The Conservatism Paradox

Last week in discussion we were asked to read an article by David Brooks, a contemporary conservative and then compared him, Burke, and Ronald Reagan (we watched his inauguration speech). The following discussion touched on the inherent ideas of what conservatism is, how we apply it in modern society, and most interestingly, the link between conservatism and liberalism, or at least our modern conceptions of them. First, I will give a brief synopsis of what we believed conservatism to be, and then I will discuss the last point, the interplay between two seemingly opposite ideas.

Burke espouses the ideal that change isn't always necessarily good. In his criticism of the French revolution, he states that “France has bought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings!” That is, the benefits they have gained from revolution including some form of liberty were bought with such political unrest that any good that came from them was outweighed by the bad. Burke essentially argues that we can reach to the past or present to find solutions for the future rather than trying to find some completely new and radical way of doing things.

In contemporary society, these solutions usually take the form of institutions that we have created to govern both the laws and social norms. For example, in America, the idea of the family has been institutionalized, other with other ideas like Free Speech. The American people have also institutionalized more concrete things as well, like a massive military, some form of a welfare system, a peaceful political process, and a commitment to a (relatively) free market economy.

The United States' military spending dwarfs
that of other nations.

It is at this point, where we have established the backdrop of the current situation, I would like to examine the fusion between conservatism and modern liberals, along with liberalism and modern conservatives. Our modern conception of a liberal is often one who favors a bigger government, and therefore more government institutions in the form of welfare and regulatory agencies. Although these ideas may require a change from the current status quo, they seek to maintain a new status quo. For example, someone looking to expand social programs for the needy now, whom we might classify as a liberal, wouldn't suddenly when those programs are enacted, want to change them. In this way, liberals seek to institutionalize some ideal and keep it that way, and thus practice a form of conservatism. In fact, unless someone's political end game is one without an equilibrium at all, they at some point will revert to conservatism to protect their ends. Meanwhile, many modern conservative staunchly protect individual freedoms that are essential to liberalism such as their rights to property (including firearms) and economic freedoms that are unimpeded by government taxation. While these do “conserve” the basic founding principles of America, they are in purely political terms, a form of liberalism.

I believe that this paradoxical nomenclature leads to an interesting question. How did such a duality between the ideas of liberalism and conservatives, along with liberals and conservatism come about in American politics?

Perhaps they are the result of a country that actually as political like-minded as any modern nation. Although the media doesn't portray them as so, conservatives and liberals in America see eye-to-eye on a lot more issues than not. The United States has had the most stable political system in the world since it's creation because both sides are willing to play by the rules of our government. After hundreds of years of cooperation I frankly find it pretty sad that both sides of the political spectrum today draw such deep lines in the sand to simply make a point rather than drawing up solutions to our nations growing economic problems. All democracy loving Americans and both practicing liberals and practicing conservatives, even though they don't act like it.