Moral Strategy the Case for Pragmatic Conservatism

7/28/2019 Moral Strategy the Case for Pragmatic Conservatism

1/14

Moral Strategy: The Case For Pragmatic Conservatism

Idealism and realism are in constant tension. From a political perspective, it is necessary for

conservatives to strike a balance between the two. Standing alone, realism all too often

shades into cynicism; idealism into flights of utopian fancy. In the end, however, we must

see the world as it is, in order to shape the world as we imagine it ought to be.

In the GOP today, the dialectic between realism and idealism manifests itself both in the

debate over the support given to more centrist candidates and in the proposals to adopt

various, so-called, litmus or purity tests. Specifically, this debate often involves arguments in

which one side focuses on electability, while the other focuses almost exclusively on

ideological purity.

Frankly, both sides miss the mark. The GOP exists both to win elections andto advance

substantive ideas and public policies. The key is to strike an appropriate balance, candidate

by candidate, race by race, between the two.

We live at a moment in history pregnant with both great opportunity andwith tremendous

peril.There is a great deal of unease, of disquiet.. offear.. abroad in the land. What our

future world will look like is still inchoate. The point of our labors then, is to make certain

that this future world will be a decent one- one in which human dignity will be respected, in

which human liberty will flourish and in which the wolf will be kept away from the door.

Now is the time formoral strategy- for an intellectually serious, pragmatic, tactically savvy,

conservatism devoid of demagoguery and utopian dreams of unattainable ideological purity

-one capable of building and sustaining a winning center-right electoral coalition both

nationally, and here in Delaware.

Thankfully, we have signposts in our past to guide us in the present.

Pointing the way ahead: Lincoln

Lincoln is, in my view, the ultimate example of a moral strategist in American political

history. The moral issue he faced, of course, was the abolition of slavery. Living in a

profoundly racist society, and in the midst of a civil war calling into doubt the future

existence of the nation he governed, Lincoln adroitly maneuvered to bring an end to that most

awful institution. In doing so, he moved cautiously, pragmatically, realistically appraising the

scope of what was politically possible at every step. Throughout the civil war, he heldtogether a diverse coalition of Radical Republicans and other, less ideologically committed

elements. In the 1850s, abolition was a utopian dream; by the 1860s, it was reality. Nothing

better demonstrates what can be accomplished through moral strategy.

A considerable diversity of opinion

In addition to Lincolns example, calls for purity/litmus tests and the purging of those

deemed ideologically suspect from the ranks of the GOP are a departure from traditional

conservatism. They are also, from a practical perspective, rather short sighted & self

destructive.
http://www.frumforum.com/bring-on-the-gop-slugfesthttp://www.frumforum.com/bring-on-the-gop-slugfesthttp://www.frumforum.com/bring-on-the-gop-slugfesthttp://www.frumforum.com/bring-on-the-gop-slugfesthttp://www.frumforum.com/bring-on-the-gop-slugfest


2/14

Historically:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses

no Holy Writ and noDas Kapitalto provide dogmata

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by asystem of ideological dogmata. The conservative movement or body of opinion can

accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test

Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

(emphasis added). Moreover, asMichael Powell has observed, a fixation on ideological

purity and litmus tests inhibits the development of new ideas because [t]he formation of

powerful ideas requires the push and pull of varying viewpoints testing and informing one

another.

From a practical standpoint, Ronald Reagan understood the imperative to build a broad,

diverse electoral coalition. He assiduously avoided litmus-test politics. Its not a coincidencethat he is remembered as one of our greatest Presidents, and there is immense irony in the

effort to co-opt his unity principle in support of the efforts to develop new purity tests for

the GOP.

Alone in the Political Wilderness

A recent example from across the pond also bears directly on the need for conservatives to

reject litmus-test politics and focus their energies on pragmatically constructing broader

coalitions. As my friend Jim DiPeso writes:

Britains Labor Party faced a situation in the 1980s that Republicans do today. Everyone-is-a-

sellout-except-us ideologues who regularly congratulated themselves on their righteousness

but lacked the political sense that God gave a billy goat grabbed hold of the Labor Party in

the early 1980s and gave it a hard left turn into comical irrelevance.

Consequently, Conservatives that had newly returned to power had an uninterrupted run at

Whitehall for another decade and a half. Margaret Thatcher broke the militant unions,

unleashed markets, and remade the dowdy old UK into cool Britannia.

When Tony Blair came along, there was no thought of reviving the Labor Partys old Militant

Tendency extremism. After the Iron Lady had finished remodeling British politics,Thatcherism had become the new normal.

The Brits were lucky. The Labor Partys self-intoxication with utopian extremism gave

Thatcher a clear political field, exactly what she needed to reverse her countrys descent into

threadbare socialism.

