Near the top of the list of hoary writer’s formats, just below the open letters and pseudo-Swiftian “modest proposals”, sits the “Letter to a Young ________” format. The template is flexible enough that it can be used to condescend to any group that is more unseasoned than the author. There are letters to young poets and young priests, letters to young Catholics and young Calvinists, and letters to young mothers and young brothers. My favorite type is the letter to young conservatives since it combines two of my favorite undertakings: talking about conservatism and giving unsolicited advice to young people.
“Good advice is always certain to be ignored,” said Agatha Christie, “but that's no reason not to give it.” Likewise, just because no young person has asked me to share my wisdom with them does not mean that should be deprived of my prudent counsel. Here, then, is some advice for those young conservatives who should have asked what I thought:
Don’t hide who you are — If you are conservative, don’t be afraid to be a conservative. There is nothing inherently immoral, shameful, or unsophisticated about being culturally or politically conservative—so don’t give the impression there is hiding what you really believe. Fooling yourself into thinking there is an advantage in keeping quiet until you have job security is a frequent failing of ambitious but inwardly tepid young conservatives. For thirty years they have entered the academy with the idea that if they manage to hide their true selves until they gain tenure, they will then be able to speak boldly for the cause of conservatism. It never happens. If you are too sheepish as an adjunct to be honest about who you are, you won’t become leonine speaker of truth when you become the department chair.
If you can’t fathom the appeal of liberalism then you probably don’t understand it well enough to effectively rebut it — Contrary to the bluster you hear on talk radio, the vast majority of American liberals are not evil, out to destroy our nation, etc. Mostly they want the same things you do (love, clean drinking water, an explanation for the final episode of Lost, etc.). In fact, I would say that roughly half of the center-left in our country differ from conservatives on only one key point: how much involvement the government should have in providing the essentials necessary for human flourishing. That’s a significant and impassable point of difference, to be sure. But it isn't a reason to vilify our fellow citizens.
If you truly want to engage liberals then it is helpful to understand the emotional appeal of liberalism. Most non-ideological liberals are proverbially nice people and think that liberalism is a correspondingly nice political sentiment. And it is, in a sense, a nice philosophy. The problem resides in its tendency to produce not-so-nice outcomes. Knowing why it is appealing can be extremely useful demonstrating to others where it errs. Also, a word of advice for any argumentation—stick to pointing out the flaws in the philosophy rather than the flaws in your opponent's motives. If you're lucky, they may return the favor.
Be leery of libertarians — Even before the libertarian Barry Goldwater had his (conservative) ghostwriter title his book The Conscience of a Conservative, it has been popular to consider libertarians to be a subset of conservatives. They are not. The two camps share, as Russell Kirk said, a detestation of collectivism. What else do conservatives and libertarians profess in common? “The answer to that question is simple: nothing” says Kirk, “Nor will they ever have. To talk of forming a league or coalition between these two is like advocating a union of ice and fire.”
While conservatives and libertarians may not be natural allies, they can be productive cobelligerents. But you have to be wary of taking libertarians too seriously. As gadflys and provocateurs, they can be charming and fun. But seduction by their brand of utopianism may lead you to find yourself talking about seasteading, dubbing your live-in paramour as your “consumption partner,” and explaining to friends why blackmail should be considered a “victimless crime.” That’s no way to live.
Avoid media that make you stupid and mean — By this I don’t just mean gangster rap and slasher flicks, though those forms should be avoided, too. I have in mind the type of media that encourages thinking in the form of clichés and a manner of disdain for for others. The example par excellence is just about anything ever written by Ann Coulter. Her entire shtick (I suspect it’s a put-on; how venal can she really be?) seems to demand being preemptively stupid and mean because, after all, that is what liberals are like.
Regrettably, Coulter has become something of an icon among the Young Republican, CPAC-attending crowd. They even try to justify her antics by noting that they can glean some insights from within her rancid redmeat. No doubt this is true. But it is like drinking the water from elephant dung. It can be done, but why would you want to?
You should not refer to yourself as a conservative until you are clear on what it is you want to conserve — My own response is the one offered by my intellectual hero, Russell Kirk: The institution most essential to conserve is the family. If the only thing that you can think of that you want to conserve is the "Bush tax-cuts" then you may be a Republican, but you are not yet a conservative.
What do you have to say about virtue and ordered liberty? — If that question stumps you then you have some reading and thinking to do. You might want to refrain from opining on policy or politics until you have this one figured out since every important issue is essentially about virtue and ordered liberty.
