Recently in On Conservatism Category

[Note: This post is part of the "On Conservatism" series.]

Having cleared away some of the semantic underbrush, we can return to the original questions: What is the meaning of the phrase "limited government" and what political questions are we addressing when we appeal to that principle?

The most complete and illuminating statement addressing this question is found in a recent essay by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University:

In his latest book, Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, David Frum relates a story from the 1950s about an ex-Communist who got into an argument with a young man newly infatuated with Marxism. The older man retorted: "Your answer are so old that I've forgotten the questions."

In many ways we conservatives are like the young Marxist. Often we are more familiar with the proper answer than we are with the questions they address. For example, we consider "limited government" to be one of the first principles of political conservatism. But what does the phrase really mean? And what political questions are we addressing when we appeal to limited government?

Before we answer it would be useful to distinguish what we should not mean when we use that phrase. Here are three ways in which I believe we misunderstand the concept of "limited government."

[Note: This post is part of the "On Conservatism" series.]

Because the purpose of this series is to explore the "the contours of conservatism" the majority of the posts will focus on the ideas and perspective of the past. But it is also useful to be aware of the trends that conservative thought are more current and are shaping the future direction of the movement. One of the most disturbing trends is the direction exemplified by Andrew Sullivan.

We tend to discount the impact of our contemporaries, particularly when we disagree with them. Not surprisingly, most conservatives scoff at the notion that Sullivan is all that influential. I too once underestimated his importance as a thinker. Although I have always considered him an entertaining blogger, for many years I failed to recognize his transpositive genius.

I had failed to recognize that like many profound theorists, Sullivan doesn't always use words in their generally accepted usage, choosing instead to imbue them with his own nuance. Take, for example, his use of the term "conservatism." In a post in 2005, Sullivan quotes Glenn Reynolds, "coming to terms with what the religious right is doing to conservative principles." Sullivan adds,

The important point is that religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived.

While it might not be an ideal, there is, of course, nothing incompatible about "religious zealotry" and conservatism. In fact, as Russell Kirk noted, one of the first principles of conservatism is a belief "that there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to conform the ways of society. A divine tactic, however dimly descried, is at work in human society." Taken at face value, such a comment by a man with a doctorate in Political Science from Harvard would be worthy of nothing more than ridicule. But Sullivan should not be so easily dismissed.

Obviously, his use of the term in no way resembles the philosophy of Russell Kirk or Edmund Burke. When Sullivan talks about conservatism, particularly when he uses the label in reference to his own beliefs, he is redefining the term to apply to his own odd mix of radical individualism and Oakeshottism, a philosophy that could best be described as Sullivanism

[Note: This post is part of the "On Conservatism" series.]

Recently a friend wrote, "Conservatism is what it is and it's not subject to interpretation. It's not a "living" concept subject to the vagaries of public opinion. It's small government, low taxes and muscular foreign policy in its simplest form." I suspect most conservatives in America would not in agreement, which is an ironic testament that the word has lost all traditional meaning.

I started this series because I believe that we have failed to pay attention to what leading conservative writers and politicians have said and done. This is particularly true when it comes to conservatives who live outside our borders yet share our same outlook. One example is the British novelist Evelyn Waugh.

William F. Buckley, Jr. considered Waugh to be "the greatest English novelist of the century" and his novels are certainly are worth reading (A Handful of Dust is a personal favorite). But it was a travel memoir that best represents Waugh's conservative thought. In his book, Mexico: An Object Lesson, he presents what could be considered a succinct manifesto of his British, Catholic-influenced conservatism* (I've taken the liberty of breaking up the paragraph to make it easier to read):

[Note: This post is part of the "On Conservatism" series.]

In modern American there are almost as many brands of conservatism as there are conservatives. There are neo-cons and paleocons, theocons and crunchy cons. There are social conservative and fiscal conservatives. Conservatives who aim for National Greatness and others who strive to be Compassionate. There are the oxymoronic “Big Government conservatives” and “South Park Conservatives.” And some claims to conservatism that are simply moronic (i.e., Andrew Sullivan, Rudy Giuliani).