We wont be so lucky if we repeat the experience with our nations conservative party losing

its way at the hands of fratricidal militants who would rather be true to their brand of right-

wing radicalism than responsibly defend against the advance of statist liberalism.

It seems illogical to let an obsessive fear of center and center-right Republicans trumpconcern about the excesses of a Democrat majority that is heavily influenced by liberal
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.htmlhttp://www.frumforum.com/the-republican-party-is-on-the-precipice-of-irrelevancehttp://www.frumforum.com/the-republican-party-is-on-the-precipice-of-irrelevancehttp://www.frumforum.com/fight-dems-not-other-republicanshttp://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.htmlhttp://www.frumforum.com/the-republican-party-is-on-the-precipice-of-irrelevancehttp://www.frumforum.com/fight-dems-not-other-republicans


3/14

extremists, or to reject bipartisan compromise in favor of Democrat-only solutions. You

cannot subtract your way to a majority.

A club, not a party

According to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R- SC), those people who are pursuing purity are on acourse to become a club not a party It would be disastrous for America if conservatism

devolved into a club.

Politically speaking, settling for permanent minority status in order to achieve ideological

purity does not make you noble, it makes you irrelevant. As a conservative, I am a better

advocate for my policy positions and values within the framework of a broader, winning,

electoral coalition, then in a more ideologically pure political party composed only of those

who think exactly as I do. Saying this does not make me any less zealous an advocate for the

issues I care about; it makes me a more effective one.

Impossible things before breakfast?

The Republican victories in state-wide races in New Jersey and Massachusetts raise a

question: what is possible for the GOP in Delaware in 2010? It no longer takes an extreme

flight of fancy to imagine a Republican whose last name is not Castle or Wagner winning a

state-wide race here- if it can happen inNew Jersey, if it can happen inMassachusetts, it can

happen in Delaware.

In both New Jersey and Massachusetts, the Republicans who emerged victorious were not

ideologues, not zealots, but rather more pragmatic, centrist figures. Chris Christie even faced

a third party opponent challenging him from the right. What would the outcome inMassachusetts have been had Scott Brown faced a similar challenge?

Like Massachusetts, we have a Senate race featuring a centrist Republican running against,

probably, the hand-picked heir of a dynastic political family that seems to view public office

as a hereditary entitlement. What would the effect of a third party candidate running in the

race to the right be? Logically, it could only increase the chances ofa Biden victory. Such a

victory would, given Delawares historical penchant for re-electing incumbents, probably put

Beau Biden in the Senate for a generation. That outcome does precisely nothing to advance

the conservative agenda either here, or nationally.

The challenges we face as a people are extremely serious. Politics is not a game devoid ofconsequences. Perilous times and complex issues demanda certain modicum of maturity

from those who purport to care about the fate of the world.

We need new moral strategists, leaders capable of striking the right balance between realism

and idealism, of working pragmatically to build coalitions. Lets put away childish things,

like quests for ideological purity. After all, conciliation while maintaining core principles

is not only possible, but it also provides the most likely path to victory. Make no mistake,

we have an enormous task ahead.
http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-northeast-resurgencehttp://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-northeast-resurgencehttp://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-northeast-resurgence


4/14

Neoliberalism The ideology of pragmatism

Posted by Don Arthur on Sunday, January 23, 2011

At Larvatus Prodeo, Kim writes about The great American neoliberal liberal blogkerfuffle where blogger Freddie deBoer claims that "almost anything resembling

an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation withinthe political blogosphere".

According to deBoer "the nominal left of the blogosphere is almost exclusively

neoliberal". But Australian readers shouldnt assume they know what thismeans. The term neoliberal has a peculiar history in the United States where itoften refers to a precursor to the Third Way.

The liberalism thats being reinvented by this neoliberalism is notthe classicalliberalism of Adam Smith and John Locke as revived and reinterpreted by

thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Instead its the Americanliberalism of Franklin D Roosevelt and Lyndon B Johnson subjected to an

extreme make-over by journalists at the Washington Monthlyand the NewRepublic.

Heres how the Washington Monthlys Charles Peters described the movement in1983:

If neoconservatives are liberals who took a critical look at liberalism and decidedto become conservatives, we are liberals who took the same look and decided toretain our goals but abandon some of our prejudices. We still believe in libertyand justice and a fair chance for all, in mercy for the afflicted and help for thedown and out. But we no longer automatically favor unions and big government

or oppose the military and big business. Indeed, in our search for solutions thatwork, we have come to distrust all automatic responses, liberal or conservative.

