Further Thoughts on Conservatism

One might be inclinded to ask whether or not all conservatives are created equally, they are not. The beginnings of conservatism are locked in the confines of the Enlightenment. Classical Liberalism is really the parent of all conservative thought in a strange, round about way. Today there can be found Classical Liberals on both sides of the political spectrum.

The split in conservatism came with the writing of Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, where he praises the American revolution and bemoans the French. Burke was one of the few members of Parliament who supported the American colonies in their attempt to free themselves of British domination. In America the split was much sooner, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson while friends were bitter enemies at one point. John Adams can be considered the founder of American Classical Conservatism, while Jefferson falls into the Classical Liberal strain. For more information in the differences between these two classical schools, please look to my post titled “Thoughts on Schools within Conservatism.”

Today we see Paleoconservatism and Neoconservatism, both are remnants of what is called the Old Right which fell apart in the 1960′s. The Old Right, which encompassed other groups such as Southern Agrarians, was a non-interventionist, anti-war party which disagreed with the New Deal and opposed World War II. With the failed attempt by Barry Goldwater in 1964 to secure the Presidency of the United States, the New Right eventually was formed. These Neoconservatives disagreed with the Old Right’s stance of anti-war, and anti-intervention. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the term Paleoconservatism was actually coined, however they are really the remains of the Old Right which did not form the New Right. We might ask whether or not the Old Right, and subsequently the Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives come from the Classical Liberal or Classical Conservative school of thought. The Old Right encompassed both, with Southern Agrarians and the actual Old Right being primarily Classical Liberals. There was some Classical Conservative elements to the Old Right coalition; namely the Traditionalists. The Southern Agrarians favored a return to the pre-Civil War, small federal government philosophy. Today one might associate this with Paleoconservatives, while Neoconservatives are seen as big federal government and less states rights. Many Paleoconservatives actually reject the notion of strict laws, while a Classical Conservative would favor strict laws as they believe in liberty through law.

Today’s disagreements with Conservatism stem from the 1960′s when the movement broken apart into Neo and Paleo movements. Unlike Liberalism, the Conservative movement is very diverse which makes it difficult to specifically outline their thoughts and history.  These two groups today still disagree with America’s stance on war, immigration, and the spread of “Western” ideals to non Westerners. However, within the Paleoconservative movement there are multiple splinters. We can look to the movement to find that different values have helped create multiple schools, which ultimately find themselves linked back to Paleos or Neos. For example, Traditional Conservatives can be said to be Paleoconservatives but look to the Western Traditional for their guidance and do not necessarily adhere to the southern beliefs of Paleoconservatives proper. The Religious Right places more importance on the values supported by their specific religion (namely Christian Religions) which differs slightly from Paleoconservatives. The Religious Right is made up primarily of alienated Southern Democrats. Unlike many other Paleoconservatives, however, the Religious Right supports the war in Iraq and supports Israel.But due to the traditional view in small government of the south, Religious Right can’t be said to be Neoconservatives.

Ultimately, the Neoconservative movement is the most unified movement in conservative thought. Yet, Paleoconservatives can truly claim to be the correct heirs to the movement despite their splintering off. The closest movement to traditional American political beliefs of the conservative persuasion is Traditionalists. The Religious Right bridges the gap between Neocons and Paleocons. Ultimately, Classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism are essential in understanding the Paleo and Neocon schools. With the founding of America, and the influence of John Adams on the foundation of the American regime, America became a conservative nation. With the election of Abraham Lincoln, there was a split in the American conservative movement. Southerners maintained an anti-centralist stance, while the Abraham Lincoln Republicans supported such a movement. The Old Right has its origins with the interwar period, where Conservatives took an anti-war, anti-interventist approach to the Second World War. It has eventually evolved in the 1960′s with the creation of the New Right/Neoconservativism. Today’s Paleoconservatives, by those I mean they who adhere to traditional southern beliefs, take on a Classical Liberal approach. While other Paleos, namely the Traditionalists, adhere to the Classical Conservative approach. This brings conservativism in America full circle; as it was at the beginning of the American experiment, so it is today.

Views on our nations forthcoming election.

Previously I have posted my comments on the forthcoming presidential election in the U.S. In my first post I made a case that America cannot afford to have any of the individuals who declared their candidacy for President. After sometime and many of the candidates dropped from the race I formally presented my argument for why I disagree with John McCain on many of his platforms. I must say this now that despite my ill feelings towards Senator McCain’s beliefs on key issues, I will nonetheless through my support behind him. However, I feel the need to lay out my beliefs on the election and on the current status of American politics.

