What do US conservatives think conservatism is?
Jenna Ellis, who was one of the Kraken lawyers, says this:
"Tomi Lahren is an example of a “conservative” who doesn’t know what fundamental principles she’s conserving.
Young people like free market, liberty, and choice, but haven’t thought through their worldview and where genuine freedom is derived (morality), so they’re inconsistent."
http://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1414617652107128835
Tomi Lahren answers:
"I believe in limited government and I’m also Christian enough to know it’s not up to us to judge. I was also taught that heckling and harassing others is despicable. Believe it or not, you are not the warden of conservatism OR Christianity."
http://twitter.com/TomiLahren/status/1414625161517715458
I like the fact that Ellis admits that conservatism is out-of-tune with the wishes of young people. And that Tomi Lahren uses the word warden as she does.
But curiously, the principle of conservatism is none of the things they think it is. It's simpler than that. The foundation of conservatism is to conserve what is inherited. That's to say, things that survive the test of experience probably work fairly well. Alongside this is scepticism (but not cynicism) towards what is new. A true conservative would allow political experimentation, because that is also a feature of traditional governance. But a conservative would not be optimistic that an experiment would succeed until it has shown its value over time.
If only people who say they are conservative would know what it is. Other than this, conservatism avoids principle. It is meant to be a pragmatic doctrine. What works is what is worthwhile. What doesn't work is not worth continuing. Change is feasible. But prudence and humility accompany it.
So if systems develop over time to generate wealth and do little harm, they would be conservative ideas. But if such systems generate wealth but do damage, they would not be conservative. Similarly, if systems develop over time that promote the common good and do little harm, then those are also conservative ideas. But if they do a lot of harm, they are not conservative.
Instead, US conservatives think their preferred list of "principles" is what conservatism is, regardless of how they operate in reality. And so they lose the flexibility embedded within the conservative model and turn a sensible idea into a bad one. Unregulated gun rights are a great example of a failed idea from a conservative perspective, because experience shows that whatever advantages they offer, they are also damaging. A sentient conservative would encourage their modification to deliver the advantages while reducing the harms of the ownership of weapons. Protections against climate change are an example of a programme that ought to pass a conservative test - the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Their idea of a conservative is an ideologue who espouses a particular set of dogmas. Reducing taxes good. Guns good. Government bad. Preventing climate change bad. Ideals for a Rush Limbaugh type blowhard. Ones that are a cover for simple selfish interest. One day US conservatives may remember that a conservative champion's the opposite of that. It's someone who prefers to listen and to consider alternatives and not to prejudge. I hope they will, anyway.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is more one of attitude. A liberal is more optimistic about the value of new ideas and so more enthusiastic to make changes.
Thus, you are more likely to find liberals clustering around new ideas and conservatives around long-standing ones. The initial idea of the US as a republic based upon a piece of paper was fundamentally liberal. The notion that changes to it after a couple of hundred years should be treated with caution is a conservative one.
But there's no reason to say that "the right to life" is a conservative idea. Or that markets must be "free" or that government should be "limited", whatever these words mean. Those are dogmas. Believe in them if you wish. But a conservative wouldn't approach a subject with a governing principle, beyond experience and prudence. What kind of rules about abortion maximise happiness? What kind of market is efficient and trustworthy? What sort of governing system produces optimal social outcomes? There can be different, perfectly reasonable, answers to these questions, depending upon context and experience, along with the goals one wishes to achieve. A thoughtful conservative knows this.
The answers to moral questions are also subject to ambition, context and experience in just the same way. Christianity, of course, is in no way a conservative religion.
| 