Don't become infatuated with politicians — Save the crushes for actors, rock stars, and the cute blonde in your U.S. History class; romantic affections have no place in politics. Once you start swooning over a candidate or incumbent, you become willfully blind to their flaws, faults, and follies. Choose a candidate who appears to have a commendable character and that best represents your views and values. If you later realize you have misjudged them, be willing to admit you were wrong. Defending them as you would a lover merely makes you look naive and foolish.
Also, avoid the historical corollary of venerating hagiographic caricatures of great leaders. Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of our era. Yet his political record and positions would make him unelectable among many of the people who now claim to worship him.
If you are considering a career in politics — Reconsider.
If you are considering a career in politics and have reconsidered the decision — Carefully and honestly assess the reasons politics attracts you. Chances are you have the wrong motivations and you’ll only be miserable once political life takes shape.
If you are considering a career in politics and have reconsidered the decision and will not be dissuaded — If conservatives cared less about power and more about principle, we would send our best and brightest political minds to serve in local government, our mediocre but capable to the state level, and the lackluster yet satisfactory to the federal. If you have political ambitions and believe that you are called to serve in government, ask your most brutally honest critic where you fall along that spectrum and dispatch yourself accordingly.
Never, ever, ever sacrifice your integrity—I can all but guarantee you that if you take a job in media, academia, policy, or politics, a time will come that tempts you to compromise your integrity. Never sacrifice your rectitude for a job. Have an emergency back-up plan for how you will feed your family if your standing on principle means you lose your livelihood.
I keep a shovel in my garage as part of my exit strategy. Worse case scenario, I’ll go dig ditches for a living. I pray it never comes to that because I love what I do because my girlishly soft, uncalloused hands are no longer suited for manual labor. But I’ve resolved to choose integrity over a cushy job, so I have a plan. You should have one too.
Never write an “Advice to Young Conservatives” letter — Seriously, it’s a hackneyed format that no one wants to read. Be more original than that.
Joe Carter is the web editor of First Things. His previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
Comments:
1)Be physically intimidating to liberal men in front of their wives or girlfriends.
2)Develop a reputation for being better lovers than liberal men.
3)Oppose all sports teams from either California or the East Coast. They are all evil empires opposed to the moral values of traditional conservatives.
4)Have a token ethnic friend to show you aren't racist, as many liberals assume racism underlies your conservatism. My old Sri Lankan buddy worked wonders in this regard, and I made sure he knew it.
There's more, but nothing comes to mind right now.
Sums it up. Nice.
“It is my settled opinion, after some years as a political correspondent, that no one is attracted to a political career in the first place unless he is socially or emotionally crippled.”
Thanks for the letter. As a young conservative, I appreciate your thoughts here. However, I do have two questions:
1) You contend that liberals, "Mostly they want the same things you do." I take this to mean that you believe liberals and conservatives would have agreement on ends, but not means. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, what do you do with organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Planned Parenthood, etc. which have strong ties to the Democrat party, tend to be overwhelmingly left leaning, and seem to advance agendas for America that run in direct opposition to what many Conservatives believe to be virtuous? Do you think these organization's really share most conservative's view of how America ought to become?
2) You believe that our best and brightest should work in local government. If you mean that conservatives ought to have more concern (than they presently seem to) about the growth, development, and well-being of their physical community, I wholeheartedly agree. However, don't you also believe that it is wise to send some of our best and brightest to Federal and State governments for the purpose of pruning back the reach of these bodies into the "goings on" of local governments? Isn't the problem of local governments today that they are powerless in the face of state and federal regulations to do good work? These governments tend to be over-taxed and burdened with unfunded mandates from the "greater" powers that be. Wouldn't we squander our talent by sending them to local governments only?
3) I noticed that you've not made mention of conservatism as a philosophy for growing and creating things. I think that often times people think of conservatism as something which merely preserves (conserves) pre-existing ideas or institutions. Cannot conservatism, as a philosophy, also inspire the creation and growth of new things and isn't that an important reason why so many conservatives also support free and open markets? I'd love to hear how you see Kirk or others responding to this idea.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
That’s a good question. Personally, I don’t think those organizations are all that representative of the grassroots center-left Democrat-voting liberals in America. I think that like the Democratic Party, they have been taken over by the more radical elements and have skewed the agenda more leftward than their constituents realize.
