Conservative Liberalism
Last week, I posted a piece taking aim at the increasingly common right-wing talking point dismissing educated people as “elites” with unnaturally liberal (and therefore vaguely suspicious) views, who can therefore be safely mocked and ignored by “mainstream Americans.” This is related to the equally-common conservative gripe about the liberal press, which they claim reflects the same set of non-mainstream views and values.
My response to both claims is that the press and the education system appear politically liberal because they are both engaged in a philosophically liberal enterprise: the pursuit of knowledge and truth. By this, I don’t mean to make the pompous claim that the pursuit of truth is the monopoly of one political party. Liberalism is a proud part of our heritage as Americans: perhaps the most important part in establishing the freedom and prosperity we enjoy today. To the extent that we all are in favor of personal liberty, rule of law, property rights, equality of opportunity, democracy, economic, religious and political freedom, we are inheritors of the Liberal tradition in Western civilization. This is something Republicans and Democrats alike can and should point to with pride.
By the same token, when we reject revolution for its own sake, are skeptical of the perfectibility of human nature through social engineering and indoctrination, and reverent of the worthy institutions of the past, we are following the equally admirable legacy of the Conservative tradition. America’s systemic liberalism only works as well as it does because of the presence of a strong and active conservative movement. By providing discipline, stability and a voice for those with established interests, conservatism applies a necessary brake on liberal tendencies toward self-indulgence and over-reliance in socially-mandated solutions. Without conservatism, liberalism would decline into decadence; without liberalism, conservatism would ossify into authoritarianism.
It’s a historical fact that there are limits to political discourse in America, and these limits are coincident with the basic axioms of classical Liberalism. You can’t advocate openly for tyranny – whether it be of the King, the Church, the aristocracy or the proletariat. You also can’t question the fundamental legitimacy of private property. While there have been ideological movements in the United States that transgressed these boundaries, they are not accorded legitimacy within the process.
We also require that policy positions be rationally articulated, even when they are transparently rooted in fanaticism and emotion. Even David Duke felt the need to go on “Meet The Press.” This reflects a liberal bias in the system that demands justification to reason rather than appeals to faith. Our founders had a deep distrust of the passions of the mob, and understood how the primal instincts of ordinary folk could be mobilized by demagoguery, rhetoric and superstition, usually with ruinous consequences. Neither is the secular quality of American democracy an accident. While our founders were not necessarily atheists, they understood the importance of keeping the incendiary and uncompromising dogma of religion out of the realm of policy deliberation.
While these limitations may seem restrictive or biased, they laid the basis for the most successful and prosperous society ever to arise on the face of the earth. When the Left and the Right of American politics operate within the ideological and rhetorical boundaries of the system, they provide a dynamic give-and-take that results in sound policies that produce incremental progress toward greater freedom, happiness, strength and prosperity. It’s the blending of conservative and liberal ideas, within the general framework of a liberal political system, that gives the engine its power.
We can and do disagree about many fundamental issues – economics, foreign policy, regulation, welfare, public safety and more. In each of these areas, the clash of ideas is helpful to the creation of policy that gets us closer to solving the real problems of real people, which is the goal of democratic government. The issues and interests at stake are real and serious, but in the current climate, responsible people across the political spectrum need to spend less time worrying about how to defeat their opponents and more time looking for ways to work together to protect the center against the destructive extremes. We also have to realize that the threat is not evenly distributed at either side of the ideological divide.
For much of the 20th century, revolutionary Leftism posed a genuine challenge to liberal democracy. While it never gained a real foothold in the United States, there were at certain points violent and dangerous groups on the extreme Left, and some ideas that were in direct opposition to the basis of American values and institutions. Liberals and conservatives joined together to combat the Revolutionary Left, both on the foreign and domestic fronts, with a shared goal of preserving the American system against the irresponsible and destructive ambitions of Marxism. Conservatives often opted for direct confrontation. Liberals often chose to co-opt aspects of the extreme Left program and rationalize them into the American system, so as to blunt the appeal of extremists by removing the basis for discontent with measures short of revolutionary violence. In combination – and it was a combination – the tactics were a complete success. Though there are still a few proponents of the violent overthrow of American capitalism out there, they are generally demoralized and ineffective.
Now, of course, the real problem is on the far Right. These aren’t people who are challenging various political issues within the accepted framework of American political discourse: they are challenging the framework itself. They don’t believe in the give-and-take of debate because their ideology provides them with all the correct answers in advance. They don’t believe in the modern educational curriculum as a course or method of study because it raises questions that challenge the inherited ethics and authority of religious scripture. They don’t believe in alliances or cooperation with either foreign or domestic interests because, convinced of the unshakeable rightness of their own views, any commitment to an accountable process is simply a hindrance to the achievement of their ambitions. Most troubling, they are skilled at working within the political institutional framework of Liberal democracy, exploiting the tolerance and democratic processes to replace the traditionally-liberal institutions of American government and society with authoritarian orthodoxy.
To put it plainly, those who don’t believe in the separation of Church and State and seek to impose a “biblical world view” on the nation as a whole are as “un-American” as those who don’t believe in private property. Radically illiberal views pose as great a threat to American freedom as those of Communists and anarchists, even if those views are clothed in the pleasing rhetoric of patriotism, family and Christian virtue. On the Left, there has always been a clear divide between liberals and socialists. It may not be clear to conservatives, but it’s easy to see when you examine the history and the movements themselves. On the Right, however, there appears to be a continuum between the mainstream and the fringe, and the most radical ideas are filtering ever closer to the center.
For nearly two years writing about politics on this site, I have tried to draw a scrupulous distinction between responsible conservatives and liberals, and their irresponsible counterparts on the far Left and Right. I strenuously dispute the attempts to confuse classical Liberalism with the oppressive ideologies (and occasionally ridiculous rhetoric and behavior) of the Revolutionary Left. And I likewise extend the opportunity to sincere, patriotic conservatives to reject the extremist radical ideologues who are dragging the honorable tradition of American conservatism deeper into the morass of authoritarianism and theocracy with each passing day.
7:35:47 AM 
|
|