As Ezra Klein notes, neoliberalism often looks more like a positioning device thanan honest critique of American liberalism. When Ronald Reagan came to office in

1981, liberalism had become a dirty word. So the neoliberals tried to strip awaythe most objectionable features of post 1960s liberalism the perception that it

was soft on crime, welfare dependency and national security. And they went onto attack what they saw as the Reaganites Achilles heel the ideological claimthat every problem could be solved by cutting taxes and reducing the size andscope of government.

As Nicholas Lenmann put it, neoliberals needed to remind voters thatgovernment wasnt meeting its most basic obligations : "It doesnt provide everychild with a decent free education. It doesnt adequately protect the

environment. It doesnt keep cities free of crime. It doesnt maintain the roadsand keep the military in a state of readiness."

Neoliberals marketed themselves as post-ideological problem solvers. The

movements was style was a kind of non-nonsense wonkishness. If publicopinion constrained policy choices then this was just another aspect of reality

that needed to be dealt with. If privatisation and competition produced betteroutcomes than state ownership and control then public sector unions needed to

be dealt with. In the end, it wasnt about left versus right, it was about whatworked and what didnt.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/01/23/neoliberalism-the-ideology-of-pragmatism/http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/21/the-great-american-neoliberal-liberal-blog-kerfuffle/http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/21/the-great-american-neoliberal-liberal-blog-kerfuffle/http://lhote.blogspot.com/2011/01/blindspot.htmlhttp://www.uri.edu/artsci/writing/instructors.shtmlhttp://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/lilley190606.htmlhttp://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/lilley190606.htmlhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1983/8305_Neoliberalism.pdfhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0705.klein.htmlhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n2_v21/ai_7484463/http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/01/23/neoliberalism-the-ideology-of-pragmatism/http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/21/the-great-american-neoliberal-liberal-blog-kerfuffle/http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/21/the-great-american-neoliberal-liberal-blog-kerfuffle/http://lhote.blogspot.com/2011/01/blindspot.htmlhttp://www.uri.edu/artsci/writing/instructors.shtmlhttp://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/lilley190606.htmlhttp://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/lilley190606.htmlhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1983/8305_Neoliberalism.pdfhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0705.klein.htmlhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n2_v21/ai_7484463/


5/14

By the early 1990s, the neoliberal style had become mainstream. With theeconomy mired in recession, George Bush struggled in the polls not even

victory against Iraq could save him. Bill Clinton swept into office and theReagan/Bush era was over. In a 2005 piece for the American Prospect, MattYglesias summed up the difference between liberals and conservatives:

The New Republics Jonathan Chait had an interesting proposal: Liberals dontreally need philosophy. Thats because were pragmatic empiricists who want toknow what works. Theres some truth to that, and I think it does a lot to explainwhy conservatives tend, broadly speaking, to be more philosophical. On

economic matters, in particular, conservative policies are drawn together by abroad principle: Small government is good, regulation should be light, and taxes

should be low. Liberals dont really accept the reverse of those propositions.While the right thinks taxes should be as low as possible, liberals dont thinkthey should be as high as possible. We think that should be high enough. Buthigh enough for what? High enough to pay for spending on programs that work

well.

But Yglesias went on to ask what "working well" meant. What were liberalstrying to achieve? And thats where the post-ideological image breaks down.

Some on the left see the rising tide of materialism as the problem while Yglesiasfavours Depression-era Congressman Maury Mavericks definition of liberalism as

"freedom plus groceries." Yglesias favours the liberal idea that its up to eachindividual to decide what kind of life they want to live while the anti-materialistsworry that the system makes people want the wrong kinds of lives.

But deBoers problem isnt just that he disagrees with mainstream liberalbloggers about ends he disagrees about means. Most liberals today believe

that the tools of socialism have failed to achieve socialist ends. And more thananything, the heirs of neoliberalism dont want to give their conservative

opponents an excuse to label them moderate communists. DeBoer, on the otherhand, maintains his faith in socialism and the idea of a workers movement. He

believes they can work.

Meanwhile, Mike Konczal at Rortybomb suggests that "neoliberal governancetechniques can be divorced from their current distributional mechanisms and

turned towards progressive policy ends". And thats an interesting idea. Butwhen Konczal talks about moving to a Foucauldian politics all separate sensesof the term neoliberalism blend into one. So maybe nobody should ever assume

they know what neoliberalism means.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=freedom_plus_grocerieshttp://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/seeing-like-a-policy-wonk-left-wing-critique-freddie-deboer-2011-edition/http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=freedom_plus_grocerieshttp://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/seeing-like-a-policy-wonk-left-wing-critique-freddie-deboer-2011-edition/


6/14

Liberalism and Conservatism

Moderate Ideologies along with moderate political viewpoints may be correctly seen as

occupying positions between the more extreme wings of the spectrum. In terms of the extent

of power of the State moderate ideologies strike a balance between individual rights,freedoms and obligations and the coercive power of the State to mandate or prohibit certain

behaviors by people. This "balanced" view brings forth various implications regarding

governmental structure, electoral procedures, the rule of Law, economic concerns, and other

important issues present in all organized societies. Likewise considerations regarding time

help define the boundaries of moderate ideologies.

