In modern America there are almost as many brands of conservatism as there are conservatives. There are neocons and paleocons, theocons and crunchy cons. There are social conservative and fiscal conservatives, conservatives who aim for National Greatness and others who strive to be Compassionate. There are the oxymoronic “Big Government conservatives‚” and “libertarian conservatives” and claims to conservatism are simply moronic (you know who they are).
Unless you’re already familiar with the political taxonomy, such labels aren’t particularly useful. To truly understand what a conservative believes, it is often more instructive to simply ask what it is they want to conserve.
My own answer to that question would be the one offered by my intellectual hero, Russell Kirk: The institution most essential to conserve is the family.
I believe that while ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone, He delegates authority throughout society to various institutional structures (churches, businesses, the state, etc.). Naturally, these institutions are not immune to the effects of sin or human depravity but they still retain the legitimate authority given to them by our Creator. Although each of these institutions is important, the most essential is the family. My political philosophy could be called “family-first conservatism” for I believe that, in our current time and place within Western history, the institution of the family should be given pride of place in decisions about public policy.
While family-first conservatism is rather limited in scope—merely an emphasis within conservatism rather than a distinct branch—I believe it is a robust enough to generate a core set of principles and policy prescriptions. The principles, which I have gleaned from the writings of better thinkers than myself, are outlined in the following manifesto:
1. We believe the family is the basic unit of society.
2. We believe that from birth we are initiated into the community structure of the family. We are not thrust into a state of radical individualism but rather into the most basic form of community. We are created to be both individuated persons and members of a community; neither can be reduced into the other.
3. We believe the heart of the family is the pre-political institution of marriage, a “one-flesh union” of sexually complementary spouses who cleave to each other in permanent commitment, loyalty, and fidelity and that this communion is naturally ordered to the good of spousal unity, to procreation, and to the nurturing of children.
4. We believe it is a self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of human flourishing.
5. We believe in protecting the intrinsic dignity of all members of the human family, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., and believe that they must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.
6. We believe the interaction between people in community has lead naturally to societal pluriformity and the formation of various, distinct social structures. Families interact with other families to create distinct communities such as the neighborhood, the city, and the state and that the various tasks and requirements for living has lead to the formation of churches, schools, businesses, civic unions and other associations.
7. We believe that each of these structures or spheres of influence has its own autonomy and responsibility and is sovereign within its own sphere. Each also has its locus of sovereignty which is derived not from another structure but from God alone. This forms a non-hierarchical structure where all authority is ultimately derived from our Creator.
8. We believe that parents have the primary sphere of authority and influence over the upbringing of their children and that this role may not be usurped by other institutions unless necessary to prevent incontrovertible harm of the child.
9. We believe that while parental authority is primary, other institutions have an interest and a duty in protecting the welfare of children and should do what they can to create and preserve a moral ecology that is conducive to creating virtuous citizens.
10. We believe that while social structures are non-hierarchical, the family should be considered “first among equals” and given special consideration in making decisions about public policy.
October 5th, 2010 | 11:26 am
11. As in medicine, the first principle of public policy with respect to the family is “Do no harm.”
October 5th, 2010 | 11:38 am
Joe, this is an excellent manifesto. It sounds a lot like another manifesto on the family I’m familiar with: http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html.
Even with all those different kinds of conservatives, I hope some fundamental values are still universal.
October 5th, 2010 | 11:54 am
Stating that the family is the fundamental unit of society – as opposed to the right-liberalism (freedom, liberty) that dominates much of the American conservative movement – is a point that cannot be repeated enough. And for the religious, particularly for Catholics, this must be the case, as the Triune God is Sacramentally reflected in the reality of salvation practice and history by the coming together of persons in one family.
Kirk, whose main hero was Burke, was a provocative and landmark inventor of conservative sentiment (meaning he took some pretty disparate threads to define “conservative”.) But whatever one’s opinion of him (mine is high) he was absoutely right about some very important points: Burke should be widely read and admired, conservatism is the negation of ideology and the secularization of the doctrine of original sin, and the family matters most of all.
I would like to see a revival of “Burkean conservatism”, which means more discussion among conservatives about the dangers of right-liberalism. Kalb’s The Tyranny of Liberalism is a good place to start, and some more brief thoughts here:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2010/09/21/what-might-a-%E2%80%9Cburkean-conservatism%E2%80%9D-look-like/
October 5th, 2010 | 12:02 pm
In what sense are we “created equal”? A commitment to the “truth” of Equality, big E, is inconsistent with your other commitments.
How can authority be “derived from our Creator” and yet be “non-hierarchical.” Isn’t God “higher”?
