Defining Conservatism, Defining Marriage
Apr 11, 2011
David Mills
Two-something years ago, after Barack Obama defeated an inconsistently conservative Republican, when the right’s future looked dim, almost everyone on the right seems to have started arguing about the future of conservatism: not so much over what it is, but over who is a real one, who is committed and who will compromise, who are the heretics, apostates, and moles, what are its political prospects, and how to win back power.
All questions, as you will have noticed, that can only be answered if the question of what is conservatism is answered first. Or perhaps, given the great divisions among self-identified conservatives, asking these questions was the only way people had to answer that question, backing into the answer from settling the practical questions, working more like anthropologists or zoologists than philosophers.
It seemed to me a pointless debate, because unsettleable, which probably explained why so many people joined in and why their exchanges were often so heated. It’s the arguments that no one can win that make everyone yell the loudest.
Conservatives argued about something that had no universal definition, no institutional form, no accepted spokesmen, no sanctions to impose, no rewards to give, nothing authoritative that made it an argument that might be won or lost. They had no way to know when they’d answered the question.
And there was no value in winning. If you did manage to construct a definition everyone else accepted, what would you have gained? What would the definition change? What could you do with it? If you told someone “You’re not a real conservative because you believe this or that,” for example, he’d simply say, “Well, then, I’m not a real conservative.”
It’s not a useful argument, like those over what the Republican Party ought to do—I’m assuming few conservatives worry about what the Democratic Party ought to do—or what the Catholic Church’s social teaching says. The first argues over what a particular political enterprise will do, the second over a teaching to which Catholics will (or should) submit themselves. Winning these arguments may change minds and therefore actions.
It matters what the Republican Party should do. It matters what Catholic social teaching requires. It doesn’t really matter, at least in the same way and at the same level, what conservatism is.
I thought of this when reading Jason Lee Steorts’ “Two Views of Marriage, and the Falsity of the Choice Between Them,” which appeared in both the print and online versions of National Review. Steorts, the magazine’s managing editor—someone, in other words, whose opinion counts at the magazine—argues against the “traditionalist” understanding of marriage as requiring a man and a woman, in favor of a “revisionist” view based on the state’s interest in increasing “maximal experiential union” and therefore approving homosexual unions.
It is the sort of thing you might hear from a teenager, when he says, in that whining voice of adolescent conviction, “But we love each other.” Sherif Girgis, one of the men to whom Steorts was responding, adequately dealt with his argument, which he called, politely, “a faulty theory of marital love [built] on a confused account of the human person.”
But what first struck me was Steorts’ claim—one of the bases for his prescription for his radical reinterpretation of marriage—that “a conservative wants the state at a large remove from his life.” A libertarian does, yes, but does a conservative? This is not an idea to be found in Russell Kirk’s lengthy introduction to his Portable Conservative Reader, which is more concerned with the protection of the civil order and “a man’s desire to walk in the paths his father followed.”
Applied to marriage, this claim seems to me the equivalent of the pro-choicers’ “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” and “It’s a decision solely for the woman and her doctor,” insisting on the mother’s personal autonomy over the life of her child—keeping the state at a large remove from her life, and from her unborn child’s. Few conservatives accept this reasoning. It is a matter for the law to regulate. With marriage as with abortion, the conservative, concerned with the civil order, and therefore with the moral order, and with walking in the fathers’ path, would hold that this was a matter for the law to regulate.
At least I think so, from my own reading of the conservative tradition. But the dispute may just illustrate the fruitlessness of arguing over the definition of conservatism, and exactly what relation to the state it requires. I might argue that Steorts is tainted by libertarianism, he might respond that I'm tainted by liberalism.
Except that there is at least one good test of the competing views of what conservatism believes about marriage. Imagine the original editors of National Review, Buckley, Kirk, Chambers, and the rest, and others of their sort, gathered in a room in the fifties, and then imagine the scalding rebuke they would have given to someone who proposed homosexual “marriage” as a conservative position, especially if he argued for it on the basis of “maximal experiential union.” That is the path the conservative fathers followed.
David Mills is Executive Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson’s What Is Marriage?.
Jason Lee Steorts’ Two Views of Marriage, and the Falsity of Choice Between Them.
Sherif Girgis’ response to Steorts, Real Marriage.
Comments:
4.11.2011 | 10:05am
Joe DeVet says:
Count me as one conservative (self-defined!) who DOES care what Catholic social teaching says. There may be few of us, but to find many of the others, see the Acton Institute.
Right now I'm locked in a debate with a local campus minister who touts Distributism, as an economic system encouraged by Catholic social teaching. Distributism is a perfectly nutty, bizarre and self-contradictory idea touted by Hillaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton around the turn of the 20th Century. It was claimed to have been inspired, or endorsed, by Pope Leo XIII's encyclical "Rerum Novarum", the primordial social teaching encyclical.
Many Catholic leaders also claim Rerum as their basis for proposing collectivist solutions to social issues, eg most recently and eggregiously, Obamacare with few reservations.
Against these claims we have John Paul II's "Centesimus Annus", published in the "hundreth year" after Rerum, which he gently calls a "re-reading" of Leo XIII's groundbreaking work. Centesimus treats the Distributist claim by pretty much ignoring it altogether. It treats the collectivist-solutions claim by asserting that a thing John Paul calls the Social Welfare State is a bad idea and a false reading of Rerum. John Paul states that a free-market system seems best, and reaffirms the consistent condemnation of socialism, but cautions against what he calls "unbridled capitalism."
It's not clear whether John Paul sees the American system as a capitalism which is appropriately bridled. However, it seems to me that the free market under law which we possess, is the most just and productive system yet demonstrated, or even proposed. Hence, worth CONSERVING.
Right now I'm locked in a debate with a local campus minister who touts Distributism, as an economic system encouraged by Catholic social teaching. Distributism is a perfectly nutty, bizarre and self-contradictory idea touted by Hillaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton around the turn of the 20th Century. It was claimed to have been inspired, or endorsed, by Pope Leo XIII's encyclical "Rerum Novarum", the primordial social teaching encyclical.
Many Catholic leaders also claim Rerum as their basis for proposing collectivist solutions to social issues, eg most recently and eggregiously, Obamacare with few reservations.
