Why conservatism is right and will triumph in the end

In a recent post I had said, “conservatism is less a dogma than an approach to life, one based on custom and tradition, i.e. the lessons learned from the school of hard knocks.” This is why Mrs Thatcher was able to say, “The facts of life are conservative.” This is also why conservatism will win. To oppose conservatism, you must oppose reality, and if you do that, sooner or later reality will win and you will lose.

The problem with all other ‘isms is that they are derived from abstract principles. And no matter how good the principle, no clearly defined doctrine can explain all the countless facets of human life. Life is just too complex. Some principles are closer to the truth than others. For instance, the laissez faire principle of classical liberalism (i.e. libertarianism) - that he who governs the least governs the best - is a much better governing standard than the principle of socialism – that society should be controlled top-down rationally. This is why classically liberal countries generally fare much better than those ruled by socialists. But even with the principle of freedom, libertarian academicians will sooner or later tie themselves into knots trying to explain away an absurd consequence of this otherwise fine principles. For instance, gun control as a general principle is bad. But if so then shouldn’t Mohammed Atta be allowed to own a backpack nuke? The problem for libertarians is that all principles, even the good ones they hold, have impractical consequences. This fact does not bother conservatives. We simply apply our principles with common sense. For instance, I once read a libertarian who argued with total seriousness that voting in elections was equal to slavery because it was an imposition by the government on the people. A conservative would never say this.

Conservatism has been criticized as lacking a defining principle. This is true, but this is also its strength. However, if it has one principle in common it is that all political, social, ethical and moral principles must conform to the constraints of reality. For instance, what is the common thread behind these conservative principles?

Free markets are better than central planning.

Monetarism is better than Keynesianism.

Saving is better than spending.

People shouldn’t be shielded from the bad consequences of their behaviour.

Work is good.

Democracy is better than authoritarianism.

A constitutional republic is better than a pure democracy.

A legal system should be based on the British common law tradition.

If you want peace you must prepare for war.

War is an unpleasant fact of life that cannot ever be completely done away with; it can only be forestalled by good statecraft backed up with military force.

Private charity works better than welfare.

Giving people money to do nothing rots their character.

A separation of church and state is better than an official religion.

Privately held faith is better than aggressive atheism because religion can have an important regulating effect on individual behaviour.

The traditional family unit is the fundamental building block of society.

Respectable children are most likely to be raised by both parents working together.

Sexual freedom has bad consequences.

Patriotism is an essential glue that holds a society together.

Self-sacrifice needs to be acknowledged, and where possible, rewarded.

Incremental change is generally better than revolution.

Big ideas, especially those freighted with heavy consequences (e.g. ending global warming) must be approached with scepticism and caution.

Mass migration profoundly disturbs the existing order.

Criminals must be punished.

Most social order is regulated by unwritten custom and tradition, not written rules.

What brings these disparate principles together is reality. That is, all of these things have been found to work in real life, i.e. by the school of hard knocks.

While it may be possible for some theoretician to come up with an all-encompassing theory that captures the entire essence of the human experience better than tried and true principles, the smart money bets against this happening.

Take the French Revolution. Many of the ideas leading up to 1789 were very good: the economic liberalism of the physiocrats and the replacement of an absolute monarchy with a constitutional republic, the totalitarian obscurantism of the Church with rationalism and feudalism with equal rights (i.e. equal opportunity). The trouble was that by doing too much at once, the revolutionaries created a whirlwind of chaos instead of progress.

And if the principles of the revolution happen to be bad instead of good, like they were in Russia, then the result is catastrophic. The Russian Revolution was nothing more than large-scale mass murder. It completely lacked any redeeming features.

That is why one should beware of conservative politicians who jettison conservative principles for expediency. It might seem a clever ploy at the time but, in time, reality will rear its head and bite them in the arse. Take Arnold Schwarzenegger. He thought it was politically smart to abandon fiscal conservatism in favour of liberal spending. Now that compound interest is barrelling at him like a freight train, I don’t think he thinks it is such a good idea any more.

This also explains why conservatives are generally antithetical to central power.

Central authorities like ‘grand ideas’ they can apply on a large scale. Hard knock solutions, being bottom-up answers, tend to empower grass roots institutions the most. This is why large corporations are often sympathetic to socialism and big government even though, ‘theoretically’, they should support free markets and oppose government intrusion – ostensibly their worst enemy. When a company is big enough, it finds that it is easier to petition the government than to compete against a competitor.

Comments

[WiseGuy]

I pray that you are right, because it sure as hell looks like 233 years of successful experimentation in conservatism are coming to a permanent end.

What we so desperately need right now is another Ronald Regan.

[Guelph first]

I agree with much of what you said, 80% or so, but I think your premise and logic are off a bit on a few points. Nothing a couple of beers won’t sort out.

[Xigent]

I ain't no conservative, but I once was. Nixon, his "Southern strategy" and his bloody wars introduced doubt; Reagan's ruinous and hypocritical tripling of the national debt with surrogate wars and lavish military hardware clinched my conversion.

Yet I can still appreciate that this post gives perhaps the most clearly laid out explanation of what classic conservatism is (or was) about that I've seen in years and years. As I read down the list of conservative principles, I applied it to Conservatives I Have Known, and it helped me understand what made the buggers tick. That's the acid test. I can actually see how conservatism, for want of a better word, could appeal to them. Nice job.

I remember admiring paleo-conservatives like Barry Goldwater and even Eisenhower, who has been rehabilitated of late as historians finally learned to adjust for his Kansas modesty. George Will and William Safire are not without redeeming qualities. And then, on the Canadian side, there's Joe Clark and some of the Red Tories.

In accord with the point you make in your post, these are all people (men, as one would expect in a conservative pantheon) whose politics derived from their characters, not their cortices. Political theory was anathema; government a (somewhat) necessary evil, irrefutable evidence of the tragic flaws in human character.

The current crop of neo-cons and Harper Conservatives inspires little admiration at all for principles or anything else enduring. Where are the character-imbued true conservatives of yesteryear? What happened? Were they mesmerized and then subverted by liberal print media and sitcoms?

As tribute, I leave a quotation that, it seems to me, might complement your list:

"The ratio between supervisory and producing personnel is always highest where the intellectuals are in power. In a Communist country it takes half the population to supervise the other half."

Eric Hoffer, _The Temper of Our Time_, 1967.

[vet]

It's interesting that in your list of conservative ideas, there's only one place where an adverb is used to dilute the principle:

"Incremental change is generally better than revolution."

Why that caveat, I wonder? Couldn't you, with equal truth, insert the word 'generally' into all those statements?

It seems to me that a true pragmatist would say "there is a time for monetarism, and a time for Keynesianism; a time for saving, and a time for spending; a season to every purpose under heaven." Elsewise, you're being as dogmatic as any socialist.