Authoritarianism and Conservatism

I would enjoy some opinions and criticisms of this. I have written it and am looking to develop the argument further. What are your opinions and what do you believe should be brought up in this essay? Thank you. ------------------------------------------

Is Conservatism Authoritarian? I think not, but there are those who claim it is. I offer this definition of “authoritarian”: “of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.” Conservatism does not “favor” this at all. The leaders of the Conservative movement – Messrs. Buckley, Kirk, Meyer, et al – vigorously refuted the supposed authoritarianism of Conservatism when the left (and a few on the right) originally advanced the notion in the 1950s – most notably coming to my mind is the idea of the “authoritarian personality.” Such assertions were attempts to dismiss the then young Conservative movement outright – not by discussion and refutation of ideas, but by tricks attacking the character of those who held Conservative beliefs. It was a sorry attempt to marginalize the movement, which failed. Again, Conservatism stresses and believes in tradition – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it – it is not “authoritarian.” I want to return to the meat of this. Is Conservatism inherently authoritarian? I ask this, because if it is, then how is one to explain the disagreements within the Conservative movement? George H. Nash points out that in its inception, the Conservative movement was a mixture of anti-Communists (for example James Burnham and Whittaker Chambers); “traditionalists” (Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk) and “individualists” (Frank Meyer and Leonard E. Reed. William F. Buckley himself was influenced by the radical individualist Albert Jay Nock and his book Our Enemy, the State), not to mention the quasi-“populism” of Willmoore Kendall or the esotericism of the “Straussians.” These are all different facets of Conservatism. Yes there were disagreements between camps, but the leaders of them worked together to form this confederacy of a movement and advanced it against the left-wing tide of the day. To claim that Conservatism is authoritarian in light of the different strands of thought which occupied – and still do – a place within Conservatism is to be caught up in a contradiction. If Conservatism is authoritarian, then it would be impossible for disagreements and discussion within Conservatism to occur: its inherent “authoritarian” nature would prohibit any digression from the dominant ideological line – after all, it is a “blind submission to authority.” The strands within the early movement along with those in the present prove this “authoritarian” notion wrong. Now, it may be claimed that “certain” Conservatives or groups of Conservatives are “authoritarian”; this does not prove that Conservatism itself is authoritarian. It is a hasty generalization and can be applied to any ideology, right or left. Authoritarianism can be of the left or right, and there are certainly other regimes that are closer to a true authoritarianism than Conservatism would ever approach. As a final note, is something wrong with Conservative belief in tradition? Conservatism has always stressed an order and tradition, believing society has a natural way: to paraphrase Richard Weaver, just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s worth changing for. Most importantly, Conservatism recognizes that with freedom (such as the right to bear arms or the freedom of speech) comes responsibility. If this is “authoritarian,” so be it.

Unfortunately, the term 'conservative' encompasses so many views, depended upon who is using it, that it is essentially useless for philosophical analysis. It clearly means something very different in the European context, where 'conservative' parties have typically upheld monarchal or church power, than it has in America, where the term has been used to describe everything from Tories opposed to the revolution, Democrats opposed to the abolition of first slavery and then Jim Crow, Federalists who wanted to powers of the central government to approach those of the English Crown, to classical liberals who wish to preserve the heritage of the Enlightenment and the Founders.

Confounding this is the admixture of religion, where conservatives tend to what's now called fundamentalism by those who don't like it and evangelicalism by those who do.

A major part of the reason for the confusion is that the Constitution and structure of our national government are clearly classical liberal in conception, design and execution. The Founders were men of the Enlightenment. Theirs was an essentially 'liberal' program in the context of its time. Much more 'whig' than 'tory' in English parlance.

As the nation evolved, and as new 'liberal' ideas flourished and as socialism and then Marxism, not to mention the radicalism of the Terror in France, staked the ground to the left of the classical liberalism of the Founders, gradually, in the American context, classical liberalism became first a center view and the a right or 'conservative' view. Today it is 'conservative' to want to return to, or at least preserve, the system of the Founders and the Enlightenment liberal tradition in embodies.

In this country, the religious right has not been a factor until recent years, and they have never had the intellectual or social respectabilty of the aristocratic and religious ultramontagne right in Europe -- the Joseph DeMaistres, Metternichs, Bismarcks, etc..

to describe which group? Surley not classicl liberals? And perhaps not even Burkeans. Bonapartists to be sure, and their ilk, fascists, national socialists, falangists, Action Francise. The religious right? I dunno, they want to use state power to enforce their "truth", but is a theocrat a statist? A nice question. And, of course, European Ultramontagnes simply wish to return to the simpler years when the entire civlized world recognized the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope.

