Here is an Example of Confusion About What Conservatism Is

In his essay titled, “Can Conservatism Be Conserved?” Spencer Klavan questions whether a new “conservative coalition” made up of actual conservatives together with various non-conservatives who have been alienated or even attacked by the “Woke” progressives can form a coherent movement.  But then he concedes that most of these “new conservatives” would reject the title.  Klavan explains,

“An inescapably important reason for this is that many members of the new conservative coalition (especially those who don’t identify as conservative) reject the label because they hold views, and practice ways of life, which the historic conservatism of only a generation ago deemed deeply distasteful, even unconscionable.  Weinstein and Boghossian are atheists. Murray, Doyle, and Straka are openly gay. White is transgendered, and Birchill and Bindel are lifelong feminists.”

Apparently, the only thing all these people have in common is they don’t want to be de-platformed by the “Woke” hall monitors.  Maybe that means they believe in free speech.  But maybe they only want it if it suits their speech.  After all, feminists and the various alphabet people seem plenty willing to call anything they don’t like hate speech and get these people de-platformed or worse.

At its core I think this outreach to non-conservatives is just the latest example of liberals trying to act as gatekeepers and redefine conservatism into something acceptable to their friends on the Left.  It’s kind of like the ecumenism that was supposed to let people of different faiths coexist but ends up by turning Christian Churches into cultural centers devoid of any connection at all to Christ because it might be offensive to the non-Christians.

In my opinion it is a mirage to think that embracing these various leftists as some kind of a partnership will do any good at all.  On the contrary, all it will involve is attempts to disavow any actual conservatives who won’t paper over their rejection of the various dysfunctional and dangerous lifestyles or worldviews that these so-called conservative allies espouse.  A similar thing was done to the paleocons by the neocons a few decades ago.  That was how we ended up in the mess we are in now.  Trump was able to, single-handedly, drag those deplorables back into the fold.  The last thing we want to do is give “new conservatives” another bite at the apple.

So, in answer to the title of Mr. Klavan’s article, yes conservatism can be conserved but not by accepting non-conservative ideas and the people who live by them.  Let the progressives, the liberals, the moral relativists, the feminists and the alphabet people battle with their even crazier “woke” brethren (or whatever gender bent category they prefer) on their own.  We have nothing in common with them and nothing to gain by engaging with them.  I would much prefer to engage with the fringe groups to the right of us and see if we can find some common ground with them.  Their ideas are more extreme than ours but they at least do not reject the values that we embrace.  In many cases I think they have let pessimism radicalize their thinking and pushed them to conclude that only radical solutions to our problems exist.  I think the last few years have shown that progress can be made if the right people get involved.  If actual conservatives have a part in running the country better outcomes are possible.

What Does It Mean to Be a Conservative?

Some very old friends recently sent me a link to the obituary of Sir Roger Scruton, an English conservative.  I confess I was not aware of him and so I read the article and wanting to learn about him first hand I went to his website and watched some of his lectures and read some of his papers.

What I heard and read was very impressive.  He was clear, persuasive, intelligent and even funny.  But what struck me as important was that he defined what conservatism is and why it’s important.  And he did it in a way that was simplicity itself and at the same time showed why it was so important.

He said, “The real reason people are conservatives is that they are attached to the things that they love, and want to preserve them from abuse and decay. They are attached to their family, their friends, their religion, and their immediate environment.”  What could be simpler to understand than that?  And what could be more important than that?

And so, I have found in this an easy way to test if an argument is conservative or not.  If someone tells you that being opposed to gay marriage or transgenderism is wrong, I look at how it affects my family and friends and religion and discover that normalizing these things is harmful to all of those things.  Children will be told things in school that will confuse them and could lead them into great harm both physically and psychologically.  I can thus say that opposing LGBTQ initiatives for these things is conservative and because of the way I’ve just defined it is in the interests of me and my family and friends.  That doesn’t mean I wish harm on these people who advocate for this agenda.  I’m just protecting my family and way of life from the harm they are attempting to inflict on me.

And likewise with something like illegal immigration.  If I oppose illegal immigrants flooding the country that doesn’t make me the aggressor trying to harm these people.  It means I’m trying to protect me and mine from the effects of such an invasion.  I have nothing against the individuals involved.  I am reacting to the problems that such a phenomenon will have on the nation, the community and my friends and family in particular.  Massive immigration will drive up crime, welfare participation, housing costs and the cost of government and will depress wages and quality of life.  Even the loss of the traditions and practices we have grown up with is a degrading of the environment that we live in.  So once again it is simple to see that conservative principles dictate opposition to excessive immigration.

As a final example I’ll look at feminism.  Here is a philosophy that says that women should be encouraged, even propagandized and bullied into thinking that a career is the only acceptable option for a woman’s life.  Marriage and childrearing is a hindrance to this lifestyle and if pursued by her must be done with as little interference to her climbing the corporate ladder.  I can think of no project that has had as disastrous an effect on the modern world as feminism has had.  Our population is dwindling, children have lost the comfort of their mothers in the most critical years and the flooding of the labor market has depressed wage growth to the point that two incomes is barely enough to support a family. In addition, federal affirmative action discriminates against men in the work place to push this feminist agenda.  For these reasons, opposing feminism in general and working mothers in particular is an obvious conservative position.  Does that mean I hate women?  Of course not.  But I oppose feminism because of the harm it does to me, my family, my community and the nation.

I’ll have to thank my friends for introducing me to Sir Roger.  He has provided me with a definition of conservatism that is simple, powerful and easily applied.