***Do you think these organization's really share most conservative's view of how America ought to become?***
Yes and no. Obviously, one’s moral beliefs affect their view of human flourishing. For example, if my daughter were to have an abortion, I would consider it a tragedy that would haunt her for the rest of her life. A liberal parent, however, may think that by *not* getting an abortion, their daughter was ruining her chance for happiness. We both want the same thing—a happy life for our daughters—but we would disagree about both what that end would look like and what it would take to get there.
Of course my purpose for this article was rather limited. I was trying to avoid assuming that all liberals have anti-Biblical view of morality by focusing merely on our political differences. Of course our moral view can’t, as you justifiably imply in your comment, be completely separated and liberals do, as a whole, tend to be more likely to adopt a view that I think it antithetical to human flourishing. But that is an article for another day. ; )
***However, don't you also believe that it is wise to send some of our best and brightest to Federal and State governments for the purpose of pruning back the reach of these bodies into the "goings on" of local governments?***
To the State level, maybe. To the Federal level, no. The tasks necessary for limiting government—let’s call it “pruning”—does not take a great intellect. Indeed, if there is a correlation between intellectual achievement and ambition (which I think there is) then it is counterproductive to send people with those traits into a situation where they are asked to not use their skills and ambition.
Imagine sending brilliant and creative young people to DC and them telling them that their primary goal is to ensure that all of the interesting work is pushed to a lower realm of government. Naturally, they would ask why they are not there than in DC. But of course once they are in a Federal position, they will try to “do a little good” by pushing for legislation that really has no business being mandated at the national level.
I’ve never met a smart, hardworking young politico in Washington whose skills would not be better suited at a lower level of governance. Of course none of them have interest in state and local government because they want to be where the action is, they want to have power and influence. So what happens is that their ambitions cause them to use their skills for non-conservative ends.
***Isn't the problem of local governments today that they are powerless in the face of state and federal regulations to do good work? ***
Partially, but not completely. A bigger problem, in my opinion, is that those levels lack people with superior abilities. Usually then are considered roles for people who couldn’t get a job at the national level.
***Wouldn't we squander our talent by sending them to local governments only?***
It is in situation like you describe that they are needed most. If the local governments were flush with cash and had few restrictions then just about anybody could do the job. It is when burdensome constraints are placed on it that we need creativity and intelligence the most. Of course, few people really want to put themselves in such situations. I don’t blame them. I wasn’t kidding when I said that people should consider carefully before getting involved in politics. Most of the important work that needs to be done is dull and unrewarding. That is why people love the federal level. The work still sucks but at least you get perks (or the impression of perks) that appear to be more impressive.
I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that maybe we should send our best and brightest to prune the federal government. But we’ve been doing that since the Reagan years and what has that brought us?
***I noticed that you've not made mention of conservatism as a philosophy for growing and creating things.***
That’s a good point. Our society has largely lost the understanding we once had about how conservation leads to growth and flourishing. I’ll write about that in a future column. (Since these suckers come every week, I’m always needing ideas for what to write about.)
In most states & legal jurisdictions in the USA, adultery is no longer considered a crime. Sexual activities between consenting adults are not prosecuted as long as they are private. Incest when one of those concerned is a minor is regarded as a crime; but it often requires months or years for "discovery" by the civil authorities.
If commiting voluntary abortions cannot be legally prohibited, can we at least remove the activities of the Federal government that FUND voluntary abortions?
(Distinguish between deaths required to save the mother from such events as extra-uterine pregnancies; these are NOT voluntary.)
From where our Federal and State governments currently are, I would argue that the good of families from a Christian view would be better served by reducing the scope of the Federal government in many of these activities. I regard myself as having some Libertarian views, but being primarily conservative.
TeaPot562
Perhaps I was more radical than average, or the social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists I work with tend to be drawn from a more radical side of liberalism. But I would contest the point that these are consistently nice people. There are many good things about them, of course, and exactly what one would expect in human services: compassionate, making an effort to be kind to difficult people, seeking to understand.
But they can be quite nasty, unprovoked and apropos of nothing, about conservatives, people who own guns, many religious groups, and especially the social trappings associated with the Conservative Great Unwashed - country music, patriotic display, hobbies that involve engines (except boats). Their disdain is obvious and they feel quite superior. In short, they regard their beliefs as a social marker of who the good people are, deriving more than they know from their picture of who the cool kids are. At times I wonder if there is much intellectual content at all, or only a mutually reinforced satisfaction at being an Alpha.
Perhaps, as I said, my group is more opinionated and radical. Or perhaps my own bad motives from my liberal days are too vivid in my mind. I have certainly known people of the center-left who are more as you describe above - well-meaning but misguided, not having really thought things through, hoping that everyone could just sorta have a good life. We certainly should be alert for that and not assume the worst of them.
