The Classic Liberal Blog

Conservatism is a philosophy of freedom and prudence.  What conservatism is not, is a political system and/or political party.

1. Defining Conservatism (Introduction)
2. Conservative: What is a Neocon?
3. Conservative: What is a Paleoconservative?
4. What is a Conservative? Exhibit A

"To conserve" means "to save." The conservative simply ventures to "conserve" the best in American traditions as life changes, preferring prudence over radicalism, when choosing which changes to accept. The conservative does not wish to live in the past (contrary to popular opinion) either.  Instead, the conservative simply accepts history as our best guide.

phi⋅los⋅o⋅phy

a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.; the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.; a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

Today we'll review the writings of Senator Barry Goldwater, journalist Charley Reese, and talk-radio host Mark Levin in our quest to answer: "What exactly is a conservative?"

Conservatives are too often labeled (falsely) "selfish," or "greedy," ... you know the list ... But the worst the worst thing about this (to me anyways), is when charged, the conservative often has a hard time defending themselves against these baseless attacks.

Well ... Don't believe the hype! Conservatism is not, by definition, selfish of greedy.  More accurately, a conservative is a person who believes there is something in each life worth saving.

The Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater (p. 2-6).

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature.  The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires.  What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants.  Conservatism therefore looks upon the enchancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.  Liberals, on the other hand - in the name of a concern for "human beings" - regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society.  They are, moreover, in a hurry.  So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress."  In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man.  The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past.

The first thing he has learned about man is that each member of the species is a unique creature.  Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul ... Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and , accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature.  We have heard much in the time about "the common man."  It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men.  The Conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.

Secondly, the Conservative has learned that the economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined.  He cannot be economically free, or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.

The Conservative realizes, thirdly, that man's developement, in both its spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces. Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development.  The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings.

So it is that Conservatism, throughout history, has regarded man neither as a potential pawn of other men, nor as a part of a general collectivity in which the sacredness and the separate identity of individual human beings are ignored ... The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.

Conservative, by Charley Reese.

A conservative believes that not only should the Supreme Court strictly construe the Constitution, but so should the president, the House, the Senate, governors, mayors and everybody else. A conservative does not approve of wars, except in defense of the land and the people, and only upon a declaration of war by both houses of Congress ...

To strictly construe the Constitution is to recognize that it is not a "living document" to be amended by interpretation, but rather is a contract between the states and the federal government. To be properly construed, it must be read in the context of the times in which it was written and adopted.

A conservative is against foreign aid. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to tax the American people and then hand their money to a foreign government as either a gift or a loan ... [or] to subsidize either individuals or corporations.

Philosophical and moral issues are to be decided by the legislatures of the states, not by federal courts or even by Congress, whose duties and powers are strictly limited by the Constitution ...

A conservative Christian believes that his own soul is not imperiled if other people down the street decide to do some sinning. A conservative Christian recognizes that he is commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the sick and dying. He is not commanded to shift this responsibility to government. He is not commanded to judge other people's lives and to regulate their behavior. A conservative Christian recognizes that something does not have to be illegal in order for him to refrain from doing it.

A conservative believes in the real, traditional values of this country: courage, hard work, self-reliance, frugality, chastity before marriage, faithfulness after marriage, loyalty to family and loyalty to the Constitution. Loyalty to a political party or to a politician is profoundly un-American.

In our last segment (for now), Mark Levin juxtaposes conservative philosophy with that of the neo-Statists (Levin's term for neocon).  The following published yesterday in the American Thinker, as a response from Levin to a neo-Statist review of his book Liberty and Tyranny.

Conservatism in Defense of Liberty by Mark Levin.

"Moderation ... is an essential political virtue and a quintessentially conservative virtue." This is the way forward for conservatism, [Berkowitz] insists. At no time does he define "moderation" or any governing principles, other than to misapply moderation as prudence ...

