A Conservative on Conservatism

[flwyd]

Conservatism, in my view, begins with an understanding of the world as a broken place always at risk of spinning out of control. A conservative, then, is pleasantly surprised to find so much good in the world. He or she responds in profound gratitude for the gifts we've received and consequently aims to conserve or preserve those blessings, and to steward an order under which those blessings might be shared with even more people, all of whom are possessed of inexhaustible dignity and inalienable rights. Conservatism is, therefore, antithetical to an attitude that says to "burn it all down." Because conservatism is in part a disposition of gratitude, it is opposed to a culture of grievance or universal victimhood.
— Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Them: Why we hate each other—and how to heal, footnote page 120 in the section "Conservatism Doesn't Make Good Radio"

Maybe this is why, despite deeply valuing conservation of resources, environments, and cultures, I've rarely found resonance in the conservative worldview. I don't see the world as broken at all. Rather, I think of it as profoundly ordered, with dynamic systems well-adapted to their environments, whether that happened over a generation or over a billion years.

Comments

[elusiveat]

Or maybe it's because Senator Ben Sasse's experience of conservatism is not representative. Conservatism, at its core, seems to be about placing a value on older power structures (for one's own culture) and/or valuing the idea the people who used to have power should maintain or increase power.

If it were fundamentally about an acceptance that the world is broken and a desire to "conserve or preserve those blessings, and to steward an order under which those blessings might be shared with even more people" then there would be absolutely no reason why conservatives would be affronted by, say, affirmative action or the welfare state (which at this point are the status quo) but protective of the rights of the hyperwealthy to hold onto their wealth (which is also the status quo, although in the U.S. it was somewhat less true under the tax code of the mid 20th century). Likewise, Senator Sasse's conservative ought to roll their eyes and the culture of grievance or victimhood that drives racist "stand your ground" laws.

*I* see the world as "a broken place always at risk of spinning out of control" (hell, ever since the Citizen's United SCotUS decision, it has *been* spinning out of control), and I also have "profound gratitude for the gifts we've received." My gratitude centers on things like natural water purification, rich topsoils that support production of food, and the creature comforts that I've inherited as a legacy of the way that my ancestors brutally oppressed and killed people of other races. I also believe in my obligation to "steward an order under which those blessings might be shared with even more people, all of whom are possessed of inexhaustible dignity and inalienable rights". To me, that means continually working toward government protections for natural resources, and continually fighting against the inevitability of unequal resource distribution, including trying to offset the ways in which I have benefited by my ancestors doing the *opposite* of stewarding that more equal world.

Maybe the difference between me and a conservative is that we have different meanings of the word "it" in feeling that we should not "burn it all down."

[flwyd]

Conservatism, at its core, seems to be about placing a value on older power structures (for one's own culture) and/or valuing the idea the people who used to have power should maintain or increase power.

I think that focus on preserving existing power structures stems from the conservative value of defending what (seems to be) good. During the American revolution the conservative position was that of the royalists. By the 19th Century, when the country had proved that the country could succeed without a king, the conservative position was to maintain the "states rights" power structure.

I'm not sure what Sen. Sasse believes about affirmative action, welfare, or Citizens United, though on the last point I wouldn't be surprised if he was opposed to the amount of big money in politics. In The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater wrote In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions—or corporations—to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly. On the former topics, I think conservatives see themselves as preserving gifts like individual freedom and responsibility. (There's also an argument to be made that defending social programs like Social Security and Medicare is a conservative position, and I think this passage provides a framework for making that case to a conservative.)

It should also be noted that intellectual or movement conservatism and the current state of the Republican party are often at odds, and Sasse offers many critiques of the latter.

[elusiveat]

There is a general definition of "conservative" that means desiring to preserve the status quo, whatever the status quo may be. I don't think that definition aligns with the political definition at all. For the most part, political conservatives value preserving (or restoring) *certain things*. Non-conservatives value preserving (or restoring) other things. Some of those things might even overlap.

If what Sasse values is individual freedom and responsibility, that is only a subset of valuing "the gifts" we've received. If that is where he is coming from, then it strikes me as a bad faith argument to stand up and declare that conservatism (as a political movement) is about gratitude for what we've received and is antithetical to "burn it all down", with the implication that non-conservatives want to burn it all down. Likewise, trying to apply the general non-political definition of "conservative" to conservatism as a political category is also bad faith.

He's welcome to criticize the GOP, but ultimately he's chosen to be a member of it, which tells me some things about where his priorities lie. Allowing him to define a framework where people who have priorities different from his are trying to "burn it all down" is already surrendering to his political conservative viewpoint.

[flwyd]

For context, this footnote came while discussing Sean Hannity and "polititainment" cable news and talk radio. He's drawing a distinction between his type of conservatism (what one might call the National Review flavor) from folks like Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who are described as conservatives, but seem set on destroying successful institutions (what one might call the Fox News flavor of conservatism). Sasse wasn't trying to paint liberalism or progressivism as a "burn it all down" philosophy.

[elusiveat]

Ah. That definitely wasn't clear from the block quote.