Change is inevitable in society, in governmental arrangements and relationships, in

leadership, in public policies and throughout the political world. Ideologies of the moderate

varieties seek change at a pace that enables progress to occur but neither so fast that the

destruction of stability and order in society becomes more likely, nor so slow as to foster

stagnation and status quo permanence. Clearly then, there is considerable room fordisagreement and dispute over what is the proper balance in all of these concerns. These

disputable arenas contribute profoundly to struggles among those who support different

moderate ideologies.

Liberalism

Liberalism has occupied an important position in the moderate varieties of political

ideologies for well over two centuries. Although its dimensions differ from society to society

(where it is permitted to endure), there do exist core elements which can be identified,

examined and understood. At the outset let it be noted that common parlance oftenmisapprehends and violates the reality of liberalism. Calling someone a "bleeding heart

liberal" is worse than an insult, it is largely meaningless insofar as conveying accurate

information. Describing one public policy or another as "liberal" sheds precious little light on

the nature of governmental activities.

The first glimmerings of liberalism may be discovered in the expansive political role being

sought by increasingly large numbers of individuals and, more significantly, discreet groups

of people with identifiable common interests. In the latter part of the 18th Century great

forces were at work undermining existing political arrangements in Europe. Whereas the

British had been experiencing a gradual expansion of the rights of ordinary citizens as well as

the landed nobility as against the Monarch, such forces were largely held in check in Franceuntil the Revolution of 1789. Unlike in France the British had no central instrument of

oppression such as a centrally controlled standing army ready to do the bidding of the

monarch. British liberalism sought not to overthrow the Monarchy but to reign in its powers

by expanding the role of the representatives of the people.

Certainly it was John Locke (1632-1704) who best expressed the principles of Liberalism in

the British (and American) tradition. His Two Treatises of Government (first published in

1690) constitutes a most important statement on the liberal political philosophy that has so

much influenced politics in succeeding centuries. At the center of his writings are basic

values that today remain as under girding for the entire liberal view. Government exists to

serve the people and community it governs. Its power is limited by concepts of natural rights

of individuals and moral or natural law. Among these natural rights was the concept of the


7/14

right to acquire and dispose of property. "Life, liberty and estate" belonged to individuals

quite apart from any grant from society or its instrument Government.

The basic duty of government is to protect the common good and private rights which were

seen to be inextricably related if not the same thing. Individuals agree to limits on their

behavior by granting to government certain limited powers but only if the government ruleson behalf of the common good and in the protection of private rights. For reasons of

convenience and mutual benefit people enter into a compact whereby they willingly

relinquish some of their freedom of action and in return gain security and stability in their

daily lives. As Locke wrote: "Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal, and

independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of

another, without his own Consent."

The only way whereby any one divests himself of his Natural Liberty, and puts on the bonds

of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to join and unite into a Community for their

comfortable, safe, and peaceable living amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their

Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it. (Locke, Two Treatises ofGovernment, NY: New American Library, 1963, pp.374-75.)

Should government become tyrannical and deviate from this Compact with the people, then

the people had the right of revolution to overthrow the government which had broken the

Compact. This right of revolution is based solidly on the notion that people may, when

confronted with injustice, take actions to bring about basic changes in government. Society

and government were separate entities and the dissolution of the latter did not imply the

destruction of the former. Governments were bound by laws just as were individuals.

Moreover, these laws, could not legitimately violate principles of natural justice; indeed if a

contravening of principles of natural justice were done then the actions of the government

were not laws in the true sense of the term.

For Locke principles of natural justice were grounded in a right to own and dispose of

property. Debate over what constitutes these principles has continued to the present time. In

France the development of liberalism took decidedly different turns. A corrupt and parasitic

nobility sought to maintain its grip on power at all costs and with no recognition of the rights

of the populace at large. The demand for equality as part of the concept of liberalism was an

invitation to complete rejection of the ancien regime and to do so in an uncompromising and

violent manner.

A revolution devoted in 1789 to principles of individual rights degenerated by 1793 into thedictatorship of the Jacobins and the accompanying terror of mob rule. At this point in time

the ideology supporting the French Revolution become extremist rather than moderate and

laid the foundation for the eventual success of Napoleon Bonaparte who offered stability and

order in place of the chaos of post-revolutionary France.