A few thoughts you may want to ponder. First, the definition of Conservative, Liberal and other sectors of the ideological spectrum has changed over time.

Five hundred years ago, a conservative would have been a royalist. He would have supported an established religion.

Times and institutions have changed. Fundamentally, Conservatives believe in the practical and the traditional. They resist the theoretical and utopian.

I believe most conservatives, at bottom, believe in the sinfulness of man. Even those who are not religious, reject the perfectibility of man. This sets them apart from Liberals, Communists and Nazis who believe it is possible to create a new/improved/super man.

Conservatives believe that, because of the sinful nature of man, society has the right and the obligation to enact laws to enforce its rules. Beyond that, people and groups have the right and obligation use non-judicial means (such as shunning and ostracism) to discourage unacceptable behavior.

Conservatives design their rules to deal with the public acts of people. They are much less concerned with the private lives of people than are Liberals. Liberals, after all, are concerned with “improving” the very nature of man. To do that, they have to change what people do in both public and private. For example, in the case of homosexuality, Conservatives generally disapprove (for both religious and traditional reasons), but are content to ignore private acts behind closed doors. Liberals, however, are determined to force acceptance of these acts by dragging them out from behind the bedroom door and into the public square, thus setting up a collision of values to the detriment of public peace.

I hadn't thought of the European brand. I should take that into consideration. I had assumed discussion of "American" Conservatism, however I see that I should specify which strand. As for the "religious right," no doubt they are a bit of an authoritarian bunch. Although I think this brings up a question of degree: how "authoritarian" would, say the religious right, be compared to other "authoritarian" regimes (Soviet Russia for example). It is one thing to say that (religious right or American) conservatism is authoritarian, but when compared to other regimes, imho, I find it hard to believe that it is. It is quite hard to pin conservatism down, no doubt. Although, I would think that that fact could be used to defend conservatism against attacks that it is "authoritarian," since it is impossible to really pin conservatism one way or the other because of its many varieties. But I could be wrong.

American Conservatism is Libertarian not Authoritarian. But there are societies where the traditions being preserved are authoritarian. It is completely contrary to the nature of Conservatism, for it to reflect one worldwide viewpoint.

To have a unified Conservative view, we would have to have a world governed by a New World Order. That is what the Communists, Nazis and Fabian Socialists have sought; but if Conservatism means to be conservative, to preserve one's heritage, a unified World order would be the absolute antithesis to Conservatism.

Conservatism is not so much a viewpoint, as a resistance to the corrupting forces of the moment; a willingness to learn from your own past, to respect those who have bequeathed a way of life to you; in a sense to observe the Fifth Commandment--not so much in terms of your immediate parents, but in terms of the whole progression, that your days may be long in the land, so to speak.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

I think it's fair to say that the 'religious right' -- which can include both evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants and Buchananite style Roman Catholics -- has at the very least a strong whiff of authoritarianism in it. I'm not sure its useful to compare degrees of authoritarianism of, say, Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson with the degrees of authoritarianism of the left, say of the Clintons or Castro or Mao. I expose my own bias, but to me, to be sure, I hardly see any philosophical difference between an authoritarianism that says God told the group truth which they will enforce ( or Allah, for that matter) and an authoritarianism that says the World Historical Spirit expressed through Dialectical Historical Materialsism is the truth and we will enforce its dictates through the dictatorship of proletariat. Same worldview. Same unwillingness to think for oneself.

”The religious right? I dunno, they want to use state power to enforce their "truth"”

I’m not sure where this lie about evangelicals and conservative Christians started, but it belongs in with the Democrats’ lies about Republicans wishing to cut off social security payments to old people and making them eat cat food.

Christians have been at the receiving end of the State’s whip for the better part of the 20th Century. Our right to pray, to observe our holidays and to rear our children in our traditions have been eroded to such an extent that, if today’s State enforced secularism had been described in 1900, people would have laughed.

It is possible for any group, given exclusive access to the levers of State coercion, to become tyrannical, but let the record show that in the West, in the 20th Century, it was the militantly atheistic Left that has been the exclusive user “of state power to enforce their truth.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.