Against these claims we have John Paul II's "Centesimus Annus", published in the "hundreth year" after Rerum, which he gently calls a "re-reading" of Leo XIII's groundbreaking work. Centesimus treats the Distributist claim by pretty much ignoring it altogether. It treats the collectivist-solutions claim by asserting that a thing John Paul calls the Social Welfare State is a bad idea and a false reading of Rerum. John Paul states that a free-market system seems best, and reaffirms the consistent condemnation of socialism, but cautions against what he calls "unbridled capitalism."
It's not clear whether John Paul sees the American system as a capitalism which is appropriately bridled. However, it seems to me that the free market under law which we possess, is the most just and productive system yet demonstrated, or even proposed. Hence, worth CONSERVING.
4.11.2011 | 10:06am
Nathan Duffy says:
I think conservatism can be fairly well defined and come to great consensus as to what the definition is, though it obviously must be a broad enough definition to emcompass what you refer to as libertarian and liberal polarities.
I often find the arguments from legitimate conservatives who interpret conservativism to be essentially indistinguishable from libertarianism somewhat frustrating, but at least they are usually genuine in their convictions, if confused. Much worse are those on the left who make the same correlation in order to establish what conservatives 'should' think or believe if they were consistent. i.e. "Small government? But you want the government to determine who can and can't get married!" Which saves them the trouble of dealing with the consistent, coherent position of legitimate conservatives who are not wholesale libertarians, which is the vast majority of conservatives.
I often find the arguments from legitimate conservatives who interpret conservativism to be essentially indistinguishable from libertarianism somewhat frustrating, but at least they are usually genuine in their convictions, if confused. Much worse are those on the left who make the same correlation in order to establish what conservatives 'should' think or believe if they were consistent. i.e. "Small government? But you want the government to determine who can and can't get married!" Which saves them the trouble of dealing with the consistent, coherent position of legitimate conservatives who are not wholesale libertarians, which is the vast majority of conservatives.
4.11.2011 | 10:10am
A. Trevor Sutton says:
Thank you for this article, Mr. Mills. This brings to mind Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. If we follow the trail of human hearts back to the ideal mutual exchange of the gift of the person, we are hard pressed to find anything remotely close to the notion of ‘maximal experiential union.’
4.11.2011 | 10:48am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Indeed, David. But I will hazard to define "conservative", at least in a broad sense. (I don't believe it can be defined in a tightly because it is not dogma, but an approach to live and policy. As a result, some fluidity is inevitable.)
To be a conservative is to work to conserve the moral and social order and the institutions that maintain it. You cannot be a conservative and be opposed to the state doing anything while the moral order and social order are overturned. Libertarianism, whether sexual or economic in its manifestation, therefore, is not conservative when it results in the the organized community standing by and doing nothing while the every man and every woman does whatever he or she pleases in his or her sexual or economic life, the consequences to the social and moral order be damned.
Conservativism is not, on the other hand, opposed to change, but in fact will support necessary changes in secondary matters in order to conserve the primary ones, the social and moral order. Thus, the laws governing economic relations had to change from what they were in an agrarian society to meet the changes wrought by the industrial revolution and the revolution in corporate law ushered in in the mid-19th century by men like Rockefeller.
To the article you cite, marriage is a core component of the moral and social order, not some secondary or tertiary matter. Unfortunately, we find ourselves facing a redefinition of its meaning because, frankly, we have already redefined it in ways that make it hard to defend against the current demands for recognition of same-sex "marriage". Nonetheless, a conservative must defend marriage not merely because it reinforces the social and moral order, but because it is a core component of it. Anyone who makes a "conservative" case for marriage including same-sex couples is ignorant (at best) of what conservatism is. And that's true even if he is managing editor of the National Review.
To be a conservative is to work to conserve the moral and social order and the institutions that maintain it. You cannot be a conservative and be opposed to the state doing anything while the moral order and social order are overturned. Libertarianism, whether sexual or economic in its manifestation, therefore, is not conservative when it results in the the organized community standing by and doing nothing while the every man and every woman does whatever he or she pleases in his or her sexual or economic life, the consequences to the social and moral order be damned.
Conservativism is not, on the other hand, opposed to change, but in fact will support necessary changes in secondary matters in order to conserve the primary ones, the social and moral order. Thus, the laws governing economic relations had to change from what they were in an agrarian society to meet the changes wrought by the industrial revolution and the revolution in corporate law ushered in in the mid-19th century by men like Rockefeller.
To the article you cite, marriage is a core component of the moral and social order, not some secondary or tertiary matter. Unfortunately, we find ourselves facing a redefinition of its meaning because, frankly, we have already redefined it in ways that make it hard to defend against the current demands for recognition of same-sex "marriage". Nonetheless, a conservative must defend marriage not merely because it reinforces the social and moral order, but because it is a core component of it. Anyone who makes a "conservative" case for marriage including same-sex couples is ignorant (at best) of what conservatism is. And that's true even if he is managing editor of the National Review.
4.11.2011 | 10:57am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Sorry for the typos. I kept getting interrupted as I typed. I should have proofed before posting. I think you can get the point, however.
4.11.2011 | 10:59am
A. Bailey says:
Boy, am I ever confused. Because I honor the traditional role of marriage, I thought that makes a conservative, at least on social issues. I guess what it really means is that I wantonly favor government intervention into our daily lives, and that I should be an ardent supporter of Obamacare.
Who knew?
Who knew?
4.11.2011 | 11:41am
Richard says:
"It is a matter for the law to regulate. With marriage as with abortion, the conservative, concerned with the civil order, and therefore with the moral order, and with walking in the fathers’ path, would hold that this was a matter for the law to regulate."
Sure... presuming the "law" that is passed is done so according to the Constitution and legislated laws by elected representatives of the populace. When those laws are then passed it amounts to essentially "public morality" which, of course, many conservatives and Catholics disagree with. What is disturbing is the tendency for these conservatives to work to force their morality on the public in spite of the due course of the existing law.
Sure... presuming the "law" that is passed is done so according to the Constitution and legislated laws by elected representatives of the populace. When those laws are then passed it amounts to essentially "public morality" which, of course, many conservatives and Catholics disagree with. What is disturbing is the tendency for these conservatives to work to force their morality on the public in spite of the due course of the existing law.
4.11.2011 | 12:27pm
Colin says:
How, Mr Devet, is Distributism "self contradictory?"
