MANY WHO IDENTIFY AS “CONSERVATIVES” DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO CONSERVE
BY
ALLAN C. BROWNFELD
—————————————————————————————————————————
There
are many people in the political arena at the present time who refer to
themselves as “conservatives.” Even a brief look at their political
agenda, however, indicates that they have little political understanding
of what traditional conservatives within the American political
tradition meant by this term. They certainly didn’t mean, as our former
president recently suggested, that the Constitution can be “suspended”
or “terminated” when convenient.
The
Founding Fathers understood very well that freedom was not man’s
natural state. Their political philosophy was based on a fear of
government power and the need to limit and control that power very
strictly. It was their fear of total government which initially caused
them to rebel against the arbitrary rule of King George III. In the
Constitution they tried their best to construct a form of government
which, through a series of checks and balances and a clear division of
powers, would protect the individual.
That
government should be clearly limited and that power is a corrupting
force was the essential perception held by the men who made the nation.
In The Federalist Papers, James Madison declared: “It May be a
reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to
control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the
greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no
government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither
external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In
framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the
great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to
control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control
itself.”
The Framers of
the Constitution were not utopians. They understood man’s nature. They
attempted to form a government which was consistent with—-not contrary
to—-that nature. Alexander Hamilton pointed out that, “Here we have
already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle
theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from from
the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every
shape. Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden
age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our
political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the
globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and
perfect virtue?”
Rather
than viewing man and government in positive terms, the framers of the
Constitution had almost the precisely opposite view. John Adams
expressed the view that, “Whoever would found a state and make proper
laws for the government of it must presume that all men are bad by
nature.” As if speaking to those who place ultimate faith in
egalitarian democracy, Adams attempted to learn something from the pages
of history: “We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto
turned over, for proofs irrefragable , that the people, when they have
been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and
cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power…All
projects of government, formed upon a supposition of continued
vigilance, sagacity and virtue, firmness of the people when possessed of
the exercise of supreme power , are cheats and delusions….The
fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or
unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a
popular assembly , an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto and
a single emperor. equally bloody, arbitrary, cruel, and in every
respect diabolical.”
The
political thinker who had the most important impact upon the thinking of
the Framers of the Constitution was John Locke. Locke repeatedly
emphasized his suspicion of government power. The political tradition
out of which the Constitution emerged repeatedly stressed the importance
of limiting the sphere of government.
During
the colonial era, Americans became all too familiar with the dangers of
unlimited and arbitrary government. The Revolution was fought to
prevent such governmental abuses and to make certain that individual
citizens might be secure in their lives and property. When the Articles
of Confederation were being considered, fears of excessive
concentration of authority were often expressed. The town of West
Springfield, Massachusetts, to cite one example, reminded its
representatives of the “weakness of human nature and growing thirst for
power…It is freedom, Gentlemen, it is freedom, and not a choice of the
forms of servitude for which we contend…”
The
written and spoken words of those who led the Revolution give us
numerous examples of their fear and suspicion of power and those who
held it. Samuel Adams asserted that, “There is a degree of watchfulness
over all men possessed of power or influence upon which the liberties
of mankind much depend. It is necessary to guard against the
infirmities of the best as well as the wickedness of the worst of men.”
Therefore, he declared, “Jealousy is the best security of public
liberty.”
Benjamin
Disraeli, who served as British Prime Minister in the 19th century, and
was the leader of the Consrrvative Party, said that the first thing a
conservative must ask is: what is it that we want to conserve?
Many
of those in our current political arena who call themselves
“conservatives” are embracing policies which reject the American
political tradition, which conservatives used to think was the thing
they wished to conserve. Consider religious freedom and the separation
of church and state, clearly declared in the First Amendment, and
preceded by the Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom, written and
advanced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Yet, in the past
election many candidates for public office who called themselves
“conservative” rejected the idea of separation of church and state and
even called for the adoption of “Christian nationalism,” a notion of
state sponsorship of a particular religion which is precisely what the
Framers of the Constitution rejected.
Others
who call themselves “conservative,” reject the results of what was
clearly a free and fair election in 2020. Many of these self-proclaimed
“conservatives” refused to certify the winner of the last election, not
because they had even a shred of evidence that the election was not
fairly conducted but simply because they preferred the candidate who
lost. Not a single court has found any evidence that the election was
anything but fair, a position affirmed by the Attorney General appointed
by the candidate who lost. How can anyone who rejects the results of a
free and fair election be called a “conservative.”
Perhaps
we should take a careful look at how we are teaching American history,
particularly the story of the American Revolution and the adoption of
the Constitution. All the conservatives I have worked with over the
years were dedicated to advancing the values of individual freedom,
separation of powers, religious freedom and the other values embraced by
our early leaders. And they understood that even the Constitution was
flawed—-as with its continued acquiescence in slavery. That is why, at
the very beginning, the Framers provided a process for amending it.
This has permitted us to expand the very idea of freedom.
What
some in our political life who call themselves “conservative” seem to
be promoting is, unfortunately, its opposite, particularly the contempt
shown for the results of free and fair elections. Politics, it seems,
has come to stand on its head. When I entered political life many years
ago, Republicans and conservatives viewed Communism as an evil and were
dedicated to victory in the Cold War. Most Democrats agreed, but some
did not. Now, in 2022, we see a revitalized Russia invading its
peaceful neighbor, Ukraine. And our former president hailed Putin at
his revealing meeting in Helsinki and he and Republican allies talk
about ending our support for Ukraine. And why did a group of
conservatives eagerly choose authoritarian Hungary, whose leader has
long embraced Putin, as a location for its meeting?
Sadly,
I don’t recognize any connection between many who now call themselves
“conservative” and the movement I remember. What would Ronald Reagan or
Barry Goldwater think—-or William F.Buckley, Jr. or Russell Kirk? None
of these conservatives would have had any sympathy with the January 6,
2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol, or those who brought it about. And
now, we still confront the future candidacy of the man who stimulated
this and did nothing to bring it under control. Whatever is the proper
name for him and his followers, “conservative” is not one of them.