Conservatism is a big enough tent to include many differing views on specific issues, but there are overriding principles that bind conservatism as a political force.
If we are to believe the most recent polls, on Saturday voters in South Carolina, arguably the most conservative state in the nation, will be tusseling over John McCain or Mike Huckabee as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
There's only one problem: neither man is all that conservative say leading conservatives of our day.
Fred Thompson, a formidable man with a strong conservative record, has improved his chances but unless he can mobilize the 28 percent of voters who remain undecided, his campaign will be in grave danger. Romney and Giuliani will live to fight another day, but some conservatives argue neither of them are particularly conservative either.
To be specific, Rush Limbaugh suggests that nominating McCain or Huckabee would be a disaster for the Republicans and the conservative movement. Meanwhile, evangelicals don't like Giuliani or Romney, small government and pro-business conservatives aren't enthralled with Huckabee or McCain and Ann Coulter claims Thompson doesn't qualify because he refused to convict Clinton on impeachment charges (talk about narrow litmus tests). Duncan Hunter, well, he's building his fence down on the border while Ron Paul counts his money in Texas.
Let's start with this assumption — there is no definition of true conservatism that is easily annunciated, as any serious student of conservative history knows. Ronald Reagan was a conservative pragmatist. As a governor in California, he advocated law and order, but he also raised taxes, avoided confronting the conservative social agenda and took a reasonable middle ground on immigration. As president, he fought for lower taxes, a strong defense and federalism. He achieved the first two, and failed on the third.
Nevertheless, the principles he annunciated were enough to elect him twice in landslide victories and even his negotiations with the Soviet Union, for which he was criticized by many on the right, are now seen as a brilliant move that only a visionary could have managed.
Conservatism is a big enough tent to include many differing views on specific issues, but there are overriding principles that bind conservatism as a political force.
A healthy skepticism of government interventionism, particularly at the federal level
Why do I frame the issue this way. Because, first of all, a conservative might very well be an activist on the state or local level. Federalism is about delegating to state and local governments those responsibilities that Washington manages poorly: education, garbage, roads, etc. That Huckabee led on these issues and made citizens pay for them does not, in my mind, disqualify him as a conservative. What might disqualify him is taking that same activist approach to Washington.
Americans must pay for their services and demanding that they responsibily shoulder that burden is hardly liberalism. But suggesting that government can relieve the pain of every working American is hardly conservative, for this opens the door to endless government experimentation in the name of justice, jobs or any other problem a given citizen might have. Conservatism generally embraces reduced taxes and limited government activity because it is preferable to empower individuals and local communities to lead and rule themselves while allowing market forces, whenever possible, to determine economic outcomes. It is not a perfect system, but then conservatives don't believe in perfection, at least not in this life.
Faith in values rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition
What does this mean practically? After all, Jimmy Carter qualifies as a conservative based on this standard. However, when combined with other conservative principles we are led in another direction than liberal religious activists, who seek to utilize the state as an instrument of social engineering. A theistic tradition, however, to borrow Frank Meyer's word, does not mean there is an anti-abortion litmus test for conservatives except to this extent: abortion, in general, afflicts the fundamental value annunciated in Christian tradition and in the Constitution — the sanctity of life. A conservative might oppose abortion on moral grounds without demanding that it be criminalized or legislated totally out of existence. To oppose Roe versus Wade is not the same as demanding that millions of women be jailed because they terminate a pregancy prematurely. Conservatives would argue, however, that states and localities should have been allowed to manage the issue, including proscribing the practice as appropriate. We do not see abortion as an absolute right guaranteed in the Constitution.
An abiding respect for the Constitution
The Constitution is not a living document, but it is also not a document carved in stone. It can be amended and it leaves unanswered endless questions about how public policy should be handled. A conservative should embrace the Constitution and err on interpreting it as literally as possible, but surely there is room to debate even a literal reading. The right to bear arms doesn't mean we all get to own a nuclear missle, just as free speech doesn't give us a right to incite violence. Rights entail responsiblities and those who take these issues to extremes are not conservative, they are reactionary. Let us also not forget that even among conservatives there are stark differences about judicail philosophy. Robert Bork embraces original intent, Scalia textualism and author Mark Smith judicial activism on behalf of his personal brand of conservatism.