Distributism has nothing to do with the welfare state. It is neither on the Left, nor the Right. It is, I think (as its founders would claim), a third way.
A Catholic way.
Distributism has nothing to do with the welfare state. It is neither on the Left, nor the Right. It is, I think (as its founders would claim), a third way.
A Catholic way.
4.11.2011 | 12:35pm
Stuart Koehl says:
David,
As has been noted before, one cannot simply define "conservatism" because there are many kinds of conservatism which vary from place to place and culture to culture. European conservatism and American conservatism are two very different animals. And, of course, going by the formal definition of conservatism as defense of the status quo, today it is the left which, being in control of the key institutions of society, which must be considered the conservative faction.
But, ignoring that and looking to varieties of political philosophy described as "conservative", one must note immediately the vast difference between traditional European conservatism (and even its bastard children, "Christian Democracy" and "New Conservatism"), and the varieties of conservatism found in the United States.
European conservatism in its bones tends to be pessimistic, authoritarian, the "country and church" party whose principal concern is maintenance of the established social order, and thus suspicious of democracy, capitalism and entrepreneurship, and social mobility (note that while many European conservatives tend to be quite wealthy, the sources of their wealth tend to be inherited and the accumulation of their wealth is accomplished through closed relationships with other wealthy families and the government).
Now, in the United States, those most seriously disposed to that version of conservatism were expelled at the end of the American Revolution. We called them Tories, and that's as good a name as any to describe this type of conservative. There are very few of them in this country, and they tend to be imports, like John Derbyshire, who even after decades of living in this country, have only a sketchy understanding of the national psyche.
So-called "Paleo-Conservatives" may look like Tories, but in general they are far more optimistic and libertarian than their European counterparts. European conservatives (true Tories) really don't mind extensive government intrusion into the private sphere--indeed, they welcome it as a means of social control, as long as society is being controlled in ways of which they approve. Paleo-conservatives, on the other hand, might be described as the heirs of Thomas Jefferson, with some important caveats. Like Jefferson, they are suspicious of urbanism and moneyed interests, banks, international trade and globalism, and of overarching Federal authority. They tend to be isolationist in foreign policy, and favor states rights in domestic policy. Unlike Jefferson, they favor protectionist economic policies, and they also approve of government intervention to uphold conventional morality. Unlike Jefferson, many of them are overtly religious, mainly Christian.
Mainstream American conservatism would not be recognized in Europe, because it represents a continuation of the "Liberal" tradition in European politics: focused on the middle class, commercial, entrepreneurial, and libertarian. Mainstream conservatism wants government out of people's lives, particularly their economic affairs, and has a laissez faire attitude towards social issues, believing that people must take responsibility for their own actions. They believe that, without government intervention and support, most of what they consider deviant behavior would largely disappear due to its own self destructiveness. While the entrepreneurial bent of mainstream conservatives inclines them towards free trade and globalism, they insist that government ensure them a level playing field, but at the same time are incipiently isolationist (war being bad for business).
The so-called Neo-Conservatives are the heirs of late 19th century liberals with a dash of progressivism thrown in. They most decidedly are not Trotskyites manque, but a synthesis of forces that came together with the collapse of classic (anti-communist) liberalism in the late 1960s. They are mainly distinguished by a sense of American exceptionalism and a recognition that robust internationalism is the only way of ensuring not only world order, but a degree of social justice in the face of manifold oppressive forces that, ultimately, would prove a mortal threat to the United States. Economically, they are commercial and entrepreneurial, globalist and free market. Social issues interest them only to the extent that they affect the strength and stability of the country, which inclines them to support traditional values and morality, though they prefer to do it through a process of incentives rather than government sanctions. Overall, they tend towards a moderate libertarianism. They may appear not to be particularly religious, since many of them are Jewish of a reform bent, but they do support religion as one of the pillars of a strong nation, and oppose efforts to strip faith out of the public square.
Certainly a lot more can be written on this subject (and has), but for the debate to have any meaning, the distinction between European and American varieties of conservatism, and the differences within the American conservative movement, must be taken into account.
As has been noted before, one cannot simply define "conservatism" because there are many kinds of conservatism which vary from place to place and culture to culture. European conservatism and American conservatism are two very different animals. And, of course, going by the formal definition of conservatism as defense of the status quo, today it is the left which, being in control of the key institutions of society, which must be considered the conservative faction.
But, ignoring that and looking to varieties of political philosophy described as "conservative", one must note immediately the vast difference between traditional European conservatism (and even its bastard children, "Christian Democracy" and "New Conservatism"), and the varieties of conservatism found in the United States.
European conservatism in its bones tends to be pessimistic, authoritarian, the "country and church" party whose principal concern is maintenance of the established social order, and thus suspicious of democracy, capitalism and entrepreneurship, and social mobility (note that while many European conservatives tend to be quite wealthy, the sources of their wealth tend to be inherited and the accumulation of their wealth is accomplished through closed relationships with other wealthy families and the government).
Now, in the United States, those most seriously disposed to that version of conservatism were expelled at the end of the American Revolution. We called them Tories, and that's as good a name as any to describe this type of conservative. There are very few of them in this country, and they tend to be imports, like John Derbyshire, who even after decades of living in this country, have only a sketchy understanding of the national psyche.
So-called "Paleo-Conservatives" may look like Tories, but in general they are far more optimistic and libertarian than their European counterparts. European conservatives (true Tories) really don't mind extensive government intrusion into the private sphere--indeed, they welcome it as a means of social control, as long as society is being controlled in ways of which they approve. Paleo-conservatives, on the other hand, might be described as the heirs of Thomas Jefferson, with some important caveats. Like Jefferson, they are suspicious of urbanism and moneyed interests, banks, international trade and globalism, and of overarching Federal authority. They tend to be isolationist in foreign policy, and favor states rights in domestic policy. Unlike Jefferson, they favor protectionist economic policies, and they also approve of government intervention to uphold conventional morality. Unlike Jefferson, many of them are overtly religious, mainly Christian.