Because of common ethnic, cultural, legal, political and even geographic factors, liberal

development in the United States initially took more from the British than the French. While

the early stages of the American Revolution did borrow heavily from British political thought

subsequent development had more in common with the French. Thomas Jefferson certainly

was influenced by developments in both countries. The Declaration of Independence written

by Jefferson in 1776 contains concepts developed by Locke and others in the British liberaltradition. However, following his tenure as Ambassador to France during the 1780's Jefferson


8/14

was evidently deeply influenced by French political thought and attempted to channel

American liberal political development in directions parallel to those in France. These views

contained a greater emphasis on popular control of government, deeply ingrained suspicions

of institutionalized power, a decidedly anti-clerical orientation and in general an almost

fanatical faith in the common people and their wisdom.

These initial successes of liberal movements had, as the name itself implies, a fundamental

purpose: to liberate people from oppression. While the methods of liberation, as well as the

sources of the oppression may be quite different depending on the time and the place in

question, liberation is inevitably the fundamental purpose of liberal political thinking and

liberal political movements.

To seek such a goal certain assumptions, not necessarily provable, had to be made. Natural

rights as expanded upon by Locke is the first of these. As Jefferson wrote, there are

"inalienable" rights that each individual has that may not be legitimately denied by

government or any other instrument of society. Initially these rights were to be protected

primarily from governments whose tendency it was to diminish, ignore or abuse these rights.Restraints on government in the form of Constitutions or other devices were necessary to the

goal of individual freedom. Among the early restraints on government were those protecting

largely unfettered rights to acquire and dispose of property, both real and personal. These so-

called "economic freedoms" were supplemented with a host of political freedoms including

rights to express controversial political views and to organize political opposition to the

prevailing group in power.

Natural rights and limited government are corollary concepts. The acceptance of one concept

necessarily implies acceptance of the other. Whenever there is a parent there is a child;

whenever there is a husband there is a wife. Similarly, whenever there is a right belonging to

an individual there is a duty on the part of some other entity -- government or person -- to

respect and/or protect that right. If people have the right to freely express their ideas then it

necessarily follows that government cannot legitimately suppress such expression or punish

those who utter unpopular remarks or otherwise offend government officials. Not only is

government power to restrain and to punish limited, but government also has the duty to

protect those who, because of their unconventional views, may be in danger from non-

governmental threats.

In Europe by the late 19th Century and in the United States by the early 20th Century

liberalism began to shift its emphasis from protecting individuals from oppressive

governments to using government as a device to enable individuals to achieve a moremeaningful and rewarding life. Government was seen as a positive force in shaping human

affairs and society, but only if it was used properly and controlled by the people. Liberalism

had come to recognize that powerful institutions in society had to be controlled and regulated

by the instrument of the people if true liberation was to occur.

In particular the growth of vast economic empires in the hey-day of capitalism generated a

widely held view that only government could reign in these powerful enterprises and provide

the citizenry with the means to deal with them effectively. Rights to form labor unions for the

purpose of collective bargaining were among the major liberal goals. Regulations were

promulgated regarding safety rules, wages, maximum hours, minimum wages and working

conditions generally. The liberal credo thus shifted dramatically from a call for less


9/14

government to cries for more government but in the name of empowering people to deal

effectively with the vast powers of modern society.

Faith in the potential reasonableness and goodness of people runs as another constant thread

throughout the liberal ideology. This is not to say that the liberal view rested on the

assumption that all people were reasonable and good, but that it is the responsibility ofsociety in general and government in specific, to adopt structures and policies that maximize

this potential. Taken to its ultimate conclusion this position reaches the absurdity of a totally

rationalistic society where all is planned carefully and with perfect premeditation. The image

of Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame comes readily to mind.

Rationality constitutes a similar if not identical cornerstone of liberal philosophy. This

emphasis on mankind's rational potential supports quite well the modern liberal position

calling for the use of government to solve social, political and economic problems.

Government is viewed as the only agent of people capable of bringing to bear rational

problem solving techniques and the authority to carry such policies out at the societal level.

Social development ought not to be left to chance but planning and governmental power mustbe brought to bear on problems that are too large, too intractable, or too complex for the

private or non-public sector to deal with effectively and/or equitably.

Capitalism or the free market economy runs counter to this modern version of liberalism. A

free market, by definition, is uncontrolled by human will and is, therefore, in opposition to

the modern liberal emphasis on rational social planning. The original liberal orientation

toward freedom from social, economic, religious and governmental institutions fit much more

comfortably with capitalism than does the modernist version of liberalism.

It must be remembered that liberalism and capitalism were products of roughly the same

period of history: the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Each had as its core the concept of

liberation. What were called the "excesses" of capitalism -- massive concentrations of wealth

in the hands of a relative few individuals and corporations, urban blight, worker alienation

and exploitation, environmental degradation, etc. -- became targets for liberal rationalists.

