Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “What's a Conservative Anyway?”

« What's a Republican Anyway? | Main | U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Vows to Lose War (Through the Eyes of a Child...) UPDATED »

May 17, 2009

What's a Conservative Anyway?

Hatched by Dafydd

As before, I'm not looking for every possible policy position held by conservatives, but rather the core principles of conservatism. Particular policies should be derived from the principles of the ideology; we must never again allow the arrow of causality to point in the other direction. That, in a nuthouse, is what happened during the Bush years in which the GOP controlled Congress: Ideology was rewritten to retroactively justify the grab for power, sex, and money engaged in by Republicans, conservative and non-conservative alike.

Bear in mind that non-conservatives don't automatically hold the opposite of every principle below. Liberals are not obliged to reject all traditions, embrace all radical change, deliberately enact laws designed to encourage evil, and be atheists. My point in this list is that liberalism does not demand any of the following virtues. The liberal can reject tradition, embrace radical change, push for the mandatory abortion of "defective" foetuses, and write books entitled Atheism, unGod's Great Gift to Mankind, yet still remain a liberal in good standing among other liberals.

A conservative who did the same would be shunned by his erstwhile fellows; that is the sort of principle I try to deduce here... what would get you drummed out of the club if they caught you at it.

But remember, I am not myself a conservative; some of these principles I more or less support, though perhaps not exactly as a conservative would understand them; others I completely reject; still others seem "orthogonal" to my own principles (oh, look it up, for Pete's sake.) If any actual conservatives take issue with some of these principles, well, the comments section is your friend; argue away! (Just always bear in mind the commenting rules.)

I'll try to put these in order of increasing specificity (or decreasing generality):

Support for tradition and established order

This is the most fundamental, basic definition of conservatism: the wish to conserve what is already here, except for those elements that are completely incompatible with other principles of conservatism (e.g., slavery, which conflicts with human liberty).

Resistance to fundamental change

This flows from the first principle, but it's such an innate characteristic of conservatives that I think it deserves its own bullet point.

There is a tradition that, on his return from France, Jefferson called Washington to account at the breadfast-table for having agreed to a second chamber. "Why," asked Washington, "did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it," quoth Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

(From Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787)

Resistance to change can be good, as when conservatives vigorously oppose the radical changes envisions by the One We Have All Been Dreading. But it can also be bad (to my way of thinking), such as when conservatives fight against cultural changes that enrich the American Borg culture: interesting new forms of music and art; cultural elements imported from other countries via immigration; scientific innovation (genetic research, for example, even when they do not require killing human embryos, as with cloning); fundamental change towards something positive, such as more Capitalism; and so forth.

Clearly not every conservative takes everything to extremes; but there are forms of conservatism that do, such as the Amish. And the tendency is there and must be fought in cases where fundamental change is good or even necessary.

Belief in God

I suppose it's technically possible to define conservatism such that an atheist can be a conservative; but it would be a conservatism unrecognizable to nearly everyone who calls himself a conservative, hence a useless exercise; when a label means anything at all, then it really means nothing at all.

Conservatives must believe in God, and He must be the God of the Book, more or less... some aspect of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It's very difficult to have a conservative polytheist, for instance, because by its very nature, polytheism does not lend itself to universal morality -- a signal attribute of conservatism (see below); if you worship Hermes, god of thieves, then thievery is not only acceptable, it's a sacrament! Likewise, a Buddhist could easily be a fatalist, but not a conservative, I believe; I won't argue the point here, but perhaps in the comments, if anyone takes issue.

Belief in essential human libery, dignity, and life

Because God created humans in His own image, each person has an implicate holiness. It may be unrealized, it may be brutally suppressed by the personal evil of the individual... but no person is beyond the reach of God's grace. Hence every person must be accorded certain "unalienable rights," until and unless he forfeits them by his actions.