Mainstream American conservatism would not be recognized in Europe, because it represents a continuation of the "Liberal" tradition in European politics: focused on the middle class, commercial, entrepreneurial, and libertarian. Mainstream conservatism wants government out of people's lives, particularly their economic affairs, and has a laissez faire attitude towards social issues, believing that people must take responsibility for their own actions. They believe that, without government intervention and support, most of what they consider deviant behavior would largely disappear due to its own self destructiveness. While the entrepreneurial bent of mainstream conservatives inclines them towards free trade and globalism, they insist that government ensure them a level playing field, but at the same time are incipiently isolationist (war being bad for business).
The so-called Neo-Conservatives are the heirs of late 19th century liberals with a dash of progressivism thrown in. They most decidedly are not Trotskyites manque, but a synthesis of forces that came together with the collapse of classic (anti-communist) liberalism in the late 1960s. They are mainly distinguished by a sense of American exceptionalism and a recognition that robust internationalism is the only way of ensuring not only world order, but a degree of social justice in the face of manifold oppressive forces that, ultimately, would prove a mortal threat to the United States. Economically, they are commercial and entrepreneurial, globalist and free market. Social issues interest them only to the extent that they affect the strength and stability of the country, which inclines them to support traditional values and morality, though they prefer to do it through a process of incentives rather than government sanctions. Overall, they tend towards a moderate libertarianism. They may appear not to be particularly religious, since many of them are Jewish of a reform bent, but they do support religion as one of the pillars of a strong nation, and oppose efforts to strip faith out of the public square.
Certainly a lot more can be written on this subject (and has), but for the debate to have any meaning, the distinction between European and American varieties of conservatism, and the differences within the American conservative movement, must be taken into account.
4.11.2011 | 12:53pm
Fred says:
Richard,
In various cultures at various times "public morality" has included slavery, genocide, female circumcision, "Suttee" or the burning of widows on their husbands' funeral pyres, and cannibalism just to name a few. By your logic, the 19th century abolitionists were wrong to impose "their" morality regarding slavery on the South; the allies were wrong to impose "their" morality on the German people with World War II, the British were wrong to impose "their" morality on the Indians etc. Even any indigenous reformers in one of the cultures mentioned above would be wrong to struggle to impose "their" morality on their own people. Morality is not a democracy. There are things that are wrong _simpliciter_. It is right to resist and try to change those things regardless of how many "votes" they have.
In various cultures at various times "public morality" has included slavery, genocide, female circumcision, "Suttee" or the burning of widows on their husbands' funeral pyres, and cannibalism just to name a few. By your logic, the 19th century abolitionists were wrong to impose "their" morality regarding slavery on the South; the allies were wrong to impose "their" morality on the German people with World War II, the British were wrong to impose "their" morality on the Indians etc. Even any indigenous reformers in one of the cultures mentioned above would be wrong to struggle to impose "their" morality on their own people. Morality is not a democracy. There are things that are wrong _simpliciter_. It is right to resist and try to change those things regardless of how many "votes" they have.
4.11.2011 | 1:24pm
Henry James says:
So in effect? The conservative actually wants VERY, VERY BIG government; a government that will force its morality, on everyone else.
But is that good?
People in the Tea Party forget History; they forget that there were in recent history, TWO forms of big government. The first one was, to be sure 1) the Liberal - or better said, Communist - form.
But the other? The other was 2) the CONSERVATIVE form of BIG government: the patriotic, pro-military, pro-troops nationalist police state. The state that uses raw force, not persuasion, to run the world; with the miltary. And then to run the domestic state? It emplys "law and order," strong prisons, laws, police.
Those conservatives who fear big government from Obama or the Left, should take a longer, harder look, at themselves.
As Jesus said: always look for the "beam in you own eye," before you criticize others.
But is that good?
People in the Tea Party forget History; they forget that there were in recent history, TWO forms of big government. The first one was, to be sure 1) the Liberal - or better said, Communist - form.
But the other? The other was 2) the CONSERVATIVE form of BIG government: the patriotic, pro-military, pro-troops nationalist police state. The state that uses raw force, not persuasion, to run the world; with the miltary. And then to run the domestic state? It emplys "law and order," strong prisons, laws, police.
Those conservatives who fear big government from Obama or the Left, should take a longer, harder look, at themselves.
As Jesus said: always look for the "beam in you own eye," before you criticize others.
4.11.2011 | 1:47pm
Ars Artium says:
In an article by Midge Decter (First Things, October l995) entitled "A Jew in Anti-Christian America," a very interesting subject in its own right, the writer includes comments on liberals and the development of what is termed "neoconservatism".
A new "force ... just waiting to spring on the American Zeitgeist" appeared in the early sixties and provided a liberating sense that "life need no longer be constrained." Everything was thought possible. As regards long standing traditions, the response was "So what?" "Life need no longer be constrained." Goodbye to the "bounded and limiting view of life that had been our (Jews and Christians and others of good will) natural birthright."
As certain liberals, of whom Ms. Decter was one, came to understand the nature of this rejection, this "no mere difference of opinion, but rather a deep and to this day ever deepening, schism," they recognized the seriousness of our new situation. "... the neoconservatives believed that justice and freedom as defined by the [1960;s] young and their middle-aged camp followers were at best caricatures and at worst outright perversions of those terms ...".
The article is thought-provoking, worth reading. I have referred to it in support of my intuition that the old categories - liberal and conservative - are no longer useful. Midge Decter observes that if anything can be "conserved," it will in fact have to be rebuilt from scratch."
In the meantime another "ever-present" temptation has appeared. The iron fist underneath the velvet glove of radical cultural change. Thinly veiled, right beneath the surface, one senses in certain (not all) radical thinkers who now hold power, that we can do (or even think) what they demand voluntarily or we will be made to do it by force. This force is not overtly violent. It simply changes the law and requires submission on question of profound philosophical and theological significance.
Be that as it may, the old definitions no longer seem useful. We are going to have to re-define "by the sweat of our brow" the things that were formerly taken for granted.
A new "force ... just waiting to spring on the American Zeitgeist" appeared in the early sixties and provided a liberating sense that "life need no longer be constrained." Everything was thought possible. As regards long standing traditions, the response was "So what?" "Life need no longer be constrained." Goodbye to the "bounded and limiting view of life that had been our (Jews and Christians and others of good will) natural birthright."
