What's In A Name? Defining The Modern Conservative

Last time I wrote in this space, I posted an article called "Why Do Conservatives Hate America?" As it turns out, polemic is not my strong suit. But the flaw was not necessarily in the premise.
When posing the question of whether or not conservatives "hate America," getting past the obvious irony, the answer (with a few notable exceptions) is fairly clearly "no." A better question, then - is conservatism good for America?

And here, the answer depends largely on what you mean by conservativism - and what you mean by "good for America."

Nations exist to provide a social framework within which citizens can operate (codifying social norms into accepted law), and to promote the general welfare of those citizens. There are certain objective standards by which you can measure how well a nation is doing in meeting the needs and goals of its populace - e.g. life expectancy, infrastructure, economic opportunity, deficit reduction, capacity for self-defense, and so on. It stands to reason, then, that policies that generate advances in those objective metrics can be considered "good for America."

So what, then, is conservatism?

Historically, American conservatives have stood for the Jeffersonian principle that the government which governs best, governs least. This overarching philosophy guided and informed principled conservative opposition to intrusions of government into private life; the civil libertarian fighting for free speech or privacy rights embodies this philosophy. With the advent of "movement conservatism," the American conservative mind has become associated with a wider variety of issues across the social, economic, and philosophical spectrum. Generally and historically, conservatism is regarded as a defender of tradition, of capitalism, and of individual freedom and inalienable human rights.

These are not bad things. Indeed, with the possible exception of tradition, they are cornerstones of American thinking. So what, then, is the problem with conservatism - if any?

The problem that conservatives face is not one of principles but one of nomenclature. Conservatives themselves don't know what they stand for any more - or more accurately, a great many groups are claiming the conservative mantel without claiming the historical weight of conservative philosopy.

Perhaps this contradiction is best summed up by reading Conservapedia, the self-styled "conservative" encyclopedia. The entry on conservatism quotes Ronald Reagon in stating that "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . .." This is a reasonable reading of conservatism. It then goes on to list these principles that conservatives should support:

Classroom prayer
Prohibition of abortion
Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
Laws against pornography
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
The death penalty
Parental control of education
Private medical care and retirement plans
Canceling failed social support programs
No world government
Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
Respect for our military ... past and present
Rejection of junk science such as evolutionism and global warming
Low taxes, especially for families
Federalism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
A strong national defense

(Full list reprinted to avoid cherry picking quotes)

While protections for individual rights and reduced government input (the right to bear arms, parental control over education, private medical care) are strongly conservative in nature, reconciling sweeping legislative interference in the private lives of citizens (anti-marriage laws, anti-pornography laws, institution of prayer in the school room) with a desire for reduced government control over people's private lives is incoherent, at best. And the rejection of evolution is a purely fundamentalist Christian throwback - indeed, conservatism at its best is associated with rational analysis of the world around us, the very foundation of scientific thinking.

In the early 80s, these contradictions were subsumed under the aegis of the Republican party, and managed by ascribing each segment of the coalition a different "flavor" of conservatism - social, fiscal/libertarian, and defense. With the charismatic Reagan at the helm, this was a winning coalition that set the agenda for decades, each "leg" of the metaphorical stool agreeing to set aside their differences in pursuit of common goals and, eventually, achieving a fair portion of them.

It is this success, and this politically astute merging of disparate interest groups under the banner of conservatism, that has led to the current woes facing the conservative movement.

Having achieved many of the goals that united the Reagan Coalition - winning the cold war, welfare reform, tax decreases, a reduced role in the UN - the conservative movement began to seek new targets, many with less commonality between the three nominally conservative branches. Defense conservatives pushed for, and got, extensive international military interventions and nationalist immigration policies; social conservatives - defined to an ever increasing extent by the highly-energized fundamentalist Christian sector - pushed for ever more intrusive legislation prohibiting various social behaviors ranging from homosexual marriage and abortion to drug consumption and religious (Christian) expression. And the fiscal/libertarian segment, suffering for years under the Bush deficit spending and wild expansion of government powers, was ostracized or kept in line until the election of Barack Obama offered the entire Republican coalition the sudden gift of one more common goal - opposition.

The contradictions between the three conservative flavors have become ever more apparent as each jockeys for top spot in the Republican party, epitomized by such inchoate slogans as "keep your government hands off my Medicare!" Perhaps more telling, we're seeing each segment try to claim the mantle of the "true conservatives," even going so far as to run insurgents against Republican candidates in an attempt to gain ideological purity (as in the special election currently running in NY-23). But it is hard to find ideological purity without ideological consistency, and Americans are not stupid. If you tell us that you don't want government to get involved in our private lives, and then try to cram government into our lives to tell us what to do, we'll notice. And we'll vote accordingly (see 2008, election: Barack Obama).

