21st-Century Conservatism - Guiding Principles
Published January 21, 2006
Current political discourse is marred by the scourge of the "soundbite". Issues are reduced to fragments of a sentence and disposed of inside 30 seconds. For each issue, people are carved out into rival camps and the left/right or liberal/conservative moniker is applied. The effects on political discourse specifically but political philosophy generally is that instead of a coherent philosophy that runs through Conservativism, the movement is made up of single-issue groups that vary wildly when it comes to matters of application. There are the neoconservatives, the paleoconservatives, the metro conservatives, the religious conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, and so on. The gun-rights crowd may be conservative on that issue, but they may have no opinions on the free-market economy. The pro-life groups are certainly conservative on life issues but may not have a concern about foreign policy.
This has left, in the mind of this author, a gap of a common philosophy to draw these issues into a coherent ideology, instead of being a disparate group of issues. This series is an attempt to carve out a solid political philosophy for Conservativism at large. This article is the first in that series.
Before such an attempt can be made to apply such a philosophy to specific issues, the principles of the philosophy need to be laid out and explained. The following six principles will serve as the core of this political philosophy so moving forward is possible. The principles are: subsidiary, solidarity, morality, the role of government, free-market economics and organic growth.
Subsidiary, simply put, is the idea that what can be done on the lowest level should be done on the lowest level. For instance, regulation of parking should be done locally because it would be absurd to have the federal government based in DC deciding where people in Paducah, KY should park. The people in Paducah are best able to deal with local matters and have their values respected. As another example, military defense should be done on the national level. For one thing, the Articles of Confederation proved that having each state responsible for their own defense did not work. More importantly, if a nation is to exist as such it needs to defend its integrity.
This leads into the second principle, solidarity. Solidarity is the idea that "we're all in this together" or that people have social connection and investment in their respective societies. A society where people are only self-concerned, a Hobbesian state of nature, cannot be free and will not be stable. People need to have mutual concern for one another and be willing to make some level of sacrifice for the common good. For instance, a society cannot be defended if people are unwilling to fight and die for that defense. If being a soldier is "someone else's job", eventually there are no soldiers at all. The same is true for those members of the community that fall into need, meeting those human needs are a duty one owes to the community.
- 21st-Century Conservatism - Guiding Principles
- Published: January 21, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Culture: Society
- Part of a feature: 21st Century Conservatism
- Writer: John Bambenek
- John Bambenek's BC Writer page
- John Bambenek's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
A solid start. I have two concerns, though.
Your definition of morality is fine by me, but would exclude the sizable libertarian wing of Conservatism. Those wacky pot-smokers tend to vote the same as other conservatives, but hold very different views in certain areas. Do you mean to exclude them?
Secondly, you imply self-government when talking about subsidiarity and the role of government, but I think it should be formally listed as a principle.
Wow! That's the most damning denunciation of the neocons that I've ever read.
As far as libertarians, well I'm going to post on each principle seperately, but for now, I think libertarians would hold to some level of morality they just wouldn't admit it. Libertarians aren't pro-murder or pro-theft, for example.
And I'm quite skeptical of neocons. On one had, the world is a crappy place and good national defense is not bad, but for a big "empire" that they want to establish it is unclear who that empire represents. I can vote out a President. Can you vote out the career diplomats that run this empire?
I'm skeptical of neocons, and in the end, I think it will begin to exist for its own ends and not for the ends of the American people.
I didn't see him define the specifics of 'morality', Baronius. Libertariqnism is inherently moral. Freedom is the highest moral principle and nothing is more immoral than forcing your views on others using the power of government.
I erred in my statement. A libertarian can have great personal morality. Indeed, emphasis on the role of the individual is spiritually healthy. I just don't see the libertarian signing on to those six principles. The need for a shared morality goes against their grain. I could be missing John's point, however.
John B. - this is by far, the best bit of writing i have seen from you...by and large i Agree with quite a bit of it..
strange as that may seem to many folks around here
looking back at much of what you have written in the past, and in Light of what you have written here, i think i see the conundrum
it revolves around your personal definition of "morality"
let me clarify...to most folks there is a dividing line between Morality and Ethics
and it goes like this...
Morality: a set of Rules for proper living handed down from a "higher authority" , usually some Book or Teachings considered "holy"
Ethics: a set of Rules for proper living together as set out by Reason and agreed upon by common consensus
big difference here...
allow me to postulate that our Nation, under the Rule of Law and as defined by our Constitution and Bill of Rights is a country defined by those documents as our common set of Ethics...
this was done quite deliberately, with the Understanding by our Founders that you can NOT legislate "morality"...since what is quite "moral" behavior to some...is anything but to others..
Example: ritualistic cannibalism...to some who practice it, it is the epitome of "moral" behavior...confirming and communing with their "higher Authority"...to others it can be considered quite gruesome and abhorrent
yet very few would say that good Catholics who attend church on sundays and participate in Communion are not Ethical folks by and large...no matter how strange they may think Transubstantiation is
might i suggest you re-Think where you are going...look at the Bill of Rights, and examine the difference between what you think of as "morals" and the Ethics inherent in our Rule of Law...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
If you wish to define ethics the way you do, you can largely replace the word morality in my piece. In general, however, I don't necessarily agree with how you define ethics and morality. But for the purposes here, we don't need to fight about definitions. When I say morality, by and large, I mean the set of values that enable people to live together in relative harmony. Or at least stability.
Now, as a Catholic, I see Christian morality largely holding those same values and not in opposition in any way to values that allow for a society to stay together in stability but includes a much larger group while holding for many more virtues than the bare minimum. I don't think that code should be imposed, I think it's perfectly convincing in its own right, but that's for another time and place.
The point is that the way you define ethics is pretty much the way I intend "morality" to be above. That should be clearer when I get to the post on that. This was more introduction.
fair enough John, and thanks for the clarification...
but i do think the differences in definition here, and the Principles behind said differences, are the EXACT things you and i tend to argue about
just something for a Thought...
i look forward to the next installment
Excelsior!
Probably true, though I think you think that I mean to say certain X set of morals should be forced, which I don't save the very few that entail things like murder, theft, etc.
I think religious faith has to be voluntary to have any real effect. Now I think it is what's best for anyone and it's perfectly persuasive, but that's another issue.
But yet, basically much of the fighting on politics is over the loaded word of morality, which hopefully I'll reclaim to some acceptable definition.
thanks.
Outside American political life the difference between liberalism and conservatism or left and right is not so obvious. Even, some authors stand that the difference does not exist any more. In European version of democracy or so called social-democracy, in contrast to liberal-democracy that is in US, five of these principles are implemented (i've doubts about the last one - organic growth). However, this does not lead to one coherent ideology. I think that the reason for this are mainly two. First, the issues, and respectively the policies, are left or right them selves. For example, public health care is left issue. Second, people who live in 21st century are different from their parents. During 20th century the ideology was a powerful mean for political and social mobilization. It is not true any more. I cannot say whether i am liberal or conservative. The answer is - it depends of the issue. This means that politicians and the policies that they suggest have to be fragmental in order to reflect people demands. This is what i think. I hope i did not offend any one.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/42547)
Good post. When I saw the title I expected to see a narrow ideological definition that I would find objectionable because it ruled me out as a conservative, but you've taken a nice inclusive perspective that's very appealing.