« "Speed shrinking" | Main | The IMF has a new blog »
What is conservatism?
I've already done What is Progressivism? so here is another installment. This isn't what conservatives today necessarily believe, it's a retranslation of a mishmash of conservatism into a language which I can understand and, in part, present to others. Here goes:
1. Evil is real and there exist evil nations in the world; the relatively virtuous Western powers require strong states to fend off such evils. This distinct from "big government" in the sense advocated by modern liberals.
2. In international affairs, in the twentieth century, the United States in particular has been unselfish to a remarkable degree. We therefore should trust the United States with unprecedented power. In fact we have no alternative. Some cultures really are better than others.
3. The spread of nuclear weapons, and other forms of WMD, to irrational, evil and undeterrable powers is the number one foreign policy issue. It runs the risk of equalizing the balance of power between virtuous and evil agents in the world.
4. On the domestic front, education is the keystone issue. Societies succeed if strong family structures support an emphasis on learning and acculturation. While this does not rule out public sector education, if public sector education works the credit is not to be found in the public sector.
5. When in doubt, side with the laws and customs that have, over time, been associated with the Western powers and their growth into powerful and durable societies. It's hard to judge a lot of customs using pure, unadulterated reason, as Oakeshott and Hayek have suggested. Defending traditional values is an enterprise which itself requires a mix of law and custom. If you're focused mainly on "policy proposals," you are missing the point.
7. We do not have either the resources or the norms to remake society in the direction of a fully-comfortable-for-everyone social democracy. We do need welfare states to keep a polity in running order, but we should be modest about what such regimes can accomplish. They cannot overcome a fundamental lack of proper values as found in many poor or disadvantaged communities.
8. Fiscal conservatism is part and parcel of conservatism per se. A state wrecked by debt is a state due to perish or fall into decay. This is a lesson from history. States must "save up their powder" for true crises and it is a kind of narcissistic arrogation to think that the personal failures of particular individuals -- often those with weak values -- meet this standard.
9. For conservatism, small government is a means, not an end. It is a means to the values which lie behind Western civilization and it is a means toward the prosperity we need to live well and defend ourselves. Capitalism is important but capitalism itself relies upon particular values held by the citizenry.
10. Responsibility is a more important value than either liberty or equality.
Here is Julian Sanchez on what such exercises might mean. I don't know exactly what they mean. For me they are a means of thinking through ideas.
Addendum: Arnold Kling comments.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 7, 2009 at 05:18 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I'm OK with all ten points.
Posted by: Pavel Kohout at Sep 7, 2009 5:26:40 AM
I'd be interested to read more from you about Oakeshott
(apols if the post already exists, but I've missed it)
It would be a fine thing if the Republicans in the US and the Conservatives in the UK corresponded rather more closely to this definition of conservatism.
Posted by: Luis Enrique at Sep 7, 2009 6:05:09 AM
This seems like quite a weak list. The first three points can be condensed to "We love the USA and hate all those regimes that the mainstream media terms as evil - regardless of any underlying principles or questions of who is evil, and what is evil and what is 'good'." I would rather you expouse why a certain country is to be considered evil or not.
Point 4 is not a conservative value. "On the domestic front, education is the keystone issue. Societies succeed if strong family structures support an emphasis on learning and acculturation." Conservatives DO NOT support an emphasis on learning. Evidence of this is the conservative bias against science and bias toward creationism/religion. Education, learning and intellectual values are definitely not part of the conservative movement of today.
5 may or may not be a conservative value. I think a lot of liberals would agree that a lot of western values are admirable. The true conservative value here, across societies, is that they tend to value THEIR OWN society's values/norms. So an american conservative will love american values while a muslim conservative would love muslim values.
Of the last four, I think only 9 can be claimed as a purely conservative value - one that I think I agree with. The others really are quite unclear. For example, I could cite conservative who think liberty is more important that responsibility.
Posted by: C at Sep 7, 2009 6:13:46 AM
"Conservatives DO NOT support an emphasis on learning. Evidence of this is the conservative bias against science and bias toward creationism/religion. Education, learning and intellectual values are definitely not part of the conservative movement of today."
I used to boggle at comments like this. Then I came to ignore them. Now I find them somewhat frightening.
Posted by: BKarn at Sep 7, 2009 6:26:48 AM
Great list. Although acknowledged somewhat already in the list--I would add that MODERATION is an essential characteristic of conservatism--Limbaugh and freinds to the contrary. Ideals guide conservatism but pragmatism motivates it.
Posted by: Matthew at Sep 7, 2009 6:51:43 AM
Interesting list. Maybe needs something on housing and land use, since I think conservative values here differ from liberals and real libertarians. How about:
1. Owner-occupied housing in medium to low-density residential areas comes closest to the ideal of self-reliant households close enough together to foster community spirit but with enough separation to ensure minimal nuisance and intrusion.