But surely conservatives are correct to resent courts that legislate against local prerogatives or seek to strip the public square of any vestige of religious faith. Nothing in the Constitution justifies such behavior, just as nothing in the Constitution prevents legislatures from regulating businesses that fail to respect the environment or their employees. In the interstitial regions of the law, reasonable people can interpret and disagree.
A healthy respect for a strong defense
There is one issue about which there is no debate: defense is the responsibility of the federal government. But supporting a strong defense doesn't mean a conservative has to support military adventurism. In fact, the tradition of conservatism historically is to resist the temptation to embroil our nation in the affairs of other nations. Ron Paul isn't wrong to question our foreign poliicy or our entanglements abroad, but it is troubling that he chooses to interpret that policy through the eyes of those who are declared enemies of the United States and its allies. A conservative might very well have opposed the war in Iraq and even Vietnam, but surely would not oppose an adequate defense or a willingness to use the military when circumstances require it. Vague, yes, but many on the hard left and even within mainstream liberalism no longer adhere to these basic principles, though it was nice to hear the Democratic candidates acknowledge that the military that protects us should be allowed to recruit on college campuses.
In Have You Ever Seen a Dream Walking, William F. Buckley Jr. mobilized a group of writers to set forth certain ideas about the conservative movement for which he and they played such a decisive and animating role. It is telling that they did not seek to enumerate a list of issues on which conservatives must agree. If anything, Buckley, Meyer, Chambers, et al. argued that conservatism is neither an ideology nor an exercise in litmus tests. Buckley spent as much time reading fringe groups out of the conservative movement as he did defining what it was, precisely because he knew that conservatism is as much about temperament and tendencies than it is about a specific position on a given issue.
The conservative instinct is to trust the market and individual liberty as vehicles to happiness and prospertiy; to respect the great traditions of faith that have shaped culture and community for many generations; to trod carefully on the graveyards of our past; to see government not as a tool through which to mold perfect societies and perfect human beings, but as an instrument for solving limited challenges that are beyond the means of the private sector: e.g. curbing widespread pollution, overseeing defense, or managing economic challenges that threaten the viability of our free enterprise system.
Conservatives have digested the lesson that the greatest tragedies of the past century revolved around centralized powers wielding the power of the state to impose a narrow vision of perfection on imperfect individuals; in the fog of such dreams did the nightmares of fascism and communism materialize.
Conservatives should have a deep and abiding respect for individuals trying to responsibly govern their own lives, within their own moral, community and religious traditions, genuflecting not to the power of government or the market, but to their God. We resist collective solutions even as we build alliances, one issue and one neighbor at a time. We know government has a role, but we contend that the burden of proof for activating the state lies with those who seek to wield its great power.
If conservatives are struggling to find their bearings these days, well, that is only natural. Many of the great men and at least some of the great issues around which conservatism cohered for several generations are gone or are fading. But the preservation of liberty, community and faith are not trifling things. A vigorous discussion about the meaning of conservatism is not a bad thing, but I, for one, hope that those seeking to narrow the ideological parameters of conservatism don't do more harm than good.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
"Ron Paul isn't wrong to question our foreign poliicy or our entanglements abroad, but it is troubling that he chooses to interpret that policy through the eyes of those who are declared enemies of the United States and its allies. A conservative might very well have opposed the war in Iraq and even Vietnam, but surely would not oppose an adequate defense or a willingness to use the military when circumstances require it."
Perhaps you can explain to your reader where Ron Paul has said that he would be unwilling to use military force if necessary? I mean, I know you are just hoping people will take your word for it, but it would have been nice to prove he holds this position you attribute to him.
From what I read, Ron Paul believes in using military force in two circumstances: For defense against an imminent threat, and as required by a declaration from Congress.
And then his use of military force will strictly abide by the Christian "Just War" theory.
So, perhaps you could inform your readers how you came to the conclusion that, essentially, Ron Paul is a pacifist and therefore they shouldn't even bother looking at his strictly conservative views.
