The Ultimate Moderate
Writing by abuhatem on Saturday, 7 of June , 2008 at 7:04 am
One good thing about being a traditional limited government antiwar conservative is that you are the ultimate moderate. Let me be clear, I am not a “purist,” there are places I do depart from traditional conservatism, however few. Yet, the traditional conservative seems to agree with everyone and disagree with everyone at the same time. The good thing about being a traditional conservative is that you can have your cake and eat it too, and if you reject political parties - like I do - you will find that your democrat, republican, green, libertarian, and independent friends all have something in common with you.
Case-in-point, while watching my favorite cable TV news program, Morning Joe, which is often very mainstream in its political opinions, I find that I agree with both the conservative Joe and the liberal Mika often. For instance, whenever Joe discusses lower tax rates or opposes socialized healthcare, I find myself in full agreement. His arguments are usually my arguments - both natural law based and utilitarian although they don’t use those terms obviously. And whenever Mika begins discussing our civil liberties being taken away in the war on terror, or how the Iraq war was a huge mistake, I find myself in full agreement. Her arguments are both natural law based and utilitarian although she doesn’t use those terms either obviously.
On economic issues it is the same as well. When the left discusses how corporate welfare, corporate lobbyists, government contracts, and government interventions benefit corporations on behalf of the consumer, I am the first to agree. This is what Ludwig von Mises, the great economist, called soft fascism, and is a government-industrial complex. Its greatest modern manifestation was in the bail out of Bear Stearns, the failed Wall Street investment bank, by the Federal Reserve last March. Why modern conservatives support such acts for “stability in our markets,” to quote Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson or “keeping the markets running,” true traditional conservatives see it what it is - injustice and oppression of the poor through transgressing their liberty and property rights.
When the right begins discussing bloated spending, increasing tax rates, and a progressive income tax wherein the top 5% of earners pay 53.25% of the taxes, and the top 50% pay 96.03% of the taxes, making saving extremely difficult and making working one’s way out of poverty (in conformance to the conservative belief in the natural order) difficult - then traditional conservatives are the first to agree. Some may say because the very rich often manipulate legislation through intense lobbying receiving government protections and benefits, they deserve these draconian tax rates, the French classical economist Frederic Bastait refuted this years ago saying that when government injustices are used by the rich to exploit the poor, and then the poor to exploit the rich, one has a “web of injustice,” and nothing else. Traditional conservatives would also use the arguments of Robert Nisbet, the great traditional conservative sociologist, who wrote of how when government becomes the benefactor you have a very unnatural society which weakens the power of intermediate groups such as communities and religious organizations instead relying on centralization of power. Alexis De’Tocqueville once wrote that when government is the sole social engineering benefactor, one has a very cult-like society wherein religion is weak.
When libertarians and the left begin discussing the need for freedom, you will find traditionalist conservatives fully agree. However, freedom also includes, traditional conservatives would retort, that states have the right to regulate matters within their own states. Thus, if a state or even better - a local community - seeks to make illegal matters which the constitution permits them, then they should have the right.
When conservatives begin noting the need for state coerced morality, such as banning prostitution and other things which go against the natural order, the traditional conservative will agree but will fear the dangers of centralization and increase of government power. Instead of doing such things at a federal level, they should be done at the level of the states to prevent the dangers of a unitary executive.
On the illegal immigration issue you will find traditional conservatives, historical and modern divided, another example of moderation. While traditional conservatives have always sought legal immigration and accepting others onto our shores throughout American history, some have sought a loosening of immigration rules while others have seen the need for tightening. The classical liberal and libertarian wing of conservatism seeks inclusion and a multicultural society while the more traditionalist seek conservation of culture. One can find examples for both sides of the debate in American history and in the traditional conservative movement’s writings. The issue is not as clear cut as some like to make it. Like in all questions, there is a strong traditionalist branch of the traditional conservatives who held on to conserving culture, while there is a strong libertarian (with a small-l) branch of the traditional conservatives who held on to increasing liberty.
This is the traditional conservative way which has long been forgotten. It was the tradition of the late 1800s Bourbon Democrats such as the late great president Grover Cleavland, and others such as democratic presidential candidate Sam Tilden. It is the tradition of republicans such as former Senator Robert Taft.
In the United Kingdom the traditionalist conservative tradition has been strongest, notably because the Whig (or classical liberal) and Tory (classical conservative) parties combined in the early 19th century against socialist Labour. While the antiwar anti-imperialism strand of American traditional conservatism was and is not as strong in the United Kingdom, they too had the marriage of liberty (Whiggism) and tradition (Burkeanism) so much so that the late economist Friedrich von Hayek who adopted Britain as his home called himself a Burkean Whig.
On American shores this marriage occurred at the hands of political thinker Frank S. Meyer who’s In Defense of Liberty called for the fusion of classical liberal means with traditionalist ends. Traditional conservatism he argued was the fusion of tradition and liberty. This moderate balance defines traditional conservatism’s moderation.
It is interesting to note however that before the Whigs and Torries combined in Britain, and before Frank S. Meyer’s writings on fusionism, traditional conservatism was always defined by these two marks and American Catholic Russell Kirk attempted to integrate the view of traditionalism into the American conservative consciousness. Bourbon Democrats in the United States were not absolute social libertarians in the modern sense, and they held on to state right’s of regulation. Moreover, even further historically, the father of all classical conservatism, Edmund Burke himself was a Whig and advised many economically classical liberal views in his Notes on Scarcity. Yes, the same Edmund Burke who harshly opposed “abstract theory,” said that an abundance of politics signified a “sick society,” and who rejected philosophical discourse on natural rights.
The uneasy relationship, and often tension, between Burkeanism and Whiggism, between tradition and liberty, between classical conservatism and classical liberalism itself is what signifies the moderation of “traditional conservatism,” or whatever modern nomenclature we give it. This coupled with conservatism’s inherent disgust for rigid ideology, radicalism and the revolutionary mentality, make traditional conservatism simply a synonym for moderate. In fact, I found the following diagram in a standard college government textbook the other day which vindicated my point about American traditional conservatism, it had “American conservatism” in the middle of the political spectrum and overlapping with “moderate” while European more classical conservatism was in the far right.
It is wise here to recount the words of Russell Kirk, as quoted by fellow blogger The Western Confucian:
Ideology—that is, the manmade formulations and doctrines of both the right and the left in modern American politics—is the enemy of true conservatism, as it is the enemy of the Gospel, which rests on revealed, propositional truth. Russell Kirk, the great Catholic thinker whose writings have so influenced me over the years, said that ideology is “the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers.” Most tend to be utopian and end up serving not the welfare of the people, but the interests of power-seekers.
Conservatism, on the other hand, is not a set of doctrines, but “a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.”
Indeed, conservatism is not an ideology. Conservatism is a state of mind and way of looking at ideas. It is one that I think is inherent in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and worldview, as well as many more such as Eastern Confucianism. It recognizes the natural order and moderation is an integral aspect of the natural order. From the Ancient Greeks who called “temperance” one of the four cardinal virtues, and Chinese, to the musings of Islamic mystics, moderation has always been seen as a virtue. The great Imam Ali, the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad (may God bless him and give him peace) once said that “justice is putting everything in its proper place.” Another word for justice or ‘adl in Arabic is “moderation.” As the Prophet himself said, “Do not go to extremes in religion,” and, in another hadith narrated by Bukhari says “So aim for what is right, follow a middle path, accept the good news of the reward for right action, and seek help[for your goal] in the morning, evening and some of the night.”
Hence instead of calling me a traditional conservative, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that I am the ultimate moderate.
Category: Political philosophy
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
