Defining Conservatism #2:
[Modern] American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy.
After defining my understanding of conservatism, a couple self-proclaimed conservatives added their definitions of conservatism. Then another blogger put his input: “the conservative described here is a political unicorn.” I don’t know whose definition he was referring to. But, I believe it was given by Dan The Conservative, since he reblogged Dan’s post.
Before discussing Dan’s post though, I’d like to address some things I object to from Wandering Reveries post, since most of both definitions are represented in his post.
In my opinion, much of what we see defined as conservative today is not conservatism; it is classical liberalism, libertarianism, New Dealism which opposes liberal social policies, reactionism, or any number of things.
I don’t find most of the fruits of Modern American Conservatives the same as the fruits would be from Classical Liberalism. Also, Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are MUCH different than New Dealism. I haven’t done much research into New Dealism. But, by my current understanding of the economics of it, I’d say economically it’s not that similar to Modern American Conservatives, who are more for cutting some social programs in order to reallocate some funds to better pay off their debt to the rich.
Wandering Reveries also linked to a piece he wrote years ago, which he expressed isn’t how he currently views conservatism. However, some of what was said is similar to the current understandings I hold about Modern American Conservatism.
The opening sentence really summarizes nicely the whole piece:
The conservative philosophy expresses a belief in individual responsibility and limited government, and that there is a symbiotic relationship between these two principles.
This statement reminds me of the words of a famous Classical Conservative, Federalist, John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The belief that the more self-governing an individual is, the less government is needed to govern him. If someone is moral, less laws are needed for morality. Government isn’t needed to intervene as often to instill morals in its subjects.
Wandering Reveries continues to express that sentiment by saying, “In the absence of individual responsibility, government might take on functions, or powers, to which it has no legitimate right, and thereby defeat the purpose of civil society.” But, by adding that government has no legitimate right to take on those responsibilities, I’d argue that he’s teetering Classical Liberalism. Conservatism, historically, has viewed the government as having a legitimate role in pushing for morality in its peoples.
Based on the fruits of many Modern American Conservatives in office, how they vote and what they say, it can be concluded that still, conservatives believe they have the power to push for morality in their subjects, to maintain a “harmonious balance between civil liberty and order,” as Wandering Reveries put it. This brings me back to a part of Lew Rockwell’s definition, the one I expressed to view as the most accurate, “[Modern American conservatism] believes brute force is the answer to all social problems.” We can debate day and night whether or not “all” is needed. But, the results are in: force is viewed as the answer to social problems. To quote another Classical Conservative-type, Federalist, George Washington: “Government is force.”
Then it was noted that the definition of Conservatism (Modern American Conservatism) given by Lew Rockwell is a “hasty generalization.” Yes, it may be a generalization. But is not a generalization acceptable in gaining the general idea of Modern American Conservatives in order to define them? So, is the definition hasty? It may be concise and quick to read; but it is accurate in generalizing. Also, it may have been written without much thought; but it encompasses so much nonetheless. So, with the definition possibly being “hasty” it still doesn’t marginalize its accuracy as a “generalization.”
Wandering Reveries also linked to a couple other well written pieces. The first, Ten Conservative Principles, mainly focuses on the mindset and thought-process of Conservatives, not on their votes. To define something through principle rather than action is to skew what is actually happening. You can speak of “should”s and “shouldn’t”s all day; but what really matters is what you do, not what you say you do.
The definition I used is given in observance of the actions of Modern American Conservatives—since, I can’t, of course, read the majority’s minds to give a generalization of how they think.
The second article linked is entitled The Essence of Conservatism. I feel this article does a better job than the last one in defining conservatism for what it wishes the actions of the higher-ups would be. But, it fails in a couple key parts: “In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image” and “But the true conservative does stoutly defend private property and a free economy.”
I realize me claiming that Modern American Conservatives (I’d say even Classical Conservatives) fail at defending private property and a free economy probably makes some wild hairs stick up.
Property: Classical Conservatives were the ones who instituted the Central Banks, whether they were public or private. By manipulating the money supply and the interest rates, an entity can (and will) destroy private property and a nation cannot have a truly free economy. So, no, I’d say Conservatives, historically, have not been known for defending private property and a free economy.
Foreign Policy: We police the world. We have the LARGEST military spending in the world (defense being a small fraction). These policies have only ever been expanded by Modern American Conservatives. They don’t cut military spending. They don’t mind their own businesses when dealing with other nations. This statement is definitely describing a “political unicorn,” as Ed Valiant remarked.
The foreign policies of Modern American Conservatives really strike home with Lew Rockwell’s definition: “[Modern American Conservatism] feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination.”
What bothers me most about The Essence of Conservatism is that it makes it seem like the Founding Fathers were conservatives. And to illustrate, it only references Federalists. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Edmund Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Paine and many more prominent, influential figures during the Revolution (War for Independence) were Classical Liberals. The Federalists in America tended to be more Classical Conservative.
The main difference I see in Classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism is with progress toward liberty. Classical Conservatives believe in slow, gradual changes as stated in all links provided by Wandering Reveries. Classical Liberals see something that’s wrong and try to right it as quickly as possible. Classical Liberals are more keen to celebrating the abolition of oppressive states than Conservatives are. Here’s another article by Lew Rockwell in observance of Modern American Conservatives’ actions and the overthrowing of tyrannical states.
None of the blogs addressed Lew Rockwell’s statement that “[Modern American Conservatives] thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy.” However, before someone attempts to refute that, I urge them to look at what is currently happening with WikiLeaks and the conservatives in office calling for Julian Assange’s murder (some of which can be viewed and followed here).
Finally, to get to what Dan The Conservative had to say, the things which weren’t previously addressed.
a real conservative loathes the liberal agenda but doesn’t define himself in opposition to it.
Okay, that resonates with Lew Rockwell’s statement that “[Modern] American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state.”
I’m in disagreement with his definition stating that Conservatives advocate free-market capitalism. Conservatives, in general, do not advocate free-market capitalism. Having a central bank does not equate to having a Free Market.
Conservatives aren’t skeptical about gay marriage because they’re hateful—they simply recognize that the traditional family has been a huge part of social stability and they don’t want to risk doing anything that might jeopardize that until all the data is there and collected.
To me, this, among many other statements I’ve read this morning, reveal that “[Modern American Conservatism] loves the past more than liberty.”
And finally:
Conservatives don’t support military spending because they like war—they support military spending because they like security and stability
With the amount of spending on the military industrial complex we should have a force-field surrounding our nation, protecting it from any potential threat. But, we don’t. Conservative military spending is not for defense mainly. If it were, the defense spending wouldn’t be such a small fraction of the military spending. Bush (I know, a neo-con—but still many consider a Modern American Conservative. Also one that many conservatives currently holding office still vote to extend the policies of, since he was a Republican.) reminded us of his “conservative” views on war by stating, “I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind.”
Just to restate the definition that Lew Rockwell gave, the one I feel currently best describes Modern American Conservatives:
[Modern] American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy.