Of course, conservatives can and do differ on the specifics; does "human dignity" require society to guarantee a "living wage" to every worker, or does the "human liberty" of employers to set their own wages and conditions of employment trump dignity? But those who would deny liberty, dignity, or life altogether, such as the Khomeiniists in Iran or the unholy warriors of al-Qaeda, cannot qualify as "conservatives." They are radicals... in this case, radical, militant Islamists. (For heaven's sake, you can hardly call a man a conservative if he leads a Jacobite revolution against a somewhat functional democracy.)

Strong version of pro-life position, along with traditional morality

The strong version says that abortion is always morally wrong, even evil, except in the narrowest case: when absolutely necessary to preserve the life (not merely the "health") of the mother. (The weak version would ban abortion after some point later than conception, or would only ban some types of abortions.)

Traditional morality presupposes that a universal morality exists -- some things are absolutely right, others are absolutely wrong, and humans can determine what those things are -- and the belief that it is the duty of the government to enforce the most vital elements of that universal morality.

Beyond that point, there is much disagreement among conservatives. Some grudgingly allow that abortion should remain up to the states, believing that Federalism (liberty) trumps life; others believe in a constitutional amendment banning all abortions, believing that life trumps the liberty of Federalism. But every person I've met who calls himself a conservative fits one of two patterns: Either he believes abortion is always a great evil, or else he has many other facets of what I would call liberalism... he is a "CINO."

There is even more disagreement about what exactly "traditional morality" entails; a few conservatives (e.g. Patterico) reject privileging traditional, opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage; but most are more like the lads at Power Line, however, rejecting both same-sex marriage and also court rulings like Lawrence v. Texas, which found laws banning "sodomy" to be unconstitutional; they believe the State can and should legislate many more aspects of morality than it now does, or than libertarian-conservatives would tolerate.

(A few conservative Moslems and Mormons privilege polygamy over monogamy; but most who hold that position simply cannot be shoehorned into "conservatism;" they are radicals, and not just on the marriage question.)

Typically in the West, "traditional moral values" is adequately described by the Ten Commandments -- or Ten Mitzvahs, "blessings," to Jews -- plus whatever Talmudic dicta is necessary to flesh out the broad rules.

Government policy should encourage moral behavior and religious belief and discourage the opposite.

This is a stronger version of "the rule of consistency" than found in the Republican version; the latter requires only that the government not violate principle, while the former requires active legislation and regulation to enforce principle. Thus there may well be conflict between a conservative and the Republican Party, especially over libertarian issues; this is why some conservatives (especially "single-issue" cons) can also be found in the Democratic Party, the Reform Party, various nationalist parties, and suchlike -- not just in the GOP.

Again summing up, I believe the core principles of conservatism (in order of increasing specificity) are:

Support for tradition and established order;

Resistance to fundamental change;

Belief in God;

Belief in essential human libery, dignity, and life;

Strong version of pro-life position, along with traditional morality;

Government policy should be consistent with conservative ideology.

But as I said before, this is to a much larger extent "terra incognita" to me than was the previous post; because, while I am not a conservative, I am a Republican.

Working and playing well with each other

So conservatism and the Republican Party are not synonymous, nor is one a subset of the other; there is, however, a very large insection between the two sets. There are a number of points of agreement; and if we focus on these, instead of the few areas of disagreement, both conservatives and Republicans will benefit -- as will the nation itself.

First, because the American tradition is more fiscally conservative, supports a very strong national defense, and has generally been more pro-trade than anti, a conservative's orientation towards a traditional understanding of hot-button issues will tend to drive him towards the GOP, rather than the Democratic Party (currently on the leash of the radical Left).

Second, both sets include the principle "Belief in essential human libery, dignity, and life," albeit not for the same reasons: Republicans deduce it from the necessity of free, reasoning individuals to run an enlightened government, while conservatives tend to profess it as deriving from the implicate Godliness of Man.