These social maladies demanded, in the liberal view, governmental remedies. Uncontrolled

economic activity was thus viewed as a new form of oppression and thereby in need of

regulation, restraint and control by government. The nature and scope of the limits on

government have inevitably been and will continue to be a source of never ending debate and

disagreement. Students of politics have a never ending dispute over what constitutes the

proper balance between necessary governmental power and restraints needed to protectindividual rights.

In general, the modern liberal view has been to stress the need for governmental restraints in

the "political" realm such as freedoms of expression, but to seek expansive governmental

powers in "economic" and "social" arenas in the name of protecting the disadvantaged and

powerless groups who otherwise find themselves at the mercies of entrenched institutions

criticized for running roughshod over hapless and helpless adversaries. Corporations must be

controlled. The economy must be regulated. Moneyed interests must be tightly restricted.

Private discrimination against individual members of minority groups that have been

traditionally borne the brunt of societal bigotry must be outlawed and vigorously pursued by

governmental agents. Thus, governments must be selectively limited in the modern liberalview.


10/14

The initial liberal concept that the government which governs least, governs best has been

discarded by liberals and, ironically, claimed, at least in part, by conservatives. Government

itself, in the liberal view, must be popularly controlled and directed. While modern liberal

purists might opt for direct democracy in which each adult member of the citizenry takes a

personal hand in making policies, the existence of governmental units with populations in the

millions makes this impractible if not undesirable. Even Locke did not support "directdemocracy." Indeed, he would have denied the right to vote to the poor unpropertied

segments of society.

The modern liberal position is that representatives, chosen in freely contested elections

permitting universal adult participation, should act in the name of and on behalf of the

people. Majority rule through popularly elected representatives is imperative for a legitimate

government to exist. People would be morally obliged to follow the limited dictates of the

majority dominated government but only if its policies observed the rights of the people.

One of the most important political rights is that of the minority to criticize government

polices and to try and become the majority. Minority rights are part of the concept of majorityrule in the liberal view. The nature of these rights is subject to change over time as has been

seen. Change in society is warmly embraced by liberal supporters. A brighter day can be

obtained by combining the various precepts discussed above. Society is constantly evolving.

Thoughtful and responsible people should nurture and guide this process in the name of

human liberation and progress. That which exists is not sacred nor perfect. Nothing is

protected by divine intervention. Through careful analysis, using mankind's rational

capabilities institutions, beliefs, and values can be consciously shaped and molded to produce

a better world.

In summary, liberalism has embraced several fundamental but imprecise elements. Moreover,

at different points in history the liberal ideology has emphasized different aspects of its basic

principles. Those elements which have appeared as fundamental to liberalism may be seen as:

1. the idea of a compact between the people and their government

2. the right of revolution if the compact is violated

3. natural rights as belonging to all people

4. faith in and support of human rational potential

5. limited powers of government

6. majority rule tempered by minority rights

7. support of change in society

Conservatism

Hegel's view was that the process of dialectics constitutes the mechanism by which ideas

change. Out of each thesis (or idea) necessarily arises an anti-thesis (or challenging idea)

which inevitably becomes a synthesis of the two. Whether this is indeed the driving force in

human intellectual development may never be known, but the development of conservatism

bears a close resemblance to this process.

Whereas liberalism sought to liberate mankind from oppressive institutions (be they

governments, religious institutions, oppressive social customs and traditions, or vast

economic enterprises), conservatism developed as a reaction to what was perceived as


11/14

dangerous tendencies within the liberal movements toward radicalism and a wholesale

rejection of the past as valuable. There was and is an element within conservatism that holds

the past in reverence and views with skepticism most change, particularly if it was planned

change. If, however, conservatism means nothing more than a rationale' justifying the

maintenance of the status quo then it cannot be correctly adjudged an ideology for it would be

content neutral. Conservatism could, in that instance, be used to support political systemsranging from democratic to communist to fascist to anarchistic.

A closer examination of conservatism does reveals a more meaningful doctrine than merely

conserving that which exists. Whereas liberalism embraces societal and governmental change

as both necessary and desirable, conservatism does indeed adopt a much more doubtful view

of the desirability of altering proven institutions and societal values. Respect for authority,

custom, and tradition permeate a conservative value system. In particular, changes in the

moral ordering of society are seen as very suspicious and probably harmful. Aside from this

ingrained suspicion of change there are at rock bottom values within the conservative

tradition that remain constant.