2. Where people have bought into a particular kind of neighbourhood they have a right to protect that neighbourhood against inappropriate development favoured by detached or possibly corrupt local officials.
Posted by: Jim at Sep 7, 2009 7:05:05 AM
The original, authentic Ten Principles:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
Posted by: Roy Lofquist at Sep 7, 2009 7:09:25 AM
An interesting list, even more so because I don't think you are a conservative (at least not in all things). The ability -- and even the desire -- to understand the other side's arguments is a rare commodity these days. Much easier to simply claim that one's political opponents are lying, and that their principles are just a facade designed to attract the votes of the ignorant.
Posted by: John S. at Sep 7, 2009 7:35:19 AM
You are way off on #8. They might talk about deficits when Dems are in office, but they have consistently raised the debt since the era of the modern conservative presidency. Via Klein...........
"As Kent Conrad told me, reconciliation "was designed solely for deficit reduction." The Senate parliamentarian, predictably, objected to the Bush administration's effort. He was fired and replaced with a parliamentarian that blessed the procedure.
Bush's 2001 tax cuts was the first time the budget reconciliation process had ever been used for a bill that increased the deficit. Ever. Democrats were appalled. When they retook the Congress, both the House and the Senate passed a rule barring reconciliation from being used for bills that increased the deficit."
Steve
Posted by: steve at Sep 7, 2009 7:37:51 AM
1 5 and 7 yes. But 2 3 and 4 are Bushism, not conservatism, and no one can truly be a conservative without some humility about our ability to change the international order (see number 1). Neoconservatives are not truly conservative and in fact most of them started their careers with transformational ideologies like Marxism or internationalism that believe simply changing institutions can eliminate evil. Our best hope is to stick to institutions that have stood the test of time and to keep power decentralized, because most new institutional arrangements will simply unleash new evils that we lack the experience to control.
Posted by: DK at Sep 7, 2009 7:39:37 AM
"conservative bias against science"
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true - wait, are liberals at war with logic?
Posted by: Vernunft at Sep 7, 2009 7:42:22 AM
I would be more interested in a list of ten public figures who typify and advocate conservative (or liberal, or libertarian) values. By their deeds ye shall know them.
Posted by: capitalistimperialistpig at Sep 7, 2009 7:46:01 AM
Perhaps we're casting the net too widely when we define conservatism. But there are certainly a goodly number of people who are anti-science by any valid definition (anyone who 'denies' evolution for instance) and who would self-identify as conservative.
It would be helpful if Vernunft and Bkarn expanded their positions. Using taking a stance on evolution as an example, which (if either) of the following are you saying guys?
a) Those who deny that evolution is backed by valid science are not included in our definition of conservatives (or are too small/marginalised a constituency to be relevant). There is no systematic conservative bias against science.
b) Evolution is not backed by science. Those who say that it is are liberals pushing a particular political ideology.
Posted by: d40cht at Sep 7, 2009 7:53:41 AM
tyler,
i think your failing to explicitly include religion is a fundamental flaw. all conservatives invoke religion and manipulate religion to consolidate power and sway public opinion. you hinted at it in your discussion of traditional values and deference to those values, but you miss the larger point.
Posted by: sam at Sep 7, 2009 7:59:39 AM
1. Evil is a construct. Constructs are real. "West" is a relative term, distinct from "east" not "evil".
2. The construction of "unselfishness" is clearly self-serving.
3. Only nuclear armed states can disarm.
4. Education good. Apple pie good. Beer gooood.
5. Great argument for not following the U.K. into imperial oblivion.
6. Best point on the list.
7. Second best.
8. What fiscal conservatism?
9. For conservatism, "small government" is a slogan, not a policy proposal. If you're focused mainly on "policy proposals," you are missing the point.
10. Liberty and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.
Posted by: Martin Brock at Sep 7, 2009 8:03:23 AM
Cultures cannot be separated from the peoples that flourish under them. Hence immigration is not an unalloyed good. The benefits of even the most hard-working immigrants must be balanced against the likelihood that they are difficult to integrate into the mainstream. They should be judged negatively if likely to create coalitions that are ethnically based and/or liable to agitate for anti-assimilationist or anti-conservative policies. The state has the right to treat visitors and immigrants to the US very differently from its own citizens and to favor its citizens. The priority should always be how much immigrants benefit citizens and how easily newcomers can be encouraged to assimilate and accept the rules and norms of general behavior -- or in certain cases help to encourage better behavior.
Posted by: jurassic at Sep 7, 2009 8:13:45 AM
Maybe I sound too much like a Marxist, but there is essentially nothing in here about the distribution of the pie and returns to capital versus returns to labor.
I would suggest you put these items into more economic terms.