By contrast, neither liberals nor Democrats demand support for any of those three qualities as a prerequisite of membership in "the club." Thus again, conservatives will naturally feel more comfortable with the morals of the GOP, rather than the morals of the Democratic Party (which are those of an alley cat).

Third, most conservatives mistrust the government. But the Democratic Party demands far more trust in the Capo di Tutti Capi than does the GOP. Again, conservatives are nudged rather strongly towards the Republicans.

In fact, conservatives are so strongly identified with the Republicans, now that we're at least two generations past the terrible division of segregation, that some conservatives mistakenly believe that they are the Republican Party... or at least that they should be the only drivers on that bus.

We very much need to distinguish between commonplace and truly universal positions among Republicans; in other words, which is actually a shibboleth to identify who is and who is not a bona fide member of the party. There are a lot of fights we must join immediately which are fought entirely within the realm of core GOP/conservative principles; for instance, Obama wants to radically remake America (anti-conservative) into a Eurofascist welfare state (anti-Republican).

If we stick to those battles and set aside, for the moment, our internecine squabbles, we shall have a very good chance to make great gains in 2010 -- and maybe even take back the House of Representatives. But if we spend more time going after the heretics in the hall than the barbarians at the gate, we can kiss the next twenty-plus years goodbye.

I'm very interested to see where this finally goes; please comment to your heart's desire.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 17, 2009, at the time of 3:02 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3643

Comments

The following hissed in response by: BD

I'm looking forward to the discussion - it's one I've been hoping to see since the election.

The above hissed in response by: BD at May 17, 2009 3:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

I found the philosopher Kekes' thoughts on Conservativism to be compelling. Check them out, if you'd like, at Reddit's interview and the sites linked therefrom; in particular, he put up a full essay elsewhere.

In summary, he says that the single thing that differentiates conservatives from liberals is that conservatives do not view the goodness of a society in terms of whether the society values the same set of things he does, but rather according to what degree people benefited from choosing to participate in the traditions that composed the society. (He puts it better than I.)

Non-conservatives, in his view, judge a society based on whether it lives up to certain supreme values -- perhaps "liberty" or "literacy" or "commitment". In his view, the consistent conservative must not only NOT do that, but must also never attempt to take a small subset of values as always being more important than any other values -- that is, for example, "freedom" doesn't always override "wealth" or "religion", nor vice versa.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at May 17, 2009 4:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Karl

Another point of difference between liberals and conservatives has been explored by Jonathan Haidt (linked from my blog here). Haidt postulates the existence of five factors involved in moral calculations. These are equality/fairness, suffering/harm, ingroup/loyalty (group bonding), authority/respect (tradition), and purity/sanctity.

Haidt finds the first two factors are recognized by both conservatives and liberals, and if you understand these two, you can figure out what the liberal position will be on most moral questions.

In order to understand the conservative position, you need to recognize and understand the remaining three factors.

If we give this notion any credence, we could say that liberals, whose moral calculation involves only two of five factors, are morally color-blind.

The above hissed in response by: Karl at May 17, 2009 6:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: tehdinj

Very nice article.

More and more lately I haven't found much use for the terms "conservative" and "liberal." When the ayatollah can be grouped in with someone like me, who values individual liberties and prefers a small/limited government, something is very wrong. In a 2-party country one will find himself in one camp or the other, but beyond that it's an artificial distinction.

The above hissed in response by: tehdinj at May 17, 2009 7:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

My position may be influenced by having just finished "Atlas Shrugged", but I tend to think
of the Liberals as being the Looters, and the Conservatives as aligned with John Galt.
Second only to the basic right of self-defense, I hold being left alone as most dear.
Often have I pondered how much I must pay to just be ignored by the Establishment. Like the Fiddler, when asked what he thought of the Tsar,
"I try not to think of him at all, and I pray he will do the same for me."
Perhaps a more modern quote would be from Doctor Who:
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts
to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to
be one of the facts that needs altering."