So where does conservatism go from here? A smart Obama governing team will take advantage of these schisms to pry apart the Republican party, still the primary host for right-leaning thought in the United States. Initiatives such as a strong regimen of banking regulations could foster even deeper divides, as fiscal libertarians run full-steam into the economic populism and "anti-elitism" of the social conservative sector. Third parties - the Conservative Party, the Libertarian Party, and even a reborn Whig Party- are salivating over the recruiting prospects facing them in the near term. And Republicans themselves, frustrated with the direction the nation has taken and confused at voters rejection of their core values, are tearing into each other with ever more venom, and pushing the party as a whole even further from mainstream thought

Despite this, I find it unlikely that a third party will replace the Republicans in the near future. The Republican party possesses a nationwide mechanism for campaign management, messaging, and all-important fundraising. In this age of mega-million dollar elections, that's an advantage that would be foolish to throw away. Additionally, the Republican party is not bereft of intellectual leadership; as just a couple of examples among several, David Brooks and Ross Douthat point the way to a modernized conservatism that is sensitive to tradition and true to its values, all while approaching problems with an eye towards pragmatism, that greatest of American values, over purity. A rationalist conservatism that embraces the scientific prowess that drives this nations economic engine, while standing firm on the civil liberties of individuals and government intervention, could make strong gains in the center.

In a nation trying to find the sweet spot between too much and too little government, this old-fashioned style of American conservative voice can play a valuable role, not only in keeping Democratic excesses in check but also in proposing its own intellectual solutions to the nations pressing problems and advance those metrics by which the success of a nation may be measured. For now, though, a Republican Party built on the back of conflicting semi-conservative groups is in for a rough ride towards this potential new era of conservative thinking.

Follow Tim Ellis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DJDynamicNC

Comments

[IWW]

Just a note. McCain made a bad decison with Sarah Palin. He did not know at the time that she was over the right. He realized this and tried to distance himself from her and her views. He has said many times that he will not endorse her for anything but says she would have been o.k. as VP so as not to admit wrong.
Sarah Palin supported the most radical conservative in NY-( anti women, jail or tried for murder for women who have abortion etc.) and lost the election Nov.3, 2009.

John McCain should be remembered as a hero of our country etc. not his association with S. Palin.

[IWW]

This article speaks of the Conservative partys' impact on the Republican Party. Whigs and Libertarian is also mentioned.

[timm0]

fr33d0mhawk is on a roll! And s/he adds depth to the obvious contention that, in 2009, the term "pragmatic conservative" is as blistering an oxymoron as there ever could be.

And therein lies the problem with trying to predict at all what will become of the Republican party in the future. Mr. Ellis, you state that the R party has a machine for messaging and campaign funding, which is true to an extent. The Dems have had that machine for decades, too, and suffered horrible defeats despite the existence of that machine. I know that the Dem machine would refuse to support candidates who didn't beat the drum of the House Dem Campaign Committee, and when they DID, they'd normally only "help" by producing lame, divisive, pandering literature pieces.

Regardless, don't assume that the machine will help the Rs bring in new, pragmatists to the stage. They will be vehemently opposed by the local 20% gang. "Real" conservatives are just plain scr3w3d. And given the fact that, by definition, these pragmatic conservatives are vastly more intelligent than the screamin' 20%, they have a better than average chance of figuring out (and executing) how to end run the R mother ship.

[Tim Ellis - Huffpost Blogger]

A good analysis. There's a definite possibility that the pragmatists will wind up doing precisely that, although I don't think it likely (as you mentioned, the Dems were in a less awful but somewhat similar situation re: party machine, and yet extricated the party rather than start a new one).

I would have staked a bigger bet on the Libertarian party if not for the fiasco of the 2008 presidential nomination. Mike Gravel sucked the energy out of the blossoming Ron Paul/Libertarian movement and it's going to take years for the Libs to recover their credibility with the most enthusiastic and energetic libertarian voters.

The other consideration is that in their quest for purity, it looks like the screaming 20% is tipping the third-party scales their own way, with Palin and other major Repub figures on the extreme right skipping out on supporting their own party members in favour of insurgents (think Hoffman in NY-23). If that trend continues, you may see the pragmatists getting control of the Repub machine back into their own hands by default, as the crazies splinter into their own subsets and third parties. This is actually a pretty ideal outcome.

[timm0]

That would definitely be ideal for the future of the country. But, as we've seen recently with some pragmatic Rs, hopping to the other side of the aisle seems to be working pretty well (Sestak, Webb, Specter, etc.). I'm thinking that the pragmatic Rs will be split between recapturing their party (and fighting the uphill battle which it will be) and realizing short-term success by crossing party lines in slightly to highly conservative districts with the hopes of back-dooring victories.

If the latter prevails enough, there will be more and more "blue dogs" in the Dem ranks. This would invariably lead toward some more turmoil in the Democratic party. The response would be anyone's guess - maybe 70% control of Congress by the Dems, total internal collapse, whatever.

Regardless, it's sad because one political party is held hostage by folks who are not mentally sound. But the Rs built this frankenstein monster and the demise of its current composition is inevitable. That which remains and the extent of its ability to emerge with relevance, talent, and support is fodder for agonizing debate.

[Carl Caroli]

Conservatism has been hijacked by those that want to dictate the morals and values of this country and then hide behind tradition and religion for cover. They do not want to acknowledge the dichotomy of their platform because if they did it would reveal their underlying belief of their moral superiority. They wrap themselves in the flag and scream about patriotism while underming the very freedoms the country was founded on. They are dangerous and need to be exposed for what they are.

