsewhere.
This is more broadly outwardly focused, but I think that as more American Conservatives believe Socialism and Communism are a top priority realize the problem is domestic, it will shift inward. I don’t think this inward shift is going to be smooth, because, well, let’s just look at the next priority.
Promoting fiscal conservatism through smaller federal government, balanced budgets, and decreased spending.
This, I think, is properly the domain of “Conservatarians.” They have not been successful federally, but have been ascendant when it comes to driving political discourse in the punditocracy with mixed results in congressional elections (thanks to the Tea Party). They have been very successful in driving conservative debate and thought, even if none of their policy goals have been realized at the Federal level. This is where David French resides. Jonah Goldberg, while being sympathetic to conservatarianism, is still predominantly the prior.
As their name would suggest, this is a hybrid of libertarianism and conservatism. I’m not entirely certain in what respect that is, because they lean far heavier to libertarianism while giving lip service to social conservatism – yet never allowing into the political debate. My biggest problem with them is that their focus on the federal government drives their political goals for local politics, as well. This wouldn’t really be a big deal if it wasn’t so passive. Meaning, while Conservatarians promote a small federal government and spend a great deal of thought and words on how that would look at the Federal level, it is just assumed that the same is true for local politics without much thought being put into what that looks like locally.
So the inconsistent result of this predominant thought is that the Federal government ends up being the ultimate focus of the politically engaged, making the Federal government important (where we want to de-emphasize it) and alienates people who are just looking for local policies. That’s fine for rural people to engage in, but there’s much more going on in urban settings, so Republicans are dismissed because they have so few solutions for how small government should look for local politics.
This thinking in conservative ideology will conflict with the first group as it turns its focus inward, because defeating communism and socialism within our own country is primarily a culture war that is trying its hardest (and failing) at avoiding a civil war. Because its focus is less on foreign policy and limited government, but on social policy, there will be internal conflict – both within the party AND within the individuals who make up the party.
Social conservatism doesn’t need much explaining because everyone knows what we mean. Traditionalists who seek to uphold cultural values through political policy.
Here’s where Ahmari really comes in. He is likely one of the first group who has turned inward and sees a cascading preference in domestic politics for communism and socialism that has been seen as an external threat for most of his primary school education. He has witnessed its growth in his peer group in schools, entertainment, and social media for decades. He’s bound and determined to make Social Conservatism Great Again, much to the consternation of the conservative powerhouses that dominate conservative think tanks, because he thinks it is the only real threat to domestic communism and socialism. (He’s my age!)
Social conservatism is the original Conservatism, upholding tradition as foundational to building a successful, stable, prosperous, and free civilization. Edmund Burke is the long-forgotten poster child. Unfortunately, it’s also the brand of conservatism that everyone else is embarrassed to acknowledge. Social Conservatism is the group no politico actually wants but can’t get elected without. So social conservatives have lived with empty promises and lies for a long time. Interestingly, I think Ben Shapiro falls pretty solid in with this group more than the others, but his conservatarianism keeps him on a tight leash. I am predominately a Social Conservative (“Surprise!” says absolutely no one). I do, however, have strong libertarian leanings. They are greatly diminishing, though, as I agree with Ahmari that the only way to curb growing communism and socialism in this country without a civil war is through sound, domestic, social policy.
If we think that social conservatism is the bastard child of Conservatism, this next one is the black sheep of the family:
Promoting State sovereignty, local politics, and de-emphasizing, shrinking, and weakening of Federal power.
Hello, Trump. No, really. He fits here. He is a classic democrat, but he is a classic democrat who de-emphasizes presidential power. He uses his power decisively where it is constitutionally derived, yet obeys the courts. He does not impress one policy goal on all of the states. He gives the states room to work out their issues. Some of us might argue he has done too good a job on that, as he still refuses to step into state politics on behalf of the people suffering under their tyrannical governors and mayors.
No one likes acknowledging that state rights are a part of the foundation of the constitution. It’s embarrassing because it was a tool used to protect slavery, so defending state rights feels like a conflict. But should it?
While it is the least of all the brands of conservative thought, I think this is the one where everything comes together. By promoting state sovereignty, Conservatarians can have a way of belittling federal government, curbing its spending, and shifting focus away from it so it is no longer the most important institution in the land. By shifting focus to local governments, perhaps we can forge new policy goals for urban centers that embrace small government goals and demonstrate how they can make life better for urban life. State sovereignty and emphasis on local politics also limits social conservatism, allowing people to forge locally the culture they wish to have while letting other people in other areas to pursue a completely different kind of culture and social policy. It also weakens the drive behind communism and socialism in this country, as pursuing state sovereignty gives them 50 targets instead of one singular target that can be utilized to force all 50 states into communism and socialism. Being smaller, they are more likely to fail faster and can be rebuilt faster.
While this is still a fringe view (in spite of its origins), I think it is gaining in conservative thought.