"The example par excellence is just about anything ever written by Ann Coulter. Her entire shtick (I suspect it’s a put-on; how venal can she really be?) seems to demand being preemptively stupid and mean because, after all, that is what liberals are like."
Joe, this should be Quote of the Week!
Suggested reading?
Virtues are not a separate matter from morality, they are a fruit of morality.
As the name of this journal indicates, first principles are essential. First principles are inherently religious or philosophical in nature.
I think you radically minimize the reality of human evil in this particular essay. Liberals are evil. So are conservatives and libertarians. We all have gone astray. That is why we believe that power tends to corrupt, and oppose tyranny.
Libertarianism is a will-to-power ideology. Conservatism is a love of neighbor philosophy. We seek to love our neighbors, not rule over them. Help them, not enslave them. Modern liberalism is also a will-to-power ideology - but that of the group will, not Ayn Rand's individual will, as Leni Riefenstahl depicted in her most famous work.
Why, you almost make it sound as if conservatism is the same thing as Judaism and Christianity, you might object. Well, yes, I suppose I am. And I don't think that Kirk or the founders of First Things would disagree.
Or has following Jesus and following Russell Kirk become one and the same?
I probably should have had a reading list ready to go when I wrote that. I’ll try to put one together and post in on the blog within the next couple of days
@Steve Schaper ***Virtues are not a separate matter from morality, they are a fruit of morality.***
I agree. I don’t think I said anything that would imply otherwise.
***I think you radically minimize the reality of human evil in this particular essay.***
I don’t think so. I doubt that anyone who reads such an article on FT would think that I am denying Original Sin. But the context of the article makes clear that we are not talking about the humans natural inclination to evil, but rather the vilification of our political opponents.
***And I don't think that Kirk or the founders of First Things would disagree.***
Actually, I think they would disagree. Judaism and Christianity are certainly necessary for American conservatism. But they are not the only elements that have influenced it. Kirk himself acknowledges the influence of Greek and Roman culture on conservatism.
***Perhaps he should also advise young Christians to be leery of conservatives.***
Assuming that their is an overlap between “young Christians” and “young conservative” (the target audience for this essay), I think it is clear that I did just that. As I noted, there is reason for the young to be leery of certain people who align themselves with conservatism.
***Or has following Jesus and following Russell Kirk become one and the same?***
Of course not. Following Jesus (i.e., Christianity) is a form of ideology. Kirkian conservatism has no fixed ideology, though it is certainly influenced by Christianity.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is a full-fledged ideology. It is likely—almost inevitable—that libertarianism would conflict with an ideology like Christianity. That is not to say, of course, that a Christian can’t be a libertarian. They can if they are willing, whenever the two come into conflict, to side with following Christ rather than championing unfettered liberty. But the two are certainly more likely to clash than do Christianity and conservatism.
(By the way, I think about 75 percent of the people I’ve encountered who call themselves libertarians are really conservatives. They just think that saying they are libertarians is cooler than aligning with the staid old fuddy-duddies.)
This morning, I was working in the stables with two schoolgirls, (16/17) who come to ride my horses and help out. They are studying the “Age of Revolutions,” for their History special subject and somehow we got onto the topic of Bonapartism.
Yes, they knew all about Bonapartism & Napoléon III: “Stalemate in the class struggle” – “Bourgeoisie surrenders political power, in return for protection of its socio/economic power” – “Bourgeois ‘freedom’ is the freedom to exploit the labour of others for profit” – “The independent Executive” – “Its instruments the déclassé Bohemians of all classes” – “Professional army made up of the Lumpen proletariat” &c, &c
It was like listening to children saying their catechism.
“And who were their opponents?” I asked
“The proletariat, in alliance with the revolutionary intelligentsia,” they replied, in chorus.
“And the peasants?”
“They had no community, no national bond and no political organization,” they intoned, as one.
For their teachers, there is nothing to the right of the Labour party, except greed and eccentricity.
This is Scotland, after all,
Assistant Village Idiot, I agree. This is the dynamic Codevilla points out so well in his essay/book "the Ruling Class."
Be an example for Christ........vote and contribute if you feel the need.
Arguing with liberals is a complete waste of time and counterproductive.
If you want to write something for a publication ....do it.
But never underestimate the irrational venom of liberals to be directed at you.
Libertarians are children of the Enlightenment who eventually elevate individual rights to a lifelong quest to be their own god.
Seek first the Kingdom of God.