As certain liberals, of whom Ms. Decter was one, came to understand the nature of this rejection, this "no mere difference of opinion, but rather a deep and to this day ever deepening, schism," they recognized the seriousness of our new situation. "... the neoconservatives believed that justice and freedom as defined by the [1960;s] young and their middle-aged camp followers were at best caricatures and at worst outright perversions of those terms ...".
The article is thought-provoking, worth reading. I have referred to it in support of my intuition that the old categories - liberal and conservative - are no longer useful. Midge Decter observes that if anything can be "conserved," it will in fact have to be rebuilt from scratch."
In the meantime another "ever-present" temptation has appeared. The iron fist underneath the velvet glove of radical cultural change. Thinly veiled, right beneath the surface, one senses in certain (not all) radical thinkers who now hold power, that we can do (or even think) what they demand voluntarily or we will be made to do it by force. This force is not overtly violent. It simply changes the law and requires submission on question of profound philosophical and theological significance.
Be that as it may, the old definitions no longer seem useful. We are going to have to re-define "by the sweat of our brow" the things that were formerly taken for granted.
4.11.2011 | 2:08pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
I disagree with Stuart's assessment that paleo-conservatives are the heirs to Jefferson. We are not, we are the heirs to Washington, Hamilton, the Adamses, the American Whigs and the early Republicans. Jefferson's heirs are the libertarians, who may fancy themselves as being conservative, but are not. Today's liberals are the heirs of the progressives, primarily Bryan and Wilson. Conservatives by their nature are not ideologues as are both libertarians and liberals. Again, conservatism is not so much a dogma as a way of life.
As to Henry James, conservatives don't want "VERY, VERY BIG government." Once again, we are treated with the false dichotomy: libertarianism or statism. In fact, both are extreme positions. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity and our founders' principle of a federal system, with some issues handled by a national government and others by state and local government and still others by the family, depending on the nature of the issue, its impact on society and the location best able to address the issue is both the conservative and the balanced approach.
Let's take abortion. Before January 22, 1973, states governed the law related to abortion. On that date, the federal government, through the Supreme Court, usurped that role and imposed a libertarian solution through statist means. Today, many pro-lifers, want the federal government to retain that control and mandate a national solution which would ban most abortions. Neither what the court did in 1973 nor what pro-lifers who want to do is conservative. A conservative solution would be to return the issue to the states.
Our founders did not envision a libertarian democracy. That is plain from how they governed. For example, the Bill of Rights restricted only the national government (e.g., "Congress shall make no law . . . .); it did not restrict state governments. In the early republic, there were established churches in some of the states (e.g., Connecticut until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833). States could and did restrict free of speech. The founders were not opposed to such state regulations. In fact, many of them were part of state governments that enacted them. What they opposed were national regulations.
One does not have to be a states rightist to favor such an arrangement. I cannot help but believe that Washington, Hamilton and the Adamses would have strongly opposed the concentration of power which now exists in the national government. But, if their actions while state lawmakers are evidence, they also would have opposed a libertarian state response to moral and social issues. The founders, who strengthened the national government by dispensing with the Article of Confederation and replacing it with the United States Constitution, were not bound by the either/or false dichotomy which Mr. James and so many other self-styled conservatives present. They were as wary of an ungoverned mass as they were by a too-powerful central government. There solution was federalism. We would do well to return it. And doing so would, in fact, be the conservative approach.
As to Henry James, conservatives don't want "VERY, VERY BIG government." Once again, we are treated with the false dichotomy: libertarianism or statism. In fact, both are extreme positions. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity and our founders' principle of a federal system, with some issues handled by a national government and others by state and local government and still others by the family, depending on the nature of the issue, its impact on society and the location best able to address the issue is both the conservative and the balanced approach.
Let's take abortion. Before January 22, 1973, states governed the law related to abortion. On that date, the federal government, through the Supreme Court, usurped that role and imposed a libertarian solution through statist means. Today, many pro-lifers, want the federal government to retain that control and mandate a national solution which would ban most abortions. Neither what the court did in 1973 nor what pro-lifers who want to do is conservative. A conservative solution would be to return the issue to the states.
Our founders did not envision a libertarian democracy. That is plain from how they governed. For example, the Bill of Rights restricted only the national government (e.g., "Congress shall make no law . . . .); it did not restrict state governments. In the early republic, there were established churches in some of the states (e.g., Connecticut until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833). States could and did restrict free of speech. The founders were not opposed to such state regulations. In fact, many of them were part of state governments that enacted them. What they opposed were national regulations.
One does not have to be a states rightist to favor such an arrangement. I cannot help but believe that Washington, Hamilton and the Adamses would have strongly opposed the concentration of power which now exists in the national government. But, if their actions while state lawmakers are evidence, they also would have opposed a libertarian state response to moral and social issues. The founders, who strengthened the national government by dispensing with the Article of Confederation and replacing it with the United States Constitution, were not bound by the either/or false dichotomy which Mr. James and so many other self-styled conservatives present. They were as wary of an ungoverned mass as they were by a too-powerful central government. There solution was federalism. We would do well to return it. And doing so would, in fact, be the conservative approach.
4.11.2011 | 3:57pm
Richard says:
Fred:
You reeled off a list of clearly objectionable and morally wrong group behaviors. I don't think most of them took place or were condoned by a democracy. Slavery is your best argument, but was legal in the sense that while practiced in one section of the country, the democracy, it was barely tolerated by the other section of the country and led to a civil war.
Your morality "simpliciter" is your arrogant way of saying you know what is moral and what isn't and folks like me are simply wrong. While I believe, for example, that abortion is wrong, I don't place it next to the worst mortal sins like folks that think like you do. In truth it is really some kind of test or benchmark for the current Church to weed out the impure.
You reeled off a list of clearly objectionable and morally wrong group behaviors. I don't think most of them took place or were condoned by a democracy. Slavery is your best argument, but was legal in the sense that while practiced in one section of the country, the democracy, it was barely tolerated by the other section of the country and led to a civil war.
Your morality "simpliciter" is your arrogant way of saying you know what is moral and what isn't and folks like me are simply wrong. While I believe, for example, that abortion is wrong, I don't place it next to the worst mortal sins like folks that think like you do. In truth it is really some kind of test or benchmark for the current Church to weed out the impure.