As to whether I am a Republican, Conservative, Anarchist, or Libertarian, only the first have
Primaries of any consequence, so I cast my lot with them, for lack of anything better to do.

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson at May 17, 2009 10:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

As accurate as you may be in this elegant explication, I see it as a distinction without a practical difference. There is no Conservative Party that can win elections and advance conservative principles. Therefore, any attempts to make the Republican Party, which may be able to win election, as something distinct from conservative principles, is wrong-headed and self-defeating. It is equally wrong-headed and self-defeating to try to make the Republican Party into the Conservative Party. It will be pretty close to that, once it realizes what is required to win elections, and how well conservative principles underlie the best "solutions" to good government, and that should be enough.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at May 18, 2009 5:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

When the ayatollah can be grouped in with someone like me, who values individual liberties and prefers a small/limited government, something is very wrong.

The Ayatollah values family and tradition, and dislikes the dehumanizing effects of "corporate culture", and I have no shame in being grouped with people who do that. (Of course, I have a shame in being grouped with people who respond to it in his way -- but that's a shame I have to deal with, not deny.) As a conservative, I need to see exactly where the Ayatollah goes wrong, not merely affirm that I could never go wrong that way. I probably couldn't, but I'd like to KNOW that, not just feel it.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at May 18, 2009 7:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

Therefore, any attempts to make the Republican Party, which may be able to win election, as something distinct from conservative principles, is wrong-headed and self-defeating. It is equally wrong-headed and self-defeating to try to make the Republican Party into the Conservative Party.

To whom are you responding? The original post actually disclaims being a conservative; and I don't see anything like that mentioned in any of the followup comments. As far as I can see, this is merely about exploring what conservatism IS, not how to make a perfect conservative party.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr at May 18, 2009 7:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: Ken Hahn

I consider myself a conservative and I have only minor differences with the core principles as described. I would put it differently, but I don't think the points are unfair. If cornered I would say there are three principles which are demanded to be considered a conservative.

1. Preference for liberty over equality.

2. Resistance to change unless there is a reason therefor.

3. Belief that humans are imperfect and that even the best of us are sometimes tempted beyond our ability to resist.

I would prefer a Republican Party that was more conservative. I would settle for one that was more libertarian. What I dislike is one that has no guiding principles except political expedience. The "moderates" who want my support will have to connect their moderation with principle. Being more likely to win is not enough. There must be a reason to win and a program worth supporting after the win.

The above hissed in response by: Ken Hahn at May 18, 2009 9:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

It is simple really.

Conservatives and liberals recognize the same needs, wants, desires, and inequities in society. However, liberals want to "fix" these things through direct government intervention. Conservatives recognize that the government can no more fix many of these problems than it can prevent the Earth from circling the sun, and that any attempt to do so will inevitably cost a lot of money, and spawn additional problems.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman at May 18, 2009 11:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: MikeR

I'm having trouble following this discussion. Some details fit me, others don't - in both groupings. Why are you choosing these particular names - Republican, Conservative - to describe these particular characteristics? Where did these definitions come from?

The only thing I can figure is that this is an attempt at cluster analysis. That is, Dafydd believes that there are a large number of people for whom exactly one of these two descriptions ring very true, truer than would be for any similar attempts. Maybe, but you've got to convince me.

What is true is that there's a big difference between what wins elections and what conservatives would like. They need to design a party that can win elections. Too small and pristine, they lose. Too big and inclusive, and they're "leaving money on the table", making unnecessary concessions to members who disagree with too many of their core principles. This is true, of course, of every sub-group of every political party, and the conservative movement has at least several important subgroups.

The above hissed in response by: MikeR at May 18, 2009 11:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

MikeR, what you are describing is the classic "choice" faced by the "right" in this country, whether it is better to moderate principle to win election (the sometimes Republican view), or to hew tightly to principle and lose (the conservative view). I believe the correct choice is to hew to principle and win. But there is the problem.

