Editorial: In Defiance of Egregious Caricatures, This Is the Core of Conservatism

*The Chicago Thinker approves editorials by a majority vote of its eight editors on the editorial board. Editorials are representative of group deliberations; they are not necessarily representative of individual editors’ viewpoints. The final vote tallying is neither recorded nor published. 

There is often confusion as to what American conservatives believe. Some ascribe to us tyrannical ends, others anarchy. We are accused of both wanting to control everyone and of complete indifference toward others. Those who most love irony label us fascists while denouncing us for seeking to limit and define the powers of government. In the face of such egregious caricatures, let us for once define ourselves. Though the following is by no means exhaustive, it is representative of the contours of some of our most cherished beliefs.

We defend man’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property, while rejecting collectivization.

Fundamentally, conservatives believe that the individual is superior to the “collective” group. All humans are granted—as a right and by nature of their birth—life, liberty, and property. Conservatives believe that the individual is superior to the group and that all groups are a collection, not a collective. 

The value of a collection derives from the sum and congruence of the value of each of its components. A collective, on the other hand, seeks to dictate the value and purpose of its parts. Otherwise stated, a collection enables strong individuals to collaborate and thrive together, without sacrificing their unique characteristics. Meanwhile, a collective too often forces individuals to sacrifice their individuality, in order to serve the whims of the mob. For this reason, conservatives embrace systems of government that enable collections—not collectives—of thinking individuals to succeed. 

Conservatives believe that the individual is superior to the group and that all groups are a collection, not a collective. The value of a collection derives from the sum and congruence of the value of each of its components. A collective, on the other hand, seeks to dictate the value and purpose of its parts. 

This means that conservatives vehemently defend man’s natural rights to life, liberty and property. When one of these three rights are denied, the integrity of the other two is inherently threatened. An individual cannot survive without property, just as he cannot be free without life or truly possess private property without liberty. In practice, various schools of conservative thought debate how these rights are explicitly defined, protected, and limited, but no conservative movement denies the fundamental importance of these natural rights. 

We demand a republican government of laws, not of men. We recognize that this necessitates constant vigilance.

At the center of American conservatism is the commitment to preserving our republican form of government. Conservatives recognize that all forms of government are prone to flaws. The United States government is itself imperfect. However, what is unique about our United States, as Madison writes in Federalist Papers, No. 51, is the layering of oppositional and distinct representative branches of government, in order to balance and disperse power in a manner that reduces flaws. This is exactly what is needed. 

Conservatives believe in balancing the caprice of the masses with the avarice of the wealthy, the efficiency of monarchy with the popularity of democracy, and the selfish interest of an oligarchy with its aristocratic experience. We must make a government of laws, not of men, to protect our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.

Conservatives believe in balancing the caprice of the masses with the avarice of the wealthy, the efficiency of monarchy with the popularity of democracy, and the selfish interest of an oligarchy with its aristocratic experience. We must make a government of laws, not of men, in order to protect our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. 

Those who do not follow conservative ideology often expound on the need for swift and far-reaching action to solve pressing problems. Such a government initially sounds enticing, but fails to acknowledge that “[a] government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Conservatives thus believe that a trade-off is necessary to preserve our freedoms. The convenience of big government must be rejected, in order to maintain our freedoms.

Of course, some governmental components, such as courts and law enforcement, should be efficient to quickly resolve disputes. Others, such as the legislature, should be less efficient to prevent large changes from occurring without careful consideration. A government that can mobilize resources at a moment’s notice on a national scale has no need for widespread approval.

For this reason, conservatives seek to avoid a government that can solve all of society’s problems. We do so—not out of malice—but out of a desire to vigilantly defend the people’s sovereignty. In short, we fear the unrestrained power of the state. And we recognize that we must vigilantly defend the rule of law and limited government.

We recognize that the federal government cannot “fix” everything, nor is governmental change always progress. Instead, the efficacy of federalism is too often dismissed.

In the sixty years since the War on Poverty began, poverty has not declined. Despite the War on Drugs, American drug abuse has not been mitigated. And the War on Terror has not slowed international terrorism. However, we have made great sacrifices to personal freedom and spent untold sums of money in each of these cases. Adjusted for inflation, we spent $22 trillion on the War on Poverty, $1 trillion on the War on Drugs, and $2.4 trillion on the War on Terror, for a total of $25.4 trillion.

We err, when we do not step back and repeal any of these policies. Too often, we have layered new, more expansive laws on top of old ones. We have become blind to the fact that most of the problems our government seeks to address are the very problems it has created. 

We err, when we do not step back and repeal any of these policies. Too often, we have layered new, more expansive laws on top of old ones. We have become blind to the fact that most of the problems our government seeks to address are the very problems it has created. 