4.11.2011 | 4:50pm
Torontonian says:
Stuart,
Your tidy summary of the American conservatisms is quite accurate. And the Tories who fled the American Revolution became the backbone, along with the British monarchy, of the Canadian political system: "peace, order, good government." Politically, Canadians gather themselves across a free-market yet collectivist spectrum which has both Tory (preserving order harmony and "Canadian" values) and Obama-style liberalism, a meld of sexual libertarianism, economic constraints, and mild socialism. A Canadian is one who elects either a Tory or liberal party to get programs championed by socialists.
Your tidy summary of the American conservatisms is quite accurate. And the Tories who fled the American Revolution became the backbone, along with the British monarchy, of the Canadian political system: "peace, order, good government." Politically, Canadians gather themselves across a free-market yet collectivist spectrum which has both Tory (preserving order harmony and "Canadian" values) and Obama-style liberalism, a meld of sexual libertarianism, economic constraints, and mild socialism. A Canadian is one who elects either a Tory or liberal party to get programs championed by socialists.
4.11.2011 | 6:32pm
KDZ says:
It does matter what conservatism is. But what should that be? That's what is interesting about the matter of Jason Lee Steorts. According to paleocons, conservatism's flagship journal, and Mr. Steorts's employer, has long since left behind its own tradition of American conservatism. Some of them say this happened in the early '80s, and they have various theories about it. All of them agree that Russell Kirk, James Burnham, etc. would be startled by NR's current (neoconservative) instantiation.
My own belief is that NR is like the prodigal son who--in due course, as WFB might say--will return chastened to his family. This doesn't mean the new old NR will necessarily side with paleocons, especially on foreign policy, but it does mean paleos will no longer be vilified and regarded as outcasts by "mainstream" conservatives. A good start can be made by recognizing that, after the Civil War, America became too centralized in its government and too habituated to Big Business. All conservatives ought to agree on this, even if they do not agree on the reasons for it.
My own belief is that NR is like the prodigal son who--in due course, as WFB might say--will return chastened to his family. This doesn't mean the new old NR will necessarily side with paleocons, especially on foreign policy, but it does mean paleos will no longer be vilified and regarded as outcasts by "mainstream" conservatives. A good start can be made by recognizing that, after the Civil War, America became too centralized in its government and too habituated to Big Business. All conservatives ought to agree on this, even if they do not agree on the reasons for it.
4.11.2011 | 7:13pm
Dan says:
Political parties should be "sliced and diced" into their constituencies. No one is just a "conservative." Mr. Koehl has a nice catalogue of the varied species under the genus "Conservative." Again, these parties are largely coalitions. The Moral Majority was a different coalition than the Reaganites, etc.
The point is that the prominent views of leaders of the movement must require internal debate, and for the past two decades, internal conservative debate was minimal. Also, who gets to be identified as "leader" should be debated: do Catholic conservatives really want Fr. Sirico as the main interpreter of social justice theories on EWTN, etc? If the conservatives are really going to maintain any sense of representing the middle class, is Grover Norquist going to continue his mainstream rise in the Republican party, a man who has publically indicated disparagingly of middle class "entitlements?"
For decades, liberals have been easily splintered into their assorted coalitions. As a consequence, motivating and appealing to them all to participate has been a challenge for the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party, more accustomed to telling its coalitions to "shut up and follow," may need the internal jockeying to identify its priorities. Failing to do that will result in more "mainstreaming" of libertarian thought in the party, with consequences social conservatives will find displeasing.
The point is that the prominent views of leaders of the movement must require internal debate, and for the past two decades, internal conservative debate was minimal. Also, who gets to be identified as "leader" should be debated: do Catholic conservatives really want Fr. Sirico as the main interpreter of social justice theories on EWTN, etc? If the conservatives are really going to maintain any sense of representing the middle class, is Grover Norquist going to continue his mainstream rise in the Republican party, a man who has publically indicated disparagingly of middle class "entitlements?"
For decades, liberals have been easily splintered into their assorted coalitions. As a consequence, motivating and appealing to them all to participate has been a challenge for the Democratic Party.
The Republican Party, more accustomed to telling its coalitions to "shut up and follow," may need the internal jockeying to identify its priorities. Failing to do that will result in more "mainstreaming" of libertarian thought in the party, with consequences social conservatives will find displeasing.
4.11.2011 | 7:16pm
Dan says:
Oh...about abortion: it was a "conservative" solution. If every Democratically appointed justice stepped out of the room to use the john during the voting for Roe v Wade, the conservatives who voted for Roe would have still won the decision. Such was conservatism at that time.
4.11.2011 | 7:42pm
Joe DeVet says:
Colin,
The self-contrariness of Distributism can be found in the first 3 words of a popular description of it by GKC, perhaps its most prominent advocate. The description begins, "Give a man..." There follows a number of options--a house, a small shop on Main Street, or a subsistence farm. This begs the questions: (1) Who does the giving? (2) Who owned the property before? (3) What is expected of the man to whom the property is given?
The answer to (1) must be a central government. No other entity has the power over property, which must be forcibly taken from the one who earned it, to give to the new small farmer/businessman/homeowner. D claims to eschew big government, to embody subsidiarity. However, D can't even get started without a tyrannical land policy.
The answer to (2) is the one who earned it. D claims to be built on property, but it can only begin by taking property unjustly from its rightful owner. GKC says that under D a "man can stand on his own two feet, because he will be standing on his own land." But he knows it's not his, because he did not earn it. He also knows that it's not his, because the State can take it from him as arbitrarily as it did the previous owner. Thus, Distributism, while claiming to be built on property, actually destroys property.
The answer to (3) is he is expected to take care of himself with it. But not too well. If he is a high achiever, and seeks to expand his business by building a larger store or a chain, or by buying the failed farm of his neighbor who never was suited for subsistence farming, the D system forbids it. D claims to be a free system, but it constrains everything to be small. It claims to offer prosperity, but its inefficient (government-controlled) means of distributing resources is, in fact, a formula for widespread poverty.
D claims to respect private property, and to be the antithesis of socialism. But D is a kissin' cousin of socialism, because, like socialism, it could only come about through a strong central government restricting economic activity.
Distributism is neither Right, nor Left, it is true. Nor is it center, nor is it anywhere. It is simply unworkable, and in truth does not exist,and cannot exist. One speaks of Distributism's "founders", but there is no actual system anywhere. Thus, there are no founders, only utopian dreamers.