I'm sure your readers would appreciate it, since the future of conservativism DOES hang in the balance this election. And they deserve to have an opinion from you based on facts, not incorrect dismissals.
Comment by Scott_M | January 18, 2008
Well, for starters, I have no idea if Ron Paul is a pacifist or not. But I do know that in the last debate and several others he always presents American foreign policy as antagonistic, and provocatively so, as if the stated claims of the Iranian regime, for example, to obliterate Israel and possibly other enemies is all a charade. I happen to oppose going into Iran, for a variety of reasons, but I find Paul's rhetoric and his tone hysterial and also highly critical of America first. Check the transcript from the dbate and see if I am exaggerating. In the meantime, I will do more research on the off chance that I am wrong.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 18, 2008
Vietnam veteran flight surgeon, Dr. Ron Paul is NOT a pacifist. He voted to hunt down Bin Laden in Afghanistan but against the illegal, unnecessary Iraqi War that is bankrupting our country.
*****
Stormfront (Don Black) endorsed George W. Bush. Ronald Reagan was endorsed by the KKK. Barack Obama recently had some high praise for the king of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, therefore Obama…Oh NO!!! Is it all a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y?
********
http://www.freeatlast2008.com/
With the exception of Fred Thompson (occasionally), Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and your favorite, Dr. Ron Paul (always), few of the candidates seem to take the US Constitution seriously anymore. Breaking news, our economy and our Constitution are both imploding. This should give us pause or should it? Perhaps we should scrap it and start anew? After all, once in office our elected representative must swear to uphold the US (not foreign) Constitution for all people. This includes even their most hated adversaries. People at the extremes defend it because according to this document they deserve equal protection under the law just like everyone else. I support Ron Paul. I love people of all races, religions and sexualities. I happen to be straight and black if you must know. The Ron Paul supporters I know love their country passionately. They are not racist, sexist pigs with tin foil hats or 911 truthers. They are hard working, decent wonderful people who volunteer in their community and take the time to educate themselves on the issues. They are a threat to the establishment because they think outside the box. Please consider voting for Ron Paul. Thank you for your time.
Comment by voiceofthepeople | January 19, 2008
Scott_M
To me Ron Paul is not a Republican, but a Libertarian, not that there is any wrong with that. The problem is that just as HRC is the wrong woman, RP is the wrong Libertarian.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 19, 2008
As a "Fred Head" bemoaning that the only true conservative competing for the Republican nomination has lost in S.Carolina, I fear that conservatism is in fact on its death bed. It was my hope that the American "silent majority" of conservatives still existed, and that they would unite behind Thompson to defeat whichever of the far-left-of-center Democrats. Instead, multifariousness of political viewpoint on the Republican side appears to have diluted the strength of core conservative values previously respected and held in common. Some even assert that Thompson is not conservative based upon his CFR membership or lobbying activity, a conclusion based on an unsound rationale.
With the exception of Ron Paul, all of the other Republican candidates are flip-floppers and/or not consistent conservatives by any measure. The problem with Ron Paul is that some of his specific remedies for what ails our nation amount to the political equivalent of medical quackery. His plan to abolish the Federal Reserve system and return the U.S. to the gold standard is dangerous. A foreign policy of "non-interventionism" amounts to utopian silliness dressed up in outdated language. Nevertheless, Ron Paul may be more of a Libertarian than a Republican, but at least he is consistent and principled. Regardless, divided the Republican party falls. Hillary may now just landslide to victory against McCain, Romney, Huckabee or Juliani, as an unenthusiastic base of conservative voters takes a "none of the above" stance.
If memory serves, it was the Ross Perot dilution factor that propelled Bill Clinton to victory. At least the Ron Paul supporters will be happy with the withdrawal of troops from "foreign entanglement" as the Democrat president facilitates the retreat from Iraq. The tragedy is that not enough of us realize that the fate of the middle east (and by extension much of the free world) depends on the establishment of a stable government in Iraq; failure to see through the confrontation with Jihadistan on the Iraqi front will only postpone the reckoning with stonger, more emboldened enemies who knows where and when.
