Some thoughts on conservatism, and American conservatism in particular.
To be sure, temperamental or philosophical conservatives often want to conserve other things, too, be it in the realm of culture or sports or religion. But politically speaking, conservatism is only a partial philosophy of life. Indeed, the American Revolution — unlike the French Revolution — introduced the idea that the state has no business providing or enforcing a full philosophy of life for its citizens (as opposed to subjects). It was an anti-totalitarian revolution because it held that men should be free to chart their own course in life, individually or via local communities, so long as our actions do not violate the rights of others or run afoul of a few reasonable laws truly necessary for the common good.
That was a radical idea. It remains a radical idea. It is by no means wholly owned by the American Right. But the American Right is its greatest defender, at least insofar as the American Right continues to defend the idea of limited government represented by the founding. As I’ve said before, conservatism is about more than classical liberalism, but an American conservatism that doesn’t seek to conserve classical liberalism isn’t worth conserving.
The notion that “conservatives” just like to conserve stuff in general is one of the reasons that much of American political debate is so…idiotic. And why the one-dimensional “left/right” notions are so mindlessly simplistic. In fact, it could be (and has been) argued that, in many ways, it is the “liberals” and “progressives” who are conservative. Their notions of the state ruling the individual are as old as agriculture.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jonah also says that the modern-day tea partiers aren’t revolutionaries — they’re restorationists.
Statist and anti-statist are probably better terms, to the extent that any generalities can work. To be honest, one of the major flaws of the modern conservative movement, to the extent that it’s controlled by the GOP, is that it has moved too far into the statist camp.
It would be a sea change of awesome potential if we could return to the classical liberal’s inherent distrust of and aversion to government as a guiding principle. Even in just one of the major parties.
It is useful to consider the Pournell Political Axis when discussing this.
The notion that “conservatives” just like to conserve stuff in general is one of the reasons that much of American political debate is so…idiotic.
You could also say that it is the name “conservative” that is idiotic. So is “progressive” by the way. Who would be opposed to progress in general? People’s opinions of what constitutes progress might differ and the effects of a change could be positive to one person and negative to another.
“Liberal” by contrast isn’t a bad name, it’s just unfortunate that it has been hijacked by people who are anything but liberal when it comes to economics.
…it’s just unfortunate that it has been hijacked by people who are anything but liberal when it comes to economics.
And much else (right to bear arms, right to free speech, etc.).
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom….” — Ronald Reagan
Who would be opposed to progress in general?
Given the recent debate over space policy, several names spring to mind.
Are you familiar with Virginia Postrel’s stasist-dynamicist axis?
http://www.dynamist.com/tfaie/index.html
The problem with the word “progressive” is that it’s used to define people who favor a particular type of progress.
That issue does not really align well with the left-right axis, however. It’s more aligned with Virginia Postrel’s stasist-dynamicist axis. (A stasist would be someone opposed to progress in general.)
That’s exactly what we’re seeing now, Pro. As we enter the next crisis era, we’re seeing greater political polarization, not just here but in Western Europe, too. The reckless incompetence at work in government and the financial sector is hitting where people live. The “question” which will be “asked” in the next decade or so will be one where people must choose between freedom or statism. This is why the Obamacare debate is so crucial at this time – if they push it through, it will pave the way for greater power for the control freaks — doubly-so if it’s done unconstitutionally. As the well-intentioned Boomers die off, they’ll be replaced with pure power-mongers. Just look at the current administration.