Yours is an interesting and thought-provoking post. As I distill your essay, it seems you are asking for a consensus on the definition of a conservative and you are positing that conservatism and activism apparently opposites.
Let's take the matter of consensus. Why is it important to define a person as a conservative or not? It seems to me to be as productive as trying to define a beautiful woman. There are beautiful features on a woman but does a woman have to have all the "right" features to be beautiful? By the same token, there are conservative positions on a variety of issues but does one have to hold all the "right" positions in order to be a conservative? In the real world, one-size-fits-all will fit a very few people nicely and be varying degrees of discomfort for everyone else.
I believe the search for the basic definition is divisive and counter-productive. In fact, I believe this is one of the serious challenges for the liberals because they have tried to define who is and is not a liberal based on holding certain positions on abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, and other issues ad infinitum. The attempt to draw the definition alienates people who agree on some issues but not on others. It reminds me of the short verse (sorry, I don't have the author's name): "He drew a circle that shut me out--heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had wit to win, we drew a circle that took him in." Why not approach converatism on an issue-by-issue basis and accept your friends as you find them? I believe in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
As to whether activism and conservatism mix, I think they do if kept within proper limits. Activism for conservative causes should be designed to reflect the conservative respect for law and the use of legal means to accomplish one's purposes. Deep down, many conservatives are motivated not by traditions as such but by the bedrock values underlying those traditions. When conservatives see those bedrock values not just disregarded by others but actually threatened or undermined, the conservative has an obligation to stand up for the value, within the limits of legal activism.
Protest warriors and such who act within the law are fully living conservative values. (So, for that matter, are liberal activists who stay within the law.) In the academic world, rhetoric and debate carry a lot of weight. In much of the rest of society, they tend to be devalued or ignored. When was the last time the local news people came to film one of your no doubt cogent lectures? In order to attract attention to an issue, protest warriors are more or less forced to take actions which would attract news coverage. I believe there is no shame in this so long as the protests are legal.
Does my definition mean anarchy? I think it means a more flexible approach to issues, taking allies as they present themselves and not demanding certain litmus tests to qualify as "one of us".
In the spirit of full disclosure, I consider myself holding conservative views on most issues, though by no means all (as other so-called "conservatives" define them). I have a juris doctorate degree, practice law, been married for over twenty years and have three children. I take my religion seriously and consider this nation grounded in the Judeo-Christian traditions. Not to worry, though, I have no problem accepting non-religious conservative allies. ;o)
Good analogy. My concern is more akin to a woman who got too many plastic surgeries. Isn't there a point at which she becomes no longer beautiful? In the same manner, a conservative who employs certain radical strategies may end up crossing over from conservative to militant. My concern, precisely, is that conservatives avoid using such tactics without considering the consequences of doing so too often.
I agree that "one-size-fits-all" categories are overly confining. That's why I was attempting to identify a broad "image" or conception of conservatism, so there would be lots of room for agreement. An overly precise, narrow definition would not do . . . absolutely.
I honestly believe we are in agreement regarding the enemy of my enemy is my friend. You won't find one specific issue mentioned in my post, because I was trying to identify some core, general values, around which we can gather (because I think there does have to be something, after all, binding together a movement.) BUT, having said that, and I think I'm pretty explicit about this, later in the post, the application of so general a principle ("the enemy of my enemy . . .") will not do either. I don't care if anyone "subscribes" to a set of beliefs, in any silly, direct sense. It's just that there have to be some things that are considered central to the heart of conservatism (like limited government, respect for law, individualism, personal responsibility, and so on). Don't we identify with these basic propositions? Don't they help define us? If not, can there be any "we" or "us"? I don't think so . . .
"Limited/principled activism"--Amen! I'm with ya, bro.
forced to take actions which would attract news coverage. I believe there is no shame in this so long as the protests are legal.
I agree with you 100%. The only point I've ever tried to make about such activity is that, if a person becomes addicted to grabbing the headlines (and gets increasingly outlandish to accomplish that objective) then they ought to be careful. Conservatives ought not use street militant tactics like 60s radicals. A person's actions eventually effect his or her views and can eventually contribute to a loss of perspective and balance.
In much of the rest of society, they tend to be devalued or ignored.
And why is that, do you suppose? Isn't it because our culture is coming unhinged? That's exactly why I teach my students the way I do. (Not just to debate issues, in an academic, irrelevant sense, but to be at home in the realm of ideas, to be quick-witted and tough-minded, so they can make a difference in the real world.) That is the vision of the conservative professor of rhetoric I learned from Weaver!
I expressly rejected the idea of a litmus test toward the close of my post. I have to say (in the spirit of debate, not criticism) that I find a little ambhiboly in your reply: I'd consider militancy antithetical to conservatism, not activism, and, second, as I said earlier, I never proposed adopting a "basic definition" which would certainly lead to litmus tests, BUT for "an image" or a general conception of conservatism (one that would allow for "variations on the theme" as it were).
Hey, thanks for the spirited, intelligent exchange! And thanks for the "full disclosure." I take my religion very seriously as well. I'm guessing you're into apologetics along the lines taught by John Warwick Montgomery? Have you read The Defense Never Rests by Craig Parton? (I'm taking a van load of college kids to hear him speak at Laramie, Wyoming in April.)
FRegards!