No doubt contributing to the death of conservatism is the slimey state of journalism in America. So-called "newspapers" and "news wires" are driven to spew dezinformatzia for the sake of a political agenda. So called cable/tv "news programs" are driven to produce content that will attract the most viewers for the sake of ratings, even if their slogan is "fair and balanced". There is plenty of "free speech" out there, especially on the radio, but unbiased delivery of news is missing in action. I wonder how many Americans even realize this.
So even though Fred Thompson may be just right to be POTUS from a principled, conservative point of view on every issue, his candidacy may go down & out because he doesn't have enough money to cut through it all and provide a refresher course for the republican party primary voters whom are apparantly abandoning conservatism or at least forgetting to bring it with them to the voting booth.
With the Clintons back in the White House, conservatism will no doubt require hospice. Perhaps that will lead to a cure, and conservatism will rise back up like a phoenix to reclaim the hearts and minds of Americans. What a price to pay for a return to righteousness.
Comment by compugor | January 20, 2008
Thompson’s refusal to convict on the bill of impeachment hardly constitutes a “narrow litmus test.” The issue in the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the rule of law, and the failure to convict implicitly says that it is acceptable for the president to lie in sworn testimony. Thompson’s refusal to convict left the first president to support the enemy in wartime in office—see Bill Clinton’s draft letter to Col. Holmes, his written admission of supporting the Communist victory in Indochina. The failure to convict also left Hillary entrenched in the White House. If nothing else, Clinton should have been convicted as a tit-for-tat for Nixon, whose demise had far more to do with leftist revenge for his anti-Communism than his breaking the law, as the failure to convict Clinton has shown.
Given the low quality of the Republican presidential candidates, one could say that conservatism didn’t survive 2007.
Scott M — the Vietnam War was a war of Communist aggression intended to seize our client state and impose a socialist revolution on it. It was also the centerpiece of Khrushchev’s “wars of national liberation” phase of the Cold War. If it hadn’t been intended to spread Communism the Soviets and Red Chinese wouldn’t have armed and financed it and it wouldn’t have happened. The conservative objection here is that Lyndon Johnson failed to seek a declaration of war on the Vietnamese Communist state just as George W. Bush failed to seek declarations of war on the Taliban Afghani state or Saddam’ Iraq. Conservatives should not forget that we had every right to use military force against Saddam because: 1) he had failed to abide by the treaty he signed to end the Gulf War; and 2) he had violated numberous UN resolutions. To deny that we had a right to attack Saddam implictly says that the League of Nations was correct in letting the aggressive dictators of the 1930s have their way with their victims and that the UN should be a toothless guard dog.
As for Ron Paul, he walks like a sixties radical and he talks like a sixties radical. The sixties radicals wanted to establish a form of non-Soviet Communist America not unlike Castro’s Cuba, so those who use the language of sixties radcials are clearly not libertarian. His claim that the Islamists would leave us alone if we withdraw from the world is the same as that of the Left and completely realistic.
Comment by William Woodford | January 20, 2008
Last paragraph should have been unrealisitic. Apologies.
Comment by William Woodford | January 20, 2008
Good analysis on Paul. As for the impeachment of Clinton, I think you are misguided. Does rule of law also mean that a president who gets a speeding ticket should be dirvein from office. Clinton lied on oath about a private encounter with a woman of questionable intentions — high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe, but not in my book. He deserved to be impeached, but to overturn an election — in my view, that would have been an extreme response to the crime. It also would have ensured an Al Gore victory in 2000, in my view, and martyered Clinton politically. Thompson did the right thing. yes, we do live in a nation of laws and Clinton deserved what he got, but courts every day in this nation consider the circumstances, the evidence and the consequences when the impose punishment. Clinton is a sleazy guy and his wife an enabler, but the way to get even is to derail the Hillary train by electing a real conservative — Thompson could have won and he would have governed as a conservative. I wish I could comprehend those who think Ron Paul and Huckabee are legitimate presidential candidates. I don't see it.
Comment by George Shadroui | January 21, 2008