I am not of the opinion that there is unresolvable conflict between these thought clusters. The same person can hold every one of these views and remain internally consistent (except maybe exporting the US Constitution to foreign countries via war…). But I do think we need to extend each other some grace in these arguments and discussions, and let the debate continue and grow and reform so we can tackle the new challenges laid before us in our modern times. We do need a vision and a goal.
Perhaps part of this debate should focus on when does bottom-up governance turn into top-down? If the people are the government, through democratically elected representatives, then at what point have we crossed the line into forcing ourselves onto our fellow countrymen? When is the majority violating the rights of the minority and when is the minority asserting undeserved authority over the majority?
Published in Politics
Stina, my dear full-time friend and part-time foe,
You Liked this? You okay? Please check your temperature. Do you have a persistent cough and fatigue? Have you been tested for COVID? I’m not sure what I’d do on Ricochet if I were to lose you.
So true!
If we o that half the time, and raise a protest the other half, then we will have found the happy medium. We will all feel free to write without excessive concern for precision, but at the same time will always be trying to improve the quality of the Conservative Conversation by better reading, thinking, and writing.
The happy medium is hard to find because it is unhappy for everyone, in one direction or another. That’s the imperfection of Ricochet democracy.
I’m taking advantage of what good will still remains in me before I get a tooth pulled tomorrow. I’ll be back to cranky and argumentative this weekend ;)
For me, it’s interesting to characterize political positions by the internal tensions created by the logical development of the positions they espouse.
For example, if you believe in promoting economic strength through free markets, you end up with a globalized world in which new ideas spread freely, undermining the traditional practices and beliefs valued by people like Reagan and Buckley. This is the paradox of what Stina describes as Regan / Buckley conservatism.
I think you find similar paradoxes inherent in Liberalism and Libertarianism, but I’m a little too busy to go into those right now.
This is something I’ve tried to write about before. I don’t do a good job at it. If you are ever not busy, I hope to hear you explore this more.
WHEW! I’m not glad to hear about the tooth…best wishes for that…but I am relieved to have an explanation. Looking forward to having the old Stina back.
What we call conservative is neo classical liberalism, a term with historical political meaning which the term conservative lacks. The groups we call liberal are not liberal, they do not believe in decentralized power, ground up but limited political power and their view of the rule of law is quite open ended and very different. They increasingly support top down bureaucratic and opaque ill defined law. They have more in common with fascists than socialists as they welcome giant companies with huge power and political influence and have nothing against small business, as, like all of us, they welcome good restaurants. Their main problem is that they do not understand the nature of centralized power, how it narrows and eventually strangles. It is better to call them progressives as they welcome it and it has some historical meaning.
Right! To me, the best thing about Ricochet conservatives (Neo-Classical Liberals) is the recognition that the debate is important if the questions are.
I think the best question that seldom gets asked is, “what is the purpose of government?”
If a person answers along the lines, “to secure our natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness by our own lights and in accord with established norms of civil society,” that person is “conservative” or on the right.
If a person answers, “to provide material comfort to the ailing (food, shelter, medical care. . .) by means of administration by experts,” that person is on the left — and his political philosophy is inherently dangerous to liberty.
I used to tell my students if I lose you, raise a hand. Others may also feel that way.
My hand is up, i.e. highlight Ahmari vs. French-> click right -> “search Google for…”
Google, in a rare moment of fairness and balance, offers up links from the left (The New Yorker. Yes, The New Yorker; New York, The Washington Post) and right (First Things, The American Conservative, Acton.)
It seems Big Ideas aplenty were bounced around by this duo in 2019 when most of the links were dated — but precious little, alas, adhering to the K.I.S.S. principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
The New Yorker pulled this terrific quote (Ahmari on the topic of French) for its first paragraph, so they’re still good for more than just a swell cartoon-of-the-day calendar.
Alright now, we’re getting somewhere! So what if he’s a Never Trumper? It’s about time someone spoke up on behalf of a neutral zone to accommodate all of us, traditional and libertine, Christian and pagan. Maybe this is just what society needs in 2021, besides an effective vaccine, a duly re-elected President, and an un-flipped Senate.
What would such a zone look like? Vegas? Holland? I suppose it depends on the kind of Christians and the kind of pagans. You’d need cops, because Antifa breaking store windows fails the neutral economic zone test. Would pagans be okay with that? I’m guessing most pagans would. Certainly any of the pagan babies we ransomed from the Communists back in the 1950’s would. How about the self-proclaimed pagan docent who led our tour of St. Peter’s Basilica and the Vatican Museums back in 2004? We haven’t kept up with her, so there’s no telling.
I don’t see much purpose in defining an “ism” like conservatism. Worst yet, let’s not stir up any factional family feuds just now. Pre-election countdown weeks are better spent allocating one’s donations to close races. If we win the battle, the Big Idea debates can resume. If we lose, the search for a temperate, tolerant, senior-friendly redoubt begins in earnest.