Posted by: spencer at Sep 7, 2009 8:16:49 AM
Sounds more like neoconservatism.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Sep 7, 2009 8:20:10 AM
You're leaving out this one:
Work is good for people, but people hate doing work, and will use any government-caused change in their personal finances as an excuse to do less of it. If tax increases take more money from high earners, they'll work less. If programs give money to low earners or the unemployed, they'll work less.
Posted by: Don Marti at Sep 7, 2009 8:27:37 AM
This barely recognizable list, taken together with the frequently dissenting comments, underlines the point that there are a lot of different ideas about what conservatism is, and good luck to anyone who wants to sort them out.
Posted by: Constant at Sep 7, 2009 8:40:16 AM
Point #6 removed for national security reasons. Just be thankful that there are points you never even have to know happened.
Tyler is excellent at describing the other side in their best light. An example of NOT doing this would be like saying something like this:
"Conservatives see raising and educating their own children in a way that only marginally effects others as non-political. Liberals on the other hand see this as political action. However, they view having the leader of the Democratic party make closed circuit address to all children as utterly apolitical and you are stupid to suspect otherwise."
Or, "conservatives believe that our culture is superior, so superior in fact to be infallible and immune from hubris."
These statements are are examples of what Tyler is NOT trying to do.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 7, 2009 8:59:33 AM
Perhaps we're casting the net too widely when we define conservatism. But there are certainly a goodly number of people who are anti-science by any valid definition (anyone who 'denies' evolution for instance) and who would self-identify as conservative.
But anti-science attitudes have been common on the left also. The 'Intelligent Design' movement adopted quite a lot from the post-modern left (e.g. that science is all political -- that what is accepted as scientific 'truth' depends on who holds the power, not not on 'objective' 'facts'). Paul Gross used to specialize in battling the anti-science left. And don't forget the Sokal Hoax. The religious right has been skeptical of evolution because it potentially conflicted with their religious beliefs, while the socialist left has been skeptical because it potentially conflicts with their political views (Darwinism was famously banned from Soviet biology in favor of Lamarckism).
Let's also remember that it is not only possible, but commonplace, for religious conservatives to reject evolution on religious grounds but still put a high value on education and expect their children to study diligently, earn high grades, go to college, and have professional careers. They do not see any inherent conflict between expecting their kids to study hard one the one hand and opposing the teaching materials that they feel the academic left is foisting on them (not just evolution, but 'Heather Has Two Mommies', and 'Constructivist Math', and politically correct textbooks. As a libertarian, I'd say they're nuts on evolution and offensive on 'Heather'...but on constructivist math and 'brave boys and shy girls', the conservatives do have a point...
Posted by: Slocum at Sep 7, 2009 9:02:28 AM
"Work is good for people, but people hate doing work, and will use any government-caused change in their personal finances as an excuse to do less of it. If tax increases take more money from high earners, they'll work less. If programs give money to low earners or the unemployed, they'll work less."
Ok, so if we take more money from the low earners, theyll work less, and if we give more money to the high earners, they will also work less? (unless your comment was supposed to be ironic)
On that note, I have yet to see anyone work less because their taxes went up. I think that line of argument is unrealistic.
Posted by: Gary at Sep 7, 2009 9:21:50 AM
Liberals don't appear to believe in "science" to me, they believe in institutions that claim to be scientific. These are often government-run, government-associated or government-funded and run very unscientifically. If you don't believe that there could be some groupthink in global warming or evolution science for example then you need to spend some time in the "science community" or read up on some public choice. Here's a hint: science did just fine for a long time before humans decided they were entirely rational. Believing you think rationally may or may not be better than not, but these turkeys conveniently drop their allegiance to science when it conflicts with their political motivations just as Slocum alludes. They drop the issues when they lose their political traction.
Remember stem cells? Remember ethanol? Remember the hydrogen economy? Remember the human genome? Remember global warming...oh wait, hold that thought for about 5 more years. The point is not that these were total boondoggles. The question is did these yield what the scientific community promised? Conservatives are often right not to trust new science, even though they are sometimes wrong. It's not a coincidence that patent medicines were medicines. A "science" that relies on a consensus of personalities selling their own indispensability is just dolled up religion by another, more dangerous name.
Ever notice that the "science" issues that are pushed the hardest are by nature (ha!) wedge issues. Global warming vs freedom. Evolution vs Christianity. Stem cells vs babies. I never see liberals holding up a sign that reads "The First Law of Thermodynamics...Get some!"
The trick is, if you haven't published, you don't understand the sciencific community, and if you have and do, you usually aren't telling. You used to question scientists, now you R1.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 7, 2009 9:24:44 AM
Re: anti-science attitudes on the left, don't forget RFK Jr. and the anti-vaccine crowd.
Posted by: John S. at Sep 7, 2009 9:28:05 AM