Better still how can many institutions “each . . . ha[ve] its own autonomy and responsibility and is sovereign within its own sphere,” viz. the family in which “parents have the primary sphere of authority and influence over the upbringing of their children,” a “role [that] may not be usurped by other institutions,” yet those institutions “have an interest and a duty in protecting the welfare of children and . . . do[ing] what they can to create and preserve a moral ecology that is conducive to creating virtuous citizens.”
I believe we share similar visions of the good society, perhaps not, but certainly this statement leaves many vital matters undeveloped. While swearing off “radical individualism,” this statement embraces certain views that are wedded to a radically individualistic view of society no more indebted to first principles than to the philosophes.
October 5th, 2010 | 12:12 pm
As it is currently written, I think point 5 suffers from introducing the concept of “the human family” with no antecedent in the manifesto.
I think I would fix this by changing #4:
4. We believe that the entire human race is united by familial ties, which are based on our biological make-up and shared fundamental nature. This unity is not diluted by the diversity of sex, race, or culture within the human family.
This would have the added benefit of implicitly rejecting both racism and “identity politics” that identify some narrower property such as race or sexual disposition as the most fundamental aspect of personhood.
October 5th, 2010 | 12:17 pm
Mick In what sense are we “created equal”?
We are created equal in dignity, our inherent worth to our Creator.
How can authority be “derived from our Creator” and yet be “non-hierarchical.” Isn’t God “higher”?
They are non-hierarchical in relation to each other. For example, the authority of parents is not given to the them by the federal government but rather from God.
Better still how can many institutions “each . . . ha[ve] its own autonomy and responsibility and is sovereign within its own sphere,” viz. the family in which “parents have the primary sphere of authority and influence over the upbringing of their children,” a “role [that] may not be usurped by other institutions,” yet those institutions “have an interest and a duty in protecting the welfare of children and . . . do[ing] what they can to create and preserve a moral ecology that is conducive to creating virtuous citizens.”
I’m not sure how those conflict. Just because a child’s parents have the primary responsibility for them does not mean we don’t also have duties to children. For instance, parents are responsible for the safety of their children, but that doesn’t mean I have the right to speed through a school zone.
I believe we share similar visions of the good society, perhaps not, but certainly this statement leaves many vital matters undeveloped.
I agree. It is merely an emphasis within conservatism, not a whole philosophy. Certain vital matters are necessarily left out because of the restrictions of space and attention.
While swearing off “radical individualism,” this statement embraces certain views that are wedded to a radically individualistic view of society no more indebted to first principles than to the philosophies.
Really? Such as . . . ?
October 5th, 2010 | 12:19 pm
I am a bit confused by the language of “non-hierarchical” social structures. Is this just meant to imply that power does not descend from the state or the collective “will of the people?” Calling all social structures “non-hierarchical” seems to be a rather sweeping way to make this claim.
If something more is meant by this phrase, I would agree with Mick that it’s troubling language for a religious believer.
October 5th, 2010 | 12:55 pm
One group that hasn’t been mentioned in all of the neocon/theocon/crunchcon label-mongering is conservatives who care about the social issues more than the economic ones and who consider free markets as potentially dangerous to social conservatism as statism.
October 5th, 2010 | 5:51 pm
Mr. Carter,
Aside from the definition of conservativism — that is conserving what is worth conserving, which was Chesterton’s defintion of conservativism — and despite your statement about the various brands of conservativism, your manifesto is quite acceptable by any conservative worthy of that name.
This is very much a platform Chesterton expounded in his works before Russell Kirk did, thus Chesterton would easily agree and comply with all 10 principles, and so would Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, other pro-life conservative Republicans and the Tea Party conservatives.
October 5th, 2010 | 10:09 pm
“conservatives who care about the social issues more than the economic ones and who consider free markets as potentially dangerous to social conservatism as statism.”
Lately I’m wondering if the pro-family movement can survive, let alone succeed, in a society inundated with pornography.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument it cannot. If this is the case, then libertarian or pro-market sectarians against pornography regulation or prohibition are in fact a barrier to the success of the movement.
Libertarians are far more effective at undermining conservative laws and customs than they are at limiting government power. The fusionist alliance actually dooms us.
In my pessimistic scenario, we’d be better off creating a branch of the Democratic machine based on enforcement of anti-pornography laws. This would provide a power and patronage base for pro-family men and women, from which future talent can be recruited.
However, most American conservatives are too dedicated to their incomplete principles to create a winning political movement which will better secure liberty and decency for our posterity.
October 6th, 2010 | 11:42 am
Just curious–as Christians, is our first responsibility to our own family, or to the church? Has our society suffered because people have seen their nuclear families as single-layer extensions of their own individual consumerism (thus they can take their family to a new church whenever their felt needs aren’t being served)? Should our commitment, as Christians, to our local congregation be emphasized more? What’s a biblically-based principle to guide Christians concerning the dynamic between their commitment to their family and their commitment to their local congregation?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact