Just what are conservatives conserving?

Just what are conservatives conserving?
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
August 8, 2004

Conservative – another sweeping term that is used as a pejorative by some and as a badge of honor by others.  In many ways both views are wrong, conservatism is not necessarily a bad idea and is not necessarily the best idea.  The problem is that the term conservative is used to describe a grab bag of conflicting ideas and to pretend that all who call themselves conservatives will adhere to all these conflicting ideas.

Both George Will and William Safire have catalogued the factions contained in the Republican party – economic, social, libertarian, idealistic, and cultural (1).  Safire wrote that the economic conservative is against “enforced redistribution of wealth” and for reduced taxes; the social conservative doesn’t like the violence in entertainment and opposes partial-birth abortion; the libertarian “is pro-choice and anti-compulsion”, the idealistic conservative believes it is America’s role to extend freedom, and the cultural conservative prefers traditional to avant-garde and the thoughtful to the emotional.  He offered more complex descriptions but space and copyrights limit my explaining more.  He also offered some stands that “liberals” would agree with – consumer protection from monopolies, right of counsel, and keeping “fundamentalists out of schoolrooms.”

I would make a slightly different catalog: pro-business, religious right, libertarian, and militaristic.  Pro-business is more pro-CEO of larger companies; religious right is enforcing one’s religious views on others; libertarian is as Safire described, and militaristic is projecting power more than defense.  They are all mixed up in a weird dance of support and conflict.  Some very large businesses provide the violent entertainment that the religious right opposes; businesses like military contracts but they don’t want to pay the taxes to pay for the contracts; the religious right supports the militaristic because they believe it is bringing on Armageddon, the battle to end all battles; the libertarians resent actions of the religious right; and the militaristic play on the desires of all to promote “freedom and democracy” even as they run roughshod over “freedom and democracy” here and elsewhere.  Please note: I did not write “military” but “militaristic”.  The members of the military may be behaving honorably  but the “militaristic” have designs beyond “defense”.

The classical definition of conservatism is holding on to what is traditional and making change gradually.  It is hard to find fault with this view, we all have a bit of conservatism in ourselves.  The business owner who doesn’t alter his plans until he has looked thoroughly at what change will bring about.  The religious person who prefers the King James Bible rather than reading the newer translations.  The person who prefers older music or art to the latest trend.  Or the person who eats the same thing for breakfast every day.

However, much of what passes for conservatism is more radicalism – the abrupt change of how things were.  Large businesses destroy smaller competitors or businesses that are in the way of their expansion.  The religious right takes small parts of the bible literally and ignores the larger truths accepted by more traditional churches.  The militaristic ignore traditional international relations in order to act on their own worldview.  It seems to me that what these conservatives are attempting to conserve is their power over others.

One way they attempt to conserve power is to wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim that they are promoters of freedom and democracy.  Freedom is not promoted by telling people how to conduct their private affairs, what they must believe, and what rituals they must perform.  Democracy is not promoted by hiding information in the name of security or by taking checks and balances from voting to promote sales of technology.

One of the characteristics of current conservatism is unquestioning promotion of “approved” beliefs.  Have you noticed that no matter how many news quotes from “conservative” sources, no matter how many letters from “conservatives”, and no matter how many opinion pieces by “conservatives”, if a newspaper or broadcaster has any news or opinions outside of this set of views, it is “liberal”?  Very interesting because many newspapers and broadcasters are owned by “conservative” businesses.

A slogan that captures this mind set is RINO – Republican in name only.  One of the supposed attributes of having only two political parties is that they each will cover a wide range of views – the so-called “big tent” parties.  However, conservatives are increasingly demanding orthodoxy – a strict adherence to a set of beliefs.  You can see this is the writings or hear it on radio shows of conservatives.

Rush Limbaugh is supposedly the master of not allowing anyone to contradict him with a different interpretation of facts.  Ann Coulter hammers away with a repetitious call for orthodoxy.  I’m having a tough time making it through her book Slander because of all the generalizations and selective quotes she makes to show how bad “liberals” are.

This orthodoxy carries over to support for President George W. Bush.  About the only conservative commentators who might question Bush’s actions are William Safire and George Will.  They may point out an inconsistency in something Bush said or did.  Otherwise the President can do no wrong, unless it is not going to the right far enough.

Maybe George Bush doesn’t see himself as the Roman Emperor that Garry Trudeau depicts him as in “Doonesbury” (the empty helmet), but many of Bush’s supporters treat him as if his actions should no more be challenged than those of early Roman Emperors.

Remember, the Roman Republic fell when a general overstepped the limits the Senate set for him.  Could the American Republic fall when a Commander-in-Chief reinterprets the Constitution and oversteps its limits?  If so, conservatives will not have conserved freedom and democracy.

(1) William Safire, “Inside a Republican Brain”, New York Times, July 21, 2004 (Page may be available online only to subscribers)


©2004, 2007, 2013 Melvyn D. Magree