One can be a conservative by holding to (and perhaps proclaiming) certain principles, as well described here. One can only become a Republican (or perhaps should), if one wishes to win elections and thereby advance those principles. At that point the difference and conflict between the two becomes evident.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at May 18, 2009 4:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

MikeR:

That is, Dafydd believes that there are a large number of people for whom exactly one of these two descriptions ring very true, truer than would be for any similar attempts.

Not my intent. In the first place, I'm assuming there is a large number of people for whom both Republican and conservative characteristics "ring true," as you put it.

Second, I'm assuming that most people who define themselves within one or both of these categories will disagree either with some implementations of principle, or perhaps one or more of the principles themselves... yet will still consider themselves "of the body," if I may turn that term to profane use.

(Others may disagree; Arnold Schwarzenegger passionately believes that he is a Republican, yet many here would deny he really is, beyond the most basic level -- he's Republican because he is registered as a Republican.)

So I want to create a logical and consistent guide to what Republicanism and conservatism are, so that people can say, "I'm conservative on these issues but not those," as I do, rather than arguing about whether "those" issues are conservative, just so they can call themselves conservatives. (Same with Republicanism.)

The elected members of the GOP are failing to abide by the principles held by the vast majority of people who call themselves "Republican."

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 19, 2009 7:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Your explanation is incomplete, Dafydd. You've described what it is to be a Republican, you've described what you see it takes to be a Conservative...

So what shall we label the people who are Republican, but not Conservative? Are they the Libertarians? Are they the Laissez-faire economists? Who are they, and what do they believe in? Certainly you are not going to leave them as some undefined and un-named 'other'...

What is the group that is not Conservative, yet not RINO?

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at May 19, 2009 9:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: Karmi

Winning doesn’t really make much difference anymore, i.e. we elect the politicians and politics is the main problem. America needs a total collapse, and that is now going to happen sooner rather than later.

The above hissed in response by: Karmi at May 19, 2009 9:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

Dafydd,

I believe that you hit upon the One Answer which is really more singular and close to correct than the long explanation. All of your adjectives stem from this one feature: Believe in absolute right and wrong.

-Support for tradition and established order. This is predicated upon there being a good and bad to start with. If the order is to be preserved, there must be a reason -- that the order is inherently better than the alternative.

-Resistance to fundamental change - see above.

-Belief in God. Without right and wrong, there is no God. Without God, there is no right and wrong. Absolutes must have their footing somewhere. Atheism, Nihilism, Liberalism are all different ways of expressing moral relativism -- different extremes of the same idea. Conservatism, absolute right and wrong, faith, and their lot are all their antipodes. Polytheism has no room for right and wrong -- merely neutrality -- for if one god was "righter" than the others, the whole thing collapses in a puff of logic.

-Belief in essential human liberty, dignity, and life. As you say, this stems from a belief that Man is Like And Yet Unlike God. No God, no belief; no right and wrong, no God.

-Strong version of pro-life position, along with traditional morality. See above.

-Government policy should be consistent with conservative ideology. Why buck what's right.

Here's my explanation: If one assumes that absolute right and wrong exist, and lives one's life in such a fashion that is the logical consequent of such a thought, one will be a conservative.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 at May 20, 2009 5:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

K2aggie07:

Here's my explanation: If one assumes that absolute right and wrong exist, and lives one's life in such a fashion that is the logical consequent of such a thought, one will be a conservative.

Hold the phone there, partner: The mullahs of Iran certainly believe in an absolute right and wrong, and there is no question they live their lives in a logically consistent way. But they are definitely not conservative as I defined the term; they are radical revolutionaries.

I believe the "absolute right and wrong" principle is necessary but not sufficient to identify one as conservative.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 20, 2009 6:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Chris Balsz

I'll agree, but the liberal experiment is in its fourth generation now...and to overturn it is going to require revolutionary methodology rather than appealing to a return to normalcy.

The above hissed in response by: Chris Balsz at May 23, 2009 7:06 AM