Rather than expand our government, conservatives therefore champion state power. As Chief Justice Louis Brandeis said, our states are laboratories of democracy. Nicholas Miller, an American political scientist, likewise argues that when a policy is implemented on a national level, it is less likely to receive broad support—and impacts the nation as a whole, should it fail. 

The Federal system has lasted for over two centuries because it prevents large-scale national change and disperses decision-making powers. Decisions concerning defense, international relations, and international trade are rightly rooted in the federal government. Such decisions involve the entire nation, as disunity war, diplomacy, and commerce bring ruin to nations. Meanwhile, decisions regarding general taxation and spending, domestic regulation, and crime should occur at the state level. In this way, American constituents are not taxing, punishing, or helping some invisible and unknowable person in a part of the country that they will never visit. Instead, constituents are taxing and punishing their neighbors. By making laws closer to home, voters are both more careful with their money and more empathetic to those benefiting from, or being harmed by, each policy. 

We interpret the Constitution as-written, in order to maintain the Founders’ vision of a free America.

To this end, conservatives believe that the republic will survive only if we remain true to the Constitution and its systems of checks and balances, which has served us so well up to this point. 

It is in this vein that conservatives believe that the Constitution must be read as it was written. Indeed, had the Founders intended for the Constitution to be a “living document,” they would not have written it down on paper and included an amendment process. Britain’s Constitution was—and remains to this day—a living document. Indeed, if the Founders intended to emulate the British, they would have left the Constitution unwritten. 

Instead, the Founders broke with the metropole for a reason. This informs the conservative emphasis on Originalism and Textualism in the Judicial branch. (To clarify the distinction, Originalism is a method of interpreting the Constitution reliant upon the text’s original public meaning. On the other hand, Textualism, is the analysis of statutory law based on the wording of the text, not the intent of legislators or the hopes of litigants.) 

The Judicial branch has, in recent decades, worked in tandem with the Executive branch to chip away at American liberties. These dilutions of liberties are especially prominent concerning freedom of speech (here and here).

In response, it is only by embracing originalist and textualist methods of legal analysis that we maintain the Founder’s vision. Otherwise stated, it is only by adhering to the Constitution as-written that we are kept from being washed away by the floods of a tyrannical majority.

Moreover, we recognize that successful republican governments are rooted in a moral citizenry, and that the family is crucial to individual success.

While the continued application of the Constitution is crucial, so too is the development of the individual. After all, the proper formation of the individual is just as important to the success of the state as the proper ordering of government. As Madison wrote to the Massachusetts Militia, “[o]ur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

In order to maintain such a people, conservatives rightly see that the family is critical to providing moral and religious education. More importantly, we see that moral and religious truths are constant, observable, and unchanging. This has been properly observed by humanity, since before Antiquity. 

Religion reinforces moral values, while providing an ever-present higher example for all people to strive towards. Moreover, religious people have been demonstrated to be more resilient in facing adversity and more content in their day-to-day lives. A moral and resilient  people, then, provides a stable foundation upon which to build society, commerce, and government. 

This does not mean that the quest for truth is easy. Religion teaches that the ways of God are incomprehensible to man, but that the truth of His ways may be discovered by various paths. Humility and patience are necessary in considering issues. And it is only after rigorous fact-finding and analysis that we may strive to obtain certainty and moral clarity. 

Given the arduous journey to knowledge acquisition, the family unit is crucial. After all, the family facilitates the development of well-adjusted, socially competent, moral individuals. And as church leaders have noted, the religious practices of the father are a strong influence on the religious practices of their children. 

Beyond seeking to improve their child for the sake of the community, parents seek to improve the community for the sake of their child. This is not due to some “superior” moral state that parents achieve, but because the birth of a child forces parents to consider the future beyond their own death. As parents consider the trajectory of their country and world, they usually realize that the future of their child is tied to the future success of their community. Parents then realize that there are societal elements that need to be conserved, while there exist others that must be improved for the sake of their child. 

Through proper care for the child, parents are forced to become more selfless and considerate of consequences. Conservatives, therefore, promote policy that gives control of a child’s development to parents—the people who most care for children, know them best, and most want them to succeed. 

We know ourselves best, so let us govern ourselves, blaze our preferred trail, and trade in the free market.

Likewise, we believe that the individual is best suited, not only to make choices for his children, but also to make choices for himself. For this reason, free-market economics is central to conservative thought. 

This is not to say that free markets are perfect. Indeed, few conservatives will argue that free markets are foolproof, but rather that they are the most perfect option in a world devoid of perfection. An individual knows what food he needs, likes, and should avoid. He knows what he is capable of and what he enjoys. He knows what he wants and how much he wants it. He should be able to voluntarily engage in mutually beneficial agreements at will. Government regulation, which does not standardize and facilitate these voluntary agreements, is generally detrimental. Therein lies the core of conservative economics: the individual knows himself best, and he should thus be free to govern himself and blaze his preferred trail.

