By Elliot Kaufman
Thursday, August 10, 2017
‘Conservatives could ‘rebrand’ as liberals,” wrote Bill
Kristol on Saturday, delighting the subset of the Internet that has long raged
about neocon infiltrators and fake conservatives. But Kristol, editor at-large
of The Weekly Standard and a one-time
professor of political philosophy, meant something different. “Seriously,” he
continued. “We’re for liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal economy,
[and] liberal education.”
Is Kristol right? Some say yes, conservatives have been
classical liberals all along. “Truth in advertising” was how Adrian Vermeule,
the conservative Harvard law professor, characterized the proposed American
conservatives-as-liberals “rebranding.” An astute British observer had a
knowing laugh: “Is there anything funnier than watching right-wingers gradually
realise they’re just liberals in real time?” he wrote.
This view, that American conservatism crossed the River
Styx into philosophical liberalism with its embrace of the free market, is too
clever by half. Really: Are we so devoted to Gladstone that we have learned
nothing from Disraeli? So preoccupied with the Wealth of Nations that we have forsaken the Bible? All Locke,
Smith, and Friedman, without Fortescue, Burke, and Kirk?
I don’t think so. Any fair appraisal of the American
conservative movement would not, like Scooby-Doo’s Mystery Team unmasking the
ghost only to find a man underneath, find liberalism all the way down.
But does that mean conservatism is illiberal? In last
Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Israeli
philosopher Yoram Hazony argues that “there’s no such thing as an ‘Illiberal.’”
This is true as far it goes. Describing populists, nationalists, and Nazis
alike, “illiberalism” too often functions as a lazy catch-all for critics. This
is similar to how Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists beat up on “religion” in
the abstract, conflating dissimilar belief systems to gain an argumentative
advantage. However, “illiberalism” is also a useful grouping of the
alternatives to liberalism, our ancien
regime. Conservatism, a certain type of traditionalist would hold, is just
one of these alternatives, entirely distinct from liberalism.
Yet this too seems unlikely and unfair. Just refer back
to Kristol’s list: Conservatives can comfortably embrace liberal democracy,
liberal world order, liberal education, and arguably, a liberal economy. I
would add liberal free speech, religious liberty, and the values of the
American Founding. I’d also note that Edmund Burke and Adam Smith were mutual
admirers, viewing each other as allies not enemies.
What emerges is a complicated picture of conservatives as
not wholly liberal yet not wholly illiberal either. Conservatives, it seems to
me, are more than liberals; or, put it this way: We are liberals secondarily.
By this I mean that we have commitments that precede our liberalism, and these
commitments are themselves pre-liberal. Their authority is ancestral, not
chosen. They are the first, the permanent things, and contra Locke, conservatives find their authority legitimate.
Conservatism, for example, may include liberal
capitalism, but with a prior commitment to the dignity of the human person, the
redeeming covenant of marriage, and the goods of family, faith, and community.
Those are the foundations that we attempt to conserve, before we employ
liberalism. It allows conservatives to escape from a self-undermining, pure
libertarianism and pursue “economics as if people mattered,” as E. F.
Schumacher put it.
Behind every conservative embrace of liberalism, there is
a prior and pre-liberal commitment. We are for liberal free speech, but with a
prior commitment to decency. We support liberal democracy, but with a prior
commitment to justice, not just conflict de-escalation. We praise liberal
education, but to save it from undermining itself with skepticism, we need a
prior commitment to Truth.
Finally, conservatives defend liberal world order, but
with a prior commitment to the nation, America. This is why U.S. conservatives
(including Bill Kristol) overwhelmingly supported Brexit while Britain’s
Liberal Democrats were its strongest opponents. And for much the same reason,
Leo Strauss presciently identified Zionism as a conservative movement in 1956.
As Strauss reminded the editors of National
Review,
The moral spine of the Jews was in
danger of being broken by the so-called emancipation which in many cases had
alienated them from their heritage. . . . Political Zionism was the attempt to
restore that inner freedom, that simple dignity, of which only people who
remember their heritage and are loyal to their fate, are capable. . . . It
helped to stem the tide of progressive levelling of venerable ancestral
differences; it fulfilled a conservative function.
A full commitment to a liberal world order leads liberals
to sacrifice national identity and sovereignty to international organizations
such as the EU and U.N. It induces Jews and Christians to accept “emancipation”
from religion and nationality in the hopes of joining Hillary Clinton’s “global
village” or becoming Karl Marx’s “species-beings.” This is why Prime Minister
Trudeau insists that Canada has “no core identity” and President Macron rejects
any “single French culture.” It is why President Obama, in so many words,
dismissed American exceptionalism.
But American conservatives walk a different path. We
understand that such a liberal order would be brittle; standing for nothing, it
is left with no tool but force to secure obedience. But who would fight and die
for the European Union? This sort of unrestrained liberalism risks losing the
pre-liberal loyalties upon which our liberty and security truly rely.
Irving Kristol had a similar worry about liberalism in
economics, the unrestrained “free society” of Friedman and Hayek. “It is
interesting to note what Hayek is doing,” wrote the elder Kristol in 1970. “He
is opposing a free society to a just society — because he says, while we
know what freedom is, we have no generally accepted knowledge of what justice
is.” Kristol thought Hayek’s characteristically liberal move was dangerous.
“Can men live in a free society if they have no reason to believe it is also a
just society?” he asked, “I do not think so.”
In order to recover that prior commitment to justice,
which was so necessary to sustaining capitalism and liberty, Kristol
recommended “the long trek back to pre-modern political philosophy. . . .
Perhaps there we shall discover some of those elements that are most
desperately needed by [our] spiritually impoverished civilization.”
Accordingly, Irving Kristol would write in 1993 that
religion was the most important pillar of modern conservatism. Vying for second
and third were nationalism and economic growth. Liberalism surely requires all
three elements to survive, but the first two are pre-liberal. Liberalism risks
abandoning them in its fixation with abstract theorizing about universal,
natural man, disconnected from faith, family, community, or nation.
There is certainly a tension, and more than one, in this
conservative relationship to liberalism. We need liberalism to bring our nation
freedom, wealth, power, and peace. But that same liberalism weakens the
pre-liberal commitments that form its very foundation. Liberalism, then, risks
undermining itself and therefore must be managed or rationed. As a parent might
say, liberalism is good in moderation.
But even still, American conservatism is destined to be
odd. If we are to be patriots, loyal to our founding ideals, then liberalism
must be part of what we strive to conserve. This feature of American
conservatism has led some thinkers, most notably Notre Dame’s Patrick Deneen,
to urge a reevaluation and even a rejection of the American Founding. But such a
rejection would threaten to render conservatism — always confusing in a country
founded by a revolution — incoherent. Our venerable American difference, so
obvious to observers such as Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville, is our
passionate commitment to liberty. As American conservatives, defending
liberalism is part of what it means to stand athwart History.
It wound be un-conservative for Americans to abandon
liberalism, just as it would be un-conservative to give in too fully to the
liberal temptation. Calling ourselves “liberals,” as Bill Kristol suggested,
would obscure what many of us really believe to be foundational. We don’t need
a Liberal Party — or an Illiberal Party either, for that matter. Both are hasty
attempts to “rebrand” the movement in response to the election of President
Trump. Instead let us focus our conservatism. It should cherish the spirit of
liberty while defending the goods that come before and sustain it.
No comments:
Post a Comment