Okay, But What Do You Want to Actually Do

By Charles C. W. Cooke

Saturday, August 01, 2026

 

There’s a lot of debate here at the moment about the meaning (and desirability) of so called “common good conservatism.” At the risk of bringing down the tone — and, perhaps, of sounding rather simple — I’d like to suggest that we ought to be a lot less interested in the terminological question (i.e. what does the “common good” mean?), and a lot more interested in the practical aims of those who are advancing it as a political option (i.e. the matter of what those who use it actually want to do with the government).

 

Dan writes that:

 

If you spend any time listening to the people most fond of invoking the common good, you will swiftly notice that they don’t all use the same one of these definitions.

 

I agree with that. But I also think that it is true in this argument. Which suggests to me that, ultimately, it’s a bit pointless to focus on it too intensely. If none of us can agree on what “common good” means — or, perhaps, if we all agree that it’s important, but we have wildly different interpretations of its substance — then shouldn’t we just dispense with it as a useful marker, and instead demand that its advocates explain what they mean to achieve with the power of the state?

 

I want the Supreme Court to interpret the words in the Constitution in line with their public meaning at the time of ratification. If that’s “common good jurisprudence,” then great. If it’s not, then I’m against it. If “common good economics” means low taxes, limited spending, and a respect for markets, then great. If it doesn’t, I’m against it. The same goes everywhere else: speech, federalism, foreign policy, whatever. Certainly, I could spend my life arguing that the way in which the term “common good” is currently being used is incorrect or undesirable or anachronistic. But why would I, when I can immediately get to the material matter by demanding an audit of the specifics? It’s not as if I wrote in blood at some point in my past that I promise to support all policies that are labeled “common good,” and am thus obliged to litigate the term ad nauseam. My politics are my politics. If they line up with the people who call themselves “common good” conservatives, then that’s nice. I guess I’m one of them. And if they don’t, then . . . well, I’m not.