As anyone can see I am a conservative, whether or not I am a Republican is up for debate. What does it mean to be a conservative exactly? In the proper sense to be a conservative is the conserve the status quo but in another sense (often times viewed as dangerous) to be conservative means to return to a previous time: I belong to the latter. To neglect this side of the conservative movement is to give up on hope. In today’s world we are called upon to accept how things are and just get use to it rather than wish for something better. This notion is what has caused a decay in the American political system for some time now. We have lost track of what this nation was founded to do. The issues that will be important for the election, as they have been for some time and will continue to be, are vital to America. Among these issues are Immigration, Abortion, Death Penalty, Homosexual Marriage and the like. It was commented on my blog that I should just accept abortion and move on; morally I cannot do that and as an American citizen I would fail to live up to my obligations just to accept things.

Politics is aimed at the good, as defined by Aristotle this good is happiness. Coupled with Politics is the Noble, or virtue. In America we still have some notion of what the good is but have completely forgotten about what politics and virtue are. Let me make this abundantly clear: there is such a thing as right and wrong and they are not subjective to the individual person. Our citizens in general have lost sight of this and thus we have our present circumstances. In the Democratic party we have a potential nominee who stands for nothing more than hope and change, so did Adolf Hitler. In the Republic party we have a presumptive nominee who appears to be a unifying force in the country as he has both liberal and conservative stances. Whether or not either of these is good for our country should be clear to us all, they are not. The danger of electing either Barack Obama or John McCain is not that they are bad men, but that their beliefs in the hands of the people will bring about the destruction of liberty. Morality is key to the preservation to the body politic; Locke argues that the purpose of the civil society is to enforce and uphold the Law of Nature. I do not see a person in politics today who wants to do this.

In today’s America the election of the President of the United States is the most important decision an American can or will ever make. The President yields far more power than he has in the history of the office. Can the President have an effect on issues? Of course he can there is something called Presidential veto. Within the next President’s term it is possible that Justice Stevens will be retiring: Justice Stevens is one of the most liberal members of the High Court and with Justice Kennedy siding mostly with the Conservatives the appointment of a strong conservative Justice would be a positive thing. Like the President, the Supreme Court has more authority now than it did ever in it’s history. Thus the President, on an issue like abortion, could choose to veto a law that extends abortion rights or appoint a conservative Justice to the bench who will help overturn abortion laws as they are brought to the court. When it comes to issues of immorality such as Abortion and Homosexuality I think it is clear from the past two elections that the American people are vastly against both. President Bush is ardently against both issues and the fact that he won the popular vote in 2004, and received the largest number of votes in history is key. The President does have sway over legislation in America even if he doesn’t have the authority to create law: the President as all branches of our government should do everything in their power to uphold the Law of Nature.

The fundamental right we possess as American citizens, nay as a citizen in general is to voice our opinion and gain support for our ideology. John Adams defines an aristocrat as a man who has two votes, his own and someone else’s. The first amendment, via the Free Speech clause, is a wholly political amendment calling on the citizens (those who are capable of ruling and being ruled according to Aristotle) to voice their opinions about political matters. With the exception of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses the entire amendment deals with how the citizens are to conduct their political affairs. By submitting to the way things are simply because no one else wants to agree with you is cowardliness behavior. If I can get two people to agree that my way of thinking is right and that they will vote as I would vote then I have succeeded in my duty as a citizen. The fact that I do not want to conserve the status quo, that I want to return to what I believe is a better time in American history is exactly what makes me a conservative of the second degree. I will promote my beliefs for as long as I have the title of citizen and will defend to my death the right of any other citizen to do the same.

John McCain is dangerous to America, but Obama and Clinton are far worse. As we always have a choice, I will choose to vote for the lesser of evils. I recognize that we must prevent either Democrat from winning the November election, but that does not mean that I should stand idly by and accept wholly what the Republicans say when I view them to be wrong too. The job of our representatives is to listen to the voices of their constituency. I will never stop trying to reform this country because it will never be perfect, but it can be more perfect than it is. The youth of America are fundamentally apathetic towards politics even if they do engage in their civic duties. We shouldn’t just sit around and accept things thinking it doesn’t matter what one thinks because it will never change. Your individual vote and voice do matter and to think otherwise is to fall into the liberal trap. On election day go out and vote, vote for whomever you wish but don’t think that just because they are our options in 2008 that you can’t change how things are for 2012. If enough people want change it will happen.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.