The self-contrariness of Distributism can be found in the first 3 words of a popular description of it by GKC, perhaps its most prominent advocate. The description begins, "Give a man..." There follows a number of options--a house, a small shop on Main Street, or a subsistence farm. This begs the questions: (1) Who does the giving? (2) Who owned the property before? (3) What is expected of the man to whom the property is given?
The answer to (1) must be a central government. No other entity has the power over property, which must be forcibly taken from the one who earned it, to give to the new small farmer/businessman/homeowner. D claims to eschew big government, to embody subsidiarity. However, D can't even get started without a tyrannical land policy.
The answer to (2) is the one who earned it. D claims to be built on property, but it can only begin by taking property unjustly from its rightful owner. GKC says that under D a "man can stand on his own two feet, because he will be standing on his own land." But he knows it's not his, because he did not earn it. He also knows that it's not his, because the State can take it from him as arbitrarily as it did the previous owner. Thus, Distributism, while claiming to be built on property, actually destroys property.
The answer to (3) is he is expected to take care of himself with it. But not too well. If he is a high achiever, and seeks to expand his business by building a larger store or a chain, or by buying the failed farm of his neighbor who never was suited for subsistence farming, the D system forbids it. D claims to be a free system, but it constrains everything to be small. It claims to offer prosperity, but its inefficient (government-controlled) means of distributing resources is, in fact, a formula for widespread poverty.
D claims to respect private property, and to be the antithesis of socialism. But D is a kissin' cousin of socialism, because, like socialism, it could only come about through a strong central government restricting economic activity.
Distributism is neither Right, nor Left, it is true. Nor is it center, nor is it anywhere. It is simply unworkable, and in truth does not exist,and cannot exist. One speaks of Distributism's "founders", but there is no actual system anywhere. Thus, there are no founders, only utopian dreamers.
4.11.2011 | 8:05pm
Fred says:
Richard,
Slavery, as you say, certainly did take place in a democracy. Keep in mind also, Hitler was elected chancellor in 1936; the democratic government of Iraq persecutes Christians, the democratically elected Hamas blows up school children and drops rockets (or tries to) in civilian areas. In short, democracy is, as I said, no guarantee of morality. You also misinterpret my use of morality simpliciter. You said as much yourself when you conceded that some acts are "clearly objectionable and morally wrong group behaviors." That is precisely what I meant by wrong "simpliciter." By the clear logic of your first comment, no acts in accord with "public morality" could be considered immoral. Any attempt to change "public morality," at least any attempt using force of law, is an illegitimate "imposition" of "your" morality. I reject your moral relativism. There is no "your" morality or "my" morality or "their" morality. There is only morality. To talk about morality in the absence of an objective moral order makes as much sense as talking about science in the absence of an objective physical order.
Slavery, as you say, certainly did take place in a democracy. Keep in mind also, Hitler was elected chancellor in 1936; the democratic government of Iraq persecutes Christians, the democratically elected Hamas blows up school children and drops rockets (or tries to) in civilian areas. In short, democracy is, as I said, no guarantee of morality. You also misinterpret my use of morality simpliciter. You said as much yourself when you conceded that some acts are "clearly objectionable and morally wrong group behaviors." That is precisely what I meant by wrong "simpliciter." By the clear logic of your first comment, no acts in accord with "public morality" could be considered immoral. Any attempt to change "public morality," at least any attempt using force of law, is an illegitimate "imposition" of "your" morality. I reject your moral relativism. There is no "your" morality or "my" morality or "their" morality. There is only morality. To talk about morality in the absence of an objective moral order makes as much sense as talking about science in the absence of an objective physical order.
4.11.2011 | 11:38pm
Richard says:
Sure there is objective morality. Someone planning and implementing taking another's life with not a hint of self defense involved. But your "relativism" hogwash typically refers to less clear moral situations such as the termination of the pregnancy in Phoenix that has been so rigorously discussed. You, The Church, the Bishop and all the theologians can tell me and many like me that the medical procedure was immoral and so decided by the "objective morality." We simply don't agree with you. Does that make us immoral? I don't believe so. And you know what else??? The MAJORITY doesn't agree with you. And the majority believes in many cases abortion is wrong. That is public morality. And it is something you have to accept to live and participate in the democracy. You can always have your own private morality and make your own decisions about how you live your life.
4.12.2011 | 2:45am
In Joculus Veritas says:
Steorts, along no doubt with most of your readers, have fallen for the utterly false notion that there is such a thing as "homosexuality." If there were, then there would also be beastisexuality, paedisexuality, unisexuality, etc. A few of us see only "gay" sex , bestiality, paederasty, self love, etc., i.e., behavior, rather than a variety of intrinsic states. Before you consign me to the fringe, just consider how Afghan mujahidin, prisoners, etc. behave. Are they "gay"? Humans have free will, and at the same time exceedingly high levels of neuroplasticity: we have the ability to train ourselves to be a wide range of things, good and bad.
Defend the family and traditional marriage!
Defend the family and traditional marriage!
4.12.2011 | 7:27am
patricksarsfield says:
The difference between "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage" is that the state has a strong reason for regulating and safeguarding traditional marriage with its potential for the creation of human life (which gets very attenuated when the marrying heterosexual couple is older, but let's not forget Isaac and Sarah). On the other hand, "gay marriage" has no potential--zero, zilch, nada-- for the creation of human life no matter where one "partner" inserts whatever in the other.
The concept of "wedlock" is that spouses are to stay faithful to one another to ensure that the offspring of the mother are the offspring of the father and vice-versa. "Homosexual wedlock" by contrast would, ipso facto, be barren wedlock. In fact, the only way either partner could sire or dam offspring would be by breaking wedlock and having intercourse with (or otherwise depositing or accepting seed to/from) some stranger to the wed"lock."
So, the remaining reason for public support for "gay marriage" would be to foster what the author calls “maximal experiential union,” whatever that is. If that is the reason for state regulation, though, the question becomes: why should the state be putting its secular "rosaries on someone's ovaries" to use the indelicate leftist phrase? If the public purpose of protection of offspring is irrelevant to protection of "gay wedlock" why should the state be getting involved at all? (And don't say equal protection because "gay wedlock" is not the equivalent of heterosexual wedlock as shown above).