Edmund Burke, who Berkowitz misunderstands and, therefore, wrongly cites for his proposition, supported the American Revolution (while rejecting the French Revolution). The American Revolution can hardly be described as a moderate reaction to England's usurpations ... it was a revolution whose purpose was to establish a civil society rooted in natural law, a just rule of law, moral order, tradition, faith, reason, and, yes, liberty ... Of course, moderations can be imprudent in certain circumstances. The conflation of moderation per se and prudence requires such an inquiry of those who misunderstand and misapply the concepts.

Thus, those, like Berkowitz, who promote moderation (not prudence) as a principle, are actually promoting a tactic or process without any core. They play right into the hands of the Statist. As I wrote in Liberty and Tyranny:

"By abandoning principle for efficiency, the neo-Statist, it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist. He marches more slowly than the Statist, but he marches with him nonetheless. The neo-Statist propounds no discernable standard or practical means to hem in the federal power he helps unleash, and which the Statist would exploit. In many ways, he is as objectionable as the Statist, for he seeks to devour conservatism by clothing himself in its nomenclature."

But prudence alone does not explain Burke or conservatism, either. Burke rejected the French Revolution because he rejected its objectives as well. Burke invoked prudence not for the sake of prudence, but to support and secure the civil society ... Therefore, to invoke Burke in arguing that true conservatives would not challenge the foundations of statism today, as Berkowitz does in his review, is embarrassingly off the mark.

"In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous -- that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.

"In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual's time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty.

"In the civil society, a rule of law, which is just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albeit imperfectly, provides the governing framework for and restraints on the polity, thereby nurturing the civil society and serving as a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse, of power."

Rather than understate "the conflict between liberty and tradition," as Berkowitz puts it, I explain that conservatism has appreciation and respect for both. And while they may conflict at times, one cannot flourish without the other. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, who were contemporaries and friends, were at one on this point.

[Berkowitz] seems to think that American tradition started with the New Deal or maybe the beginning of the so-called Progressive Era. In his review he writes nothing of the founding, the Constitution, federalism, etc. -- i.e., the tradition he claims to cherish yet completely ignores. Indeed, he writes:

"Like it or not, the New Deal is here to stay. It has been incorporated into constitutional law and woven into the fabric of the American sensibility and American society ..."

[This] reflects the confusion that is so prevalent among the neo-Statists. Unconstitutional statism is not an American tradition (it is actually more European). Indeed, it rejects American tradition and has as its aim to destroy the civil society ... the "abstract appeals" to which Berkowitz refers are found in the Declaration of Independence (I have said many times that the Statist rejects the Declaration for he must in order to advance his agenda; perhaps the neo-Statist does as well), and the United States Constitution (which is hardly abstract, but which Berkowitz ignores ... ).

For Berkowitz, rather than a fairly obvious truth that it is government, more times than not, which is responsible for misery throughout human history -- particularly given recent real world examples of widespread misery from the former Soviet Union and East Bloc, where creative destruction and capitalism were rejected, to our own automobile industry, which, as I explained in the same chapter, is hardly an example of the free market at work and, as is clear, has cost taxpayers, investors, and employees dearly -- he paints the argument for the voluntary use of labor and capital as rightwing extremism. I would discourage him from reading Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and a score of other less prominent economists, some of whom, dare I say, are teaching at universities and colleges. Conservatism borrows from all kinds of "rightwing extremists." If you reject capitalism as producing far more good than bad, albeit imperfect (which I explain repeatedly throughout the book), then you do far more than embrace "moderation." You reject conservatism.

"The free market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces new industries, products, and services, as it improves upon existing ones. With millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite number and variety of transactions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all the changes and plans for changes occurring in our economy at any given time. The free market creates more wealth and opportunities for more people than any other economic model.

"But the Conservative believes that the individual is more than a producer and consumer of material goods. He exists within the larger context of the civil society -- which provides for an ordered liberty. The Conservative sees in the free market the harmony of interests and rules of cooperation that also underlie the civil society."

That's more than enough to keep you thinking for now ...

Update: The Conservative Agenda: Its Basis and Its Basics
Update 2: What is a Conservative? Exhibit B (extra)

[adsense]  [adsense]