Therein lies the core of Conservative economics: the individual knows himself best, and he should thus be free to govern himself and blaze his preferred trail.

An individual produces value for others through his labor and voluntary agreements, but no value is created when the federal government absconds with a fourth of his income. We are told that this money is taken to provide for the greater good of society. How can the government look at 320 million people and know where to most effectively invest the fruits of the individual’s labor? It simply cannot. 

Obviously, our government must levy taxes to provide for the common defense, empanel judges to resolve disputes, and hire officers to enforce the law. But what of the $2.97 trillion that went to social programs in 2019, such as Social Security ($1.51 trillion alone)? This money is abused by the government. Any sensible person would say that the government should invest the money taken in through the payroll tax, so that the government possesses sufficient funds, when it’s time to pay out Social Security benefits. Instead, the government takes in money and spends it in the same year. We are now saddled with a Social Security burden that is growing faster than we can take in money; and the Social Security Administration estimates that Social Security will be insolvent as early as 2033. 

It’s thus clear that our government has no qualms with collecting the savings of the most vulnerable, thereby robbing them of funds that they could otherwise use to provide for their current needs or invest in their futures.

This is not to say that people should not have retirement plans. Instead, conservatives argue that Social Security has proven to be both expensive and ineffective, and that it would be better for all people to independently save for retirement. 

Furthermore, the increasing power of the Executive branch to implement arbitrary economic dictates creates an ever-changing landscape, which is detrimental to business growth and individual prosperity. To illustrate this argument, note the following: for every law passed by Congress in 2019, the Trump administration’s federal agencies issued twelve regulations. This was the lowest ratio of laws to regulations in ten years. 

The fact that the Executive can so quickly create and revoke rules that have broad impacts for the entire nation should concern everyone, regardless of the impact of the policies or the party of the current administration. 

This problem is compounded by the fact that citizens cannot demand accountability for the officials who write and implement these regulations. With every passing year, the Executive becomes more secretive, and there are ever-increasing attempts to undermine the rights of the American people. 

To make matters worse, the implications of economic regulations rarely correlate with their intentions. Onerous regulation of health insurance, utilities, and cable companies have not created more “democratic” or “fair” companies. Instead, these monopolistic companies are rightfully known for their callous disregard for the wellbeing of their customers. For these reasons, the untouchable and ever-growing power of the Executive branch is one of the greatest anxieties of American conservatism. 

We seek personal and national strength, so that we may engage with the rest of the world in peace.

When it comes to foreign affairs, conservatives are united by the notion that peace is attained through strength. The greatest way to ensure our domestic tranquility is to be so strong that no enemy dares to attack us. This does not mean that we should seek out wars to prove our mettle. Nor does it mean that we should increase defense spending for the mere sake of defense. Many conservatives have a laundry list of ways that defense spending can be greatly simplified, without reducing our defense capabilities. However, it is better to overspend on the military than to underspend. No conquered people have ever thought to themselves, “I wish we had spent less money on the military, then we wouldn’t have been conquered!” 

Beyond the defense of the homeland, strong-armed services bring a myriad of benefits to the international stage. Besides giving the U.S. a truly global reach, the U.S. Navy also ensures safe travel for the trade that makes the world economy tick. Similarly, the U.S. Army maintains over 800 military bases in 70 countries around the world, which serve both American interests and the host countries’ defense interests. These are no small talking points when the U.S. goes to the negotiating table with allies or adversaries. And a strong U.S. cannot be bullied into submission the way that less prominent nations can. 

While many conservatives support strong military intervention, there is a growing faction within the American conservative movement that contests the notion that intervention in foreign affairs and the maintenance of international bases is necessary to project strength. This group has grown stronger with the emergence of global offensive capabilities, such as hypersonic missiles, cyber-warfare, and more capable fighters and warships. Additionally, the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Libya have worn the American public ragged with mounting death, casualties, and expenses. Despite the differences between these two camps, however, there is no denial of the importance of some form of strong military. 

Overall, conservatives believe that it is only when we appear weak that other countries challenge us and fan the flames of war. Only when we are capable of conquering are we capable of choosing peace over war. Otherwise, war will invariably choose us.

Only when we are capable of conquering are we capable of choosing peace over war. Otherwise, war will invariably choose us.

Conservatism emphasizes the individual as the fundamental unit of society. It is the well being of the individual, his morals, and his prosperity that creates a prosperous and proper government. When the individual fails or falls short, the structure of the U.S. government, as prescribed by the Constitution, averts disaster. A conservative seeks personal and national strength, not so that he and his nation may isolate themselves, but so that he and his country may live and interact with the rest of the world in peace.