The concept of "wedlock" is that spouses are to stay faithful to one another to ensure that the offspring of the mother are the offspring of the father and vice-versa. "Homosexual wedlock" by contrast would, ipso facto, be barren wedlock. In fact, the only way either partner could sire or dam offspring would be by breaking wedlock and having intercourse with (or otherwise depositing or accepting seed to/from) some stranger to the wed"lock."
So, the remaining reason for public support for "gay marriage" would be to foster what the author calls “maximal experiential union,” whatever that is. If that is the reason for state regulation, though, the question becomes: why should the state be putting its secular "rosaries on someone's ovaries" to use the indelicate leftist phrase? If the public purpose of protection of offspring is irrelevant to protection of "gay wedlock" why should the state be getting involved at all? (And don't say equal protection because "gay wedlock" is not the equivalent of heterosexual wedlock as shown above).
4.12.2011 | 7:29am
R. Dreher says:
One clarifying question that might be asked of all claiming to be conservative is: "What do you want to conserve?"
As for myself, I agree with Russell Kirk that the most important thing to conserve is the family. That is by no means the only important thing worth conserving, but to my mind, a reasonable and healthy politics ought to be oriented around protecting the traditional family. If that means giving ground on economic liberty (say) in a particular context, then theoretically I would be willing to do that. Others may disagree, but at least the question helps us to consider the ends of our politics.
The problem with too many people who call themselves conservatives is that the answer they come up with is, "Freedom." This presupposes a definition of the human person that I find hard to square with anything called conservatism.
As for myself, I agree with Russell Kirk that the most important thing to conserve is the family. That is by no means the only important thing worth conserving, but to my mind, a reasonable and healthy politics ought to be oriented around protecting the traditional family. If that means giving ground on economic liberty (say) in a particular context, then theoretically I would be willing to do that. Others may disagree, but at least the question helps us to consider the ends of our politics.
The problem with too many people who call themselves conservatives is that the answer they come up with is, "Freedom." This presupposes a definition of the human person that I find hard to square with anything called conservatism.
4.12.2011 | 4:52pm
Mark Rutledge says:
This calls to mind a tangential point, that a brief window of opportunity exists for the conservative movement to establish itself as the dominant political philosophy within American culture. The brand of liberalism ushered in on the heels of the sexual revolution has run its course and is slowly dying. It retaints potency through the assent of the media and will still do so for some time. The new threat to American culture and society is the new libertarianism, which at its core suffers from utopianism as does contemporary liberalism. Where the contemporary liberal believes he can change human nature by the force of his will, the libertarian refuses to acknowledge human nature. Either way, those urges and impulses are not taken to account when we find ourselves debating how to conduct our business in the public square. The conservative Catholic has a healthy understanding of man's sinful nature, our limitations, and what it takes to overcome this nature. We cannot call forth God's grace by legislation or decree, but we will likely not make use of it by pretending it is not necessary.
5.5.2011 | 2:08am
Kabler Carlita says:
The article is thought-provoking, worth reading. I have referred to it in support of my intuition that the old categories - liberal and conservative - are no longer useful. Midge Decter observes that if anything can be "conserved," it will in fact have to be rebuilt from scratch." To be a conservative is to work to conserve the moral and social order and the institutions that maintain it. You cannot be a conservative and be opposed to the state doing anything while the moral order and social order are overturned. Libertarianism, whether sexual or economic in its manifestation, therefore, is not conservative when it results in the the organized community standing by and doing nothing while the every man and every woman does whatever he or she pleases in his or her sexual or economic life, the consequences to the social and moral order be damned.
5.16.2011 | 10:33am
Ethyl Puppy says:
In various cultures at various times "public morality" has included slavery, genocide, female circumcision, "Suttee" or the burning of widows on their husbands' funeral pyres, and cannibalism just to name a few. By your logic, the 19th century abolitionists were wrong to impose "their" morality regarding slavery on the South; the allies were wrong to impose "their" morality on the German people with World War II, the British were wrong to impose "their" morality on the Indians etc. Even any indigenous reformers in one of the cultures mentioned above would be wrong to struggle to impose "their" morality on their own people. Morality is not a democracy. There are things that are wrong _simpliciter_. It is right to resist and try to change those things regardless of how many "votes" they have. Distributism has nothing to do with the welfare state. It is neither on the Left, nor the Right. It is, I think (as its founders would claim), a third way.
11.11.2011 | 4:49pm
AKO says:
"So in effect? The conservative actually wants VERY, VERY BIG government; a government that will force its morality, on everyone else.
But is that good?"
Very good point Henry James. It seems like both sides of the spectrum want big government. Both sides, conservative and left, should take a long hard look at themselves.
But is that good?"
Very good point Henry James. It seems like both sides of the spectrum want big government. Both sides, conservative and left, should take a long hard look at themselves.
I think though it is foolish to discount the extent libertarianism has infected conservative thought. It provides the rationale, even often the ethical, back-bone to much of discussion of raising taxes on the wealthy, the current budget debate, the role of regulatatory structures on business like the EPA and the SEC, and any role of the government in social projects.
Gone are the days when a leading Republican like Bob Dole would ever lower the requirements for federal food stamp issuance, a cause embraced by this Senator.
Conservatives seem to lack a little insight into the varied factions driving and manipulated within their own movement. Republicans and conservatives alike discuss small government, have close relationships with Grover Norquist, and have promoted a counter philosophy to big government. This is mainstream Repubicanism, in a way Ron Paul is not. I am not a conservative, and these are the leaders and arguments that predominate in your movement. Any sense of Bob Dole-esque movements on welfare has been unthinkable for a decade, due largely to the now mainstream nature of libertarian thought.
One evidence of this is the discourse around a national health plan. From the point of view of conservativeness, such a truly centrist program becomes labelled as "leftist" and European democracies are treated with the contempt once reserved for the Soviet Union. Conservativism, due to the libertarian influence, ends up with a language that labels a clear centrist like Obama as "radical leftist," a label that unveils more about the author of such comments than about Obama.
Couple this with the degree of Ayn Rand's influence on the intellectual pedigree of individual conservatives in America today, and you have the formula for the growth and "mainstreaming" of libertarian thought in conservative life.
With this obvious movement, I find it somewhat incredible that one can be surprised by the development of libertarian thought outside matters of fiscal and regulatory policy.