Once again it is an Englishman who first expounded the moderate political doctrine in

question. Edmund Burke (1729-97) did not create conservatism but as Locke did for

liberalism, became its most eloquent spokesman and advocate. In numerous pamphlets this

scholar-politician put on paper what was to become the anti-thesis to liberalism run riot (in

Burke's view). Throughout his long and lustrous career within the British political system

Burke expressed a profound admiration for the success of the British "Glorious Revolution"

of 1688-89 in which the Parliament asserted its power as against royal prerogatives.

The Bill of Rights was adopted which limited the power of the Monarch and protected itself

from arbitrary royal enactments. His was a passion for justice, sound governmental

administration, devotion to religion and unrelenting opposition to tyranny. For over twenty-

five years he was the leading intellectual force in Whig party politics in Great Britain. As a

Member of Parliament he supported the American independence movement largely on

practical grounds. He continuously advocated policies that produced peace and prosperity.

What galvanized Burke most intensely was the French Revolution. In his work Reflections on

the Revolution in France (1790) ideas were set forth that shaped political thinking down to

the present time. His intense opposition to and condemnation of the French Revolution as

destructive to French society did irreparable damage to his political career and caused

estrangements with old friends. Ultimately the Whig party itself was split asunder over this

issue.

Burke had long be reluctant to engage in a discussion of the general principles of his ideas.

He initially felt that broad abstractions were to be avoided. The French Revolution, however,

forced his basic views out in the open. In his refutation of the justifications of the French

Revolution Burke attempted to destroy the logic behind the revolutionist reliance on reason

and logic as tools guiding social change. Human beings did have rights, Burke did readily

admit, but they were conventional not natural. These rights were organically related to

society and could not be divorced from it.

People need to have a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves; something that

will endure beyond their own short lives. Base feelings of love and loyalty bind members ofsociety together giving them a sense of purpose that permits and encourages self-sacrifice for


12/14

the larger purposes of the community. Deep emotional attachment will nurture a sense of

duty and responsibility that ultimately produce a better society for all. Society is not held

together by abstract principles such as a "social contract" but by people bound together

through a sense of history, shared experiences and common beliefs. The role of irrationality

in society can be ignored only at the risk of misunderstanding a most important inherent

characteristic in all mankind. Human institutions have evolved over time and are not theproduct of rationally constructed plans of action.

Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest

may be dissolved at pleasure -- but the state ought to be considered as something far better

and more significant "than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or

tobacco, or some other such low concern." The State us not to be taken as something of a

little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on

with other reverence. . . "It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership

in every virtue, and in all perfection. . . . Each contract of each particular state is but a clause

in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures

connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by theinviolable oath which holds ass physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place."

(Reflections 1790, Works, Vol. II p. 368)In this statement Burke makes little distinction

between state and society.

The overall message is crystal clear: that which binds humans together is far more than any

commercial contract which is subject to abrogation at will. No well-reasoned rationale' can

justify overturning what time immemorial has produced. Moreover, reason running rampant

becomes raging radicalism inevitably destined to destroy much of what generations of human

experience has produced.

The religious foundations of society almost inexorably come to support conservative political

doctrine. Burke himself exhibited a devotion to religion and to the religious foundations of

the just state. Government, the State and society in general were all part of a divine order

though which God's will exhibits itself. This religious orientation in Burke's conservatism

may be found in most, if not all, conservative movements. Regimes that call themselves

"Marxist" have been seen to resort to religious-like defenses when confronted with serious

challenges. Stalin urged Soviet citizens in the second world war to come to the defense of

"Mother Russia." More commonly those espousing a conservative position refer to some

"divine" purpose inherent in their society and state. At best this places moral obligations on

the state to follow policies that are just and fair (however these terms may be defined). At

worst this "divine" purpose becomes a justification for domination of peoples outside the"chosen" ones. Without this religious anchor the development of some "special" social cause

or purpose becomes very difficult to maintain.

Just as mankind's need to have some transcendental system of belief in an ordered universe

was seen an necessary, so too was a government which emphasized order, custom, and

tradition. Order is needed to reign in mankind's ingrained selfish tendencies and proclivity

toward savagery. The state, which is the enforcement arm of society, must rule in a strong

and resolute manner providing swift, sure and harsh punishment for those who violate the

law. Proper respect for the roles and responsibilities of private institutions must be observed

by government and support should be provided. Custom and tradition should receive their

due for they are the outgrowth of generations of experience. Reverence for that which hasstood the test of time is ignored at the risk of instability, disorder and social disintegration. A


13/14

sense of community that is both broad and deep is needed if long-term adherence to social

values is to be obtained. This sense of community is no conscious, voluntary and rational

decision that one chooses to accept. Society is no debating group says the conservative.

People must feel they are a part of something larger and more important than themselves.Pride in and love for the institutions and traditions of one's society go beyond mere

knowledge and willful acceptance of these things. From the earliest childhood and continuing

throughout life individuals need to be made a part of the great traditions of his/her people.