[fr33d0mhawk]

Remember the good old days when people who wanted to destroy Earth were the bad guys, and the good guys were the ones trying to save the earth? How did conservatives warp this age old definition of good and evil into now the good guys, ie neocons, want the destruction of earth because they think that Jesus will come down in a chariot and take anyone watching FOX news to heaven while the rest of mankind, ie non-neocons, die in agony. Of course neocons want to use more oil, more coal, and of course they are against any technology to take away dependence on fossil fuels, because that would mean Jesus won't come back to save Hannity's fans.

Being a modern conservative means you must embrace monumental hypocrisy, pro-lifer who wants innocent people tortured and executed. Neocon icon Pat Robertson said that the US deserved 9-11 because of our tolerance to gays, but these same neocons use 9-11 to justify every KGB intrusion into our rights. So neocons, are you happy Al Qaeda attacked those liberals in NYC or are you sad, or are you using our worst national tragedy to simply further your goals of turning the USA into the USSR?

[fr33d0mhawk]

I used to be a libertarian leaning republican, who in my foolish youth bought the lie, that the GOP is in any way for smaller government. When I had the audacity to criticize Bush for creating a nearly KGB Gulag government, I was verbally insulted and physically threatened. The GOP is all for socialist wealth redistribution, from the middle class to the ultra rich. No real conservative would support Exxon receiving BILLIONS in welfare from Bush when Exxon made record profits. No real conservative would support the Patriot Act which puts the US Govt squarely in the role as KGB oppressor. No real conservative would support the war with Iraq which was soley fought to give oil contracts to Bush's buddies, and to handsomely reward Cheney's friends at Halliburton. No real conservative would borrow trillions of dollars to funnel to neptisitic companies and call it supply side economics, instead of what it is, cronyist socialism. The Neocon movement is all about creating a "Christian" empire via violence & oppression. Palin is the epitome of the neocon movement, publicly praying for billions in socialist wealth redistribution, keeping money from the bridge to nowhere after it was canceled, shoving the bible down every American's throat, even outlawing the teaching of science in the classrooms because facts & truth expose FOX neocons for what they really are, fasco-communist tribalists.

[Tim Ellis - Huffpost Blogger]

Absolutely. Returning to the Conservapedia entry, the most incoherent departures from the stated aim of conservatism were the fundamentalist Christian entries. By hitching their chariot to the Christian Right, the Republicans accepted into their ranks a movement that brooks no dissent and rejects even the possibility of being wrong. This is the hallmark of a movement destined for stagnation and, in the face of this lack of adaptability, ultimate dissolution - a process we are witnessing today.

Once you've decided that you don't need to find any more answers because you already have the "one true answer," then you're simply not inclined to analyze your situation, and the quest becomes a hunt for greater faith and purity of ideology rather than pragmatism and critical thinking, and that's unfortunately what has happened to what used to be the Republican party.

[seawolf77]

The modern day conservative is a complete hypocrite and knows it and is proud of it. He abdicates free market this and free market that, but in reality he is always trying to control the outcome of everything, either blatantly or surreptitiously. He schemes and plots to make sure no liberal is ever successful at anything. In the professional environment, all liberals are made to fail, then the work is given to the conservative, and preto it works. Conservatism in it';s current form is not only not good for America, it is probably the most pernicious and divisive political force to ever to invade this country. I have washed my hands of all of them and I advise all liberals to do the same. Never did I believe that politics could be part of my family, now I realize it always was.

[miketothad]

Very well done.
I must say that modern conservative anti-intel­lectualism has taken over to the point where the voice of fiscal conservatism will be drowned out-possibly for decades.

[Allisonbrown19]

I agree with this article for the most part but do want to add that the Modern Whig Party really isn't a "conservative" party. This national movement was revived by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and has grown into about 30 states. They also recently had about 1,000 people attend a meeting for their 3 Congressional candidates. Yes, the Modern Whigs are fiscally conservative and strong on national defense, but they also are basically social liberals, or at least moderates. Some may call them centrists or moderates, but not conservative.

Like any other party, the Whigs have a long road ahead, but the fact that it has been reported that they are already invited to the table to work with Dems and the GOP says that their leadership and movement may be rewriting the third party rulebook. The Whig National Committee has returned to DC and this is the first party that I can see some signs of real viability and moderate thinking.

[PlaceboStudman]

Ironically, it could be argued that Obama, at least in rhetoric, and in some actions, may very well fit more of a model of Pre-Reagan conservativism as anyone.

It really boils down, to me, to two words that President Obama spoke in his inaugural address

"Personal Responsibility"

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but asking people to be more personally responsible for themself and their immediate family is just about as conservative as one can get.

If more people were more personally responsible, there would be no need for government to grow as fast and as far as it has. Of course, the mantra of "small government, small business" is something of a myth these days already, because government naturally HAS to grow to accomodate the needs of the growing population.

But the question now is one of responsible growth, and irresponsible growth, and depending on your particular set of priorities, neither party has done a particularly good job of responsible growth of government