Unless you’re already familiar with the political taxonomy, such labels aren’t particularly useful. To truly understand what a conservative believes, it is often more instructive to simply ask what it is they want to conserve.

My own answer to that question would be the same as that of Russell Kirk: The institution most essential to conserve is the family.

I believe that while ultimate sovereignty belongs to God alone, He delegates authority throughout society to various institutional structures (i.e., churches, businesses, the state, etc.). Naturally, these institutions are not immune to the effects of sin or human depravity but they still retain the legitimate authority given to them by our Creator. Although each of these institutions is important, the most essential is the family. My political philosophy could be called “family-first conservatism” for I believe that the institution of the family should be given pride of place in decisions about public policy.

While family-first conservatism is rather limited in scope, I believe it is a robust enough to generate a core set of principles and policy prescriptions. The principles, which I have gleaned from the writings of better thinkers than myself, are outlined in the following manifesto:

1. We believe the family is the basic unit of society.

2. We believe that from birth we are initiated into the community structure of the family. We are not thrust into a state of radical individualism but rather into the most basic form of community. We are created to be both individuated persons and members of a community; neither can be reduced into the other.

3. We believe the heart of the family is the pre-political institution of marriage, a “one-flesh union” of sexually complementary spouses who cleave to each other in permanent commitment, loyalty, and fidelity and that this one-flesh communion is naturally ordered to the good of spousal unity, to procreation, and to the nurturing of children.

4. We believe it is a self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of human flourishing.

5. We believe in protecting the intrinsic dignity of all members of the human family, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., and believe that they must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

6. We believe the interaction between people in community has lead naturally to societal pluriformity and the formation of various social structures. Families interact with other families to create distinct communities such as the tribe, the city, and the state and that the various tasks and requirements for living has lead to the formation of churches, schools, businesses, civic unions, etc.

7. We believe that each of these structures or spheres of influence has its own autonomy and responsibility and is sovereign within its own sphere. Each also has its locus of sovereignty which is derived not from another structure from God alone. This forms a non-hierarchical structure where all authority is ultimately derived from our Creator.

8. We believe that parents have the primary sphere of authority and influence over the upbringing of their children and that this role may not be usurped by other institutions unless necessary to prevent the child from suffering harm.

9. We believe that while parental authority is primary, other institutions have an interest and a duty in protecting the welfare of children and should do what they can to create and preserve a moral ecology that is conducive to creating virtuous citizens.

10. We believe that while social structures are non-hierarchical, the family should be considered “first among equals” and given special consideration in making decisions about public policy.

While working on a recording together, Johnny Cash asked Bob Dylan if he knew "Ring of Fire." Dylan said he did and began to play it on the piano, croaking it out in typical Dylanesque fashion. When he was done he turned to his new friend and said, "It goes something like that, right?"

"No," said Cash shaking his head. "It doesn't go like that at all."

I can understand how Cash must have felt. Often when I hear politicians and pundits talk about "conservatism" all I can think is "It doesn't go like that at all." Most Americans--even those who self-identify as conservatives--appear to have no idea what the word even means.

Conservatives are likely the smallest philosophical faction in American. As a group they are dwarfed by the three L's: liberals, (small-L) libertarians, and lemmings (those who don’t even bother to think for themselves). Indeed, the majority of people who claim to be conservatives are really just conservative libertarians--the reverse being an oxymoron. What Russell Kirk, one of the greatest conservative thinkers of our time, wrote just over a decade ago is even truer today:

"Incidentally, now and again one reads of two camps of alleged conservatives: 'traditionalists conservatives and libertarian conservatives.' This is as if a newspaperman were to classify Christians as 'Protestant Christians and Muslim Christians.'

However, my lament is not that libertarians outnumber conservatives (though that does cause me concern) but rather that our collective failure to understand what constitutes a conservative philosophy or worldview is preventing us from increasing our tribe.