Accomplishments in the arts and sciences, cherished customs, linguistic uniqueness, religious

traditions, economic practices, and especially established human relationships including

marriage and family values must be embraced and supported with fervor. Symbols need to be

revered and treated with the utmost respect for they represent the very basic elements of

society.

The nature of humanity, according to conservative doctrine, is far less admirable than seen in

the liberal view. All humans are essential self oriented and in pursuit of their own bestinterests as they see those interests These irrational drives and self-serving tendencies must

be tempered by social control mechanisms that are the outgrowth of centuries of experience.

In addition to this selfish characteristic of humans, conservatives believe that the concept of

equality is both inaccurate and undesirable. People are not equal in their abilities or value to

society. Those who are more able and who contribute more to the well being of their

community are deserving of greater rewards. These rewards include not only enhanced

material wealth, elevated social status but also a greater role in the governance structure.

While traditional conservative doctrine supported the notion of a hereditary aristocracy,

modern conservatives support what might be called an aristocracy of talent and morality.

Societies leaders should be chosen from those individuals who have by their own talents

demonstrated superior abilities through recognized achievements.

But even they cannot properly be given unlimited powers because like all humans they are

flawed and cannot be trusted to do what is right. They too must be restrained in their powers

by the same institutions and customs operating to maintain stability in society. Just as great

societal changes (industrialization, organization, technological innovations, and

modernization generally) forced liberalism to alter its stance regarding the proper role of

government in economic matters, so too has conservatism changed its position in the face of

such great forces. Regarding the important question of the proper relationship between

government and the economy conservative doctrine has taken the somewhat ambivalent

position of supporting government actions that simultaneously encourage and yet does notcontrol or even closely regulate business activities. This often amounts to a "hands off"

policy insofar as government regulation is concerned, but a "helping hand" policy regarding

such matters as favorable taxation rates, beneficial tariffs (legislation protecting home

business from foreign competition), price supports and countless other schemes.

As liberalism began to espouse the need for increased governmental regulation of business

enterprises conservatives, particularly during the depression years in the United States,

adopted increasingly anti-regulatory positions. Cries of "creeping socialism" were raised

against liberal efforts to increase governmental control over the economy. Aside from

questions of economics conservatism has retained, and in recent years emphasized, its

original emphasis on maintaining traditional values and institutions. Social maladies thatseem to accompany Twentieth Century intensive urbanization (family disintegration, drug


14/14

and alcohol abuse, soaring street crime rates, and a general loss of a sense of safety) are seen

by conservatives as clear evidence of a need to return to basics: faith in God, hope for a better

future, love of country and family, instillation of self-discipline in the young, willingness to

sacrifice immediate gratification for future goals, industriousness, and a sense of belonging.

Exactly how these values are to be implanted remains controversial even amongconservatives but the goal of returning them to their proper place in society drives

conservatives to offer a wide range of governmental policies: swift and harsh punishment for

criminals, "no frills" education with strict discipline in schools, governmental protection of

institutions devoted to maintaining traditional values (including churches), elimination of

welfare programs believed to encourage immorality and indolence, expansive (and

expensive) military policies ostensibly protecting the home country from foreign threats and a

host of other proposals.

In summary, conservatism does contain basic beliefs and values beyond a mere mistrust of

change. Certain core concepts remain throughout the long spectrum of the conservativeideology. They may be seen as:

1. high value on existing institutions as produced by custom and tradition

2. a belief in mankind's essential base and irrational nature

3. faith in some supernatural force guiding human affairs

4. acceptance of human inequality and the attending consequence of social hierarchy

5. recognition of the need for a sense of community among individuals that will bind them

emotionally to their society.

Concluding Remarks

It has been said that no one who has a heart can resist being a liberal and that no one who has

a brain can avoid being a conservative. Like most aphorisms this one contains a trace of truth

wrapped in a maze of misperceptions. These two political ideologies offer to government

leaders, policy makers, and thoughtful citizens a set of guides permitting some semblance of

coherent conclusions regarding compelling social, economic and political issues.

Their common features include rejection of radicalism and its attending violent uprooting of

established institutions and practices, acceptance of the need for restraints on the powers of

government, advocacy of balance in society regarding individual rights and societal powers,

and ultimately some root concerns for individual dignity. Most certainly disagreement

abounds between the two ideologies when the outlines of such values are given clarity, butsupport of such basic principles enables supporters of each doctrine to work within the same

governmental framework. This agreement to disagree in a civil manner surely constitutes one

of mankind's most noble political achievements.

Documents

Moral Strategy the Case for Pragmatic Conservatism