What Is True Conservatism?

In a recent column, Michael Gerson wrote about modern conservatism’s “two distinct architectural styles.” One approach within conservatism, he said, celebrates those who seek to apply abstract principles in their purest form. The alternative approach is more disposed toward compromise, incremental progress and taking into account shifting circumstances.

What’s worth noting, I think, is that many of those in the first camp consider themselves to be more principled and authentically conservative than those in the second, who are often derided as RINOs and “squishes,” as part of the much-derided “establishment” and who go along to get along. These politicians continually back away from fights like shutting down the federal government, preventing an increase in the debt ceiling, going over the fiscal cliff and filibustering background checks. The failure to engage these battles, and many others, is a sign of infidelity to conservatism.

Now, it’s not as if this critique never applies. There are certainly Republicans who claim to be conservative but don’t have deep convictions, who are in politics not because they care about advancing ideas as much as they care about power and titles. But what is of more interest to me is the divide over what a genuine conservative temperament and cast of mind is. A new book on Edmund Burke, by the British MP Jesse Norman, helps illuminate this matter. Given the contours of the current debate, it’s worth recalling what Burke, whom Norman refers to as “the first conservative,” actually believed.

Let’s start with moderation, a word many modern-day conservatives instinctively recoil from but which Burke referred to as “a virtue not only amiable but powerful. It is a disposing, arranging, conciliating, cementing virtue.”

According to Norman, Burke believed the proper attitude of those who aspire to power is “humility, modesty and a sense of public duty.” He was “anti-ideological in spirit,” deeply distrustful of zealotry and believed self-correcting reforms, while certainly necessary, should be limited, discriminating, and proportionate. For Burke, Norman argues, universal principles were never sufficient in themselves to guide practical deliberation.

“Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour and discriminating effect,” according to Burke. “The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.”

“The lines of morality are not like the ideal lines of mathematics,” he wrote elsewhere. “They admit of exceptions, they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic but by the rules of prudence.”

A Burkean approach would never insist on absolute consistency in conducting human affairs. Politics is about carefully balancing competing principles, ever alert to the dangers posed by unintended consequences. It involves taking into account public sentiments, what Burke called the “temper of the people.” Nor is politics ever as simple as saying we believe in liberty and limited government and therefore the application of those principles is self-evident. Burke’s view, according to Norman, is that “perfection is not given to man, and so politics is an intrinsically messy business… The function of politics, then, is primarily one of reconciliation and enablement.” What deeply concerned Burke were people of “intemperate minds.” What is required of statesmen is wisdom and good judgment, sobriety, foresight and prudence.

Now Burke’s interpretation of conservatism was not written on stone tablets delivered on Mt. Sinai–and even if it were, merely to invoke Burke does not mean one is properly applying his insights to the here and now. But it does strike me that as this debate intensifies, and as various people lay claim to being the True Conservatives, it’s worth reminding ourselves what the greatest exponent of conservatism actually believed.

We have to decide to focus on one thing

Government is too big as the IRS tyranny showed

We should all focus on repealing laws which is the only way to reduce the size and power of government

Then we can live our lives how we want to and be free to choose from the many opportunities in the free market.

If we don't have freedom, a small out of the way government and a free market( capitalism) , we have nothing.

Democrats , all they want to do is grow government and so to make slaves of us in a horrific socialist dark world

Speaking of Burke and conservatism, another thread today discussed John McCain's (a man who must not be mistaken for a "conservative") disparaging comments about Sens. Cruz and Reed--men who do understand their Constitution's limits on coercive government power.

Those who, like John McCain, have held "office" in government for extended periods become too occupied with the trappings and habits of office than with the great principles of freedom their "office" was designed to protect and defend.

Note, please, Edmund Burke on the effect of "office" on a government official:

". . . it may be truly said, that men too much conversant with office are rarely minds of remarkable enlargement. Their habits of office are apt to give them a turn to think the substance of business not to be much more important than the forms in which it is conducted. These forms are adapted to ordinary occasions; and therefore persons who are nurtured in office do admirably well as long as things go on in their common order; but when the high roads are broken up, and the waters out, when a new and troubled scene is opened, and the file affords no precedent, then it is that a greater knowledge of mankind, and a far more extensive comprehension of things, is requisite, than ever office gave, or than office can ever give." - Speech of Edmund Burke, Esq., on American Taxation April 19, 1774 [Second Edition. Dodsley, 1775.] here.

Now that a new generation of thinkers, men and women who have utilized new technologies to read the great literature of liberty surrounding the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the framing of "the People's" Constitution for limiting their government, the old guard, like McCain, who merely sought "office" and perpetuated themselves in that office are understandably without a clue as to how to respond to discussions of principles and ideas.

It is up to us, the citizens of America, to join the new guard who understand that there are ideas too essential to liberty to be traded away in the kind of "habits of office" (Burke) McCain refers to in his sniping, ". . . maybe the senator from Utah ought to learn a little bit more about how business has been done in the Congress of the United States.”

Now, "when the high roads are broken up, and the waters out, when a new and troubled scene is opened, and the file affords no precedent," is the time for statesmen whose minds are focused on first principles and how to preserve liberty for future generations.

Senators Lee and Cruz, please attend to Burke's wisdom, for it is high time for "a greater knowledge of mankind, and a far more extensive comprehension of things. . . than ever office gave, or than office can ever give." McCain's focus on a "legacy" for this Congress and for President Obama reflects a small mind focused on "office"--not a "greater knowledge" of the sad history of civilization's struggle for liberty.

I've been reading Peter Wehner for several years on the “Commentary” blog.

He is a standard issue neo-Con.

Things we agree on:

(1) Strongest military in the world
(2) Assertive foreign policy
(3) Friend of Israel

Things we disagree on:

(1) Almost EVERYTHING else!

Wehner constantly attacks Conservatives.

He relentlessly advocates compromise with Democrats on guns, on immigration, on taxes, on limited government, on abortion, on gay marriage, and on free enterprise capitalism.

He dismisses MSM political bias as a minor distraction.

I've had enough.

Conservatives have been compromising with the Left since Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901.

No more compromise.

Ever.

He's what is called a big-government globalist ... and there's absolutely nothing conservative about it at all.

Of the three items you've listed ...

(1) Strongest military in the world
(2) Assertive foreign policy
(3) Friend of Israel

... the first is the only one that has any basis in conservative American principles. The only purpose for having the strongest military in the world is to keep other countries from f#%&ing with us. The military is not supposed to serve ideological and corporate interests in building an empire.

It is possible for a person to be a moderate conservative, but the majority of politicians who claim to be "moderate conservatives" are nothing of the sort. A true moderate conservative will not push as hard for conservative policies as would a more solid conservative, but will be more than happy to let stronger conservatives push such policies even if he lacks the spine to do so himself. By contrast, the politicians who call themselves "moderate conservatives" base their political identity on their ability to "compromise" with leftists, and on being "electable". Such people realize that if conservatives were to score a major victory, they would cease to have any political purpose. By contrast, hardcore leftists can count on a substantial constituency no matter how many victories conservatives win. Conservative victories may weaken their power a little but, but they'd retain their raîson d'être.

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.