Conservative

(Click here to download an Adobe pdf file)

Clarence A. Williams, February 5, 2006

I am not aligned with any political party, but more frequently find myself in agreement with political conservatives than with libertarians or liberals, especially the liberal faction smugly anointing themselves progressives (as if the rest of us are “regressive”). Most people misunderstand political conservatives, because they overlook its core and focus on one faction or another. I hope to remedy this by explaining why a secular, naturalist, nativist like me says, “conservative,” when forced to choose among American political ideologies.

First, I must address the religious right, whose odious political agenda—my disdain for the religious extends only to their political activity; most are fine human beings—and whose strident voice force me to confront them. They do not represent conservatives any more than anarchists represent progressives! Today’s Republican Party, which often gets my vote, is unduly influenced by this narrow-minded group of political activists, but political parties are opportunistic coalitions of arguing factions, each abiding disagreeable sorts—like religious fundamentalists—for the practical sake of achieving higher objectives. Conservatives cannot control all of the Republican Party’s actions, just as liberals opposing Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Vietnam War, or opposing Clinton ’s foreign policies, especially the North American Free Trade Agreement, could not control those Democrat regimes. And the American Conservative Union (usually a good source for things conservative) presses the ostensibly religious terms “Creator” and “traditional moral values,” but defines neither. Neither monotheistic nor “traditional values” beliefs have inherent political character; one cannot legitimately use them to distinguish an individual’s party affiliation. I have very high moral values, but they have nothing to do with religious beliefs (see my essay, “Morality”). While it is true religious right advocates heavily attend conservative gatherings, if Democrats or anarchists attend, say, Humanist gatherings, are Humanists subsumed by the Democrat Party or anarchist movements? Conservatives deserve the same consideration. The religious right is an easily identified faction, which should be politically marginalized, not honored by claiming they represent conservatives. That’s a liberal straw man, a dishonest device shaming those who voice it (and progressives do so repeatedly).

Two core beliefs bind American conservatives: the U.S. Constitution is the best government framework and capitalism the best economic system . Religion has nothing to do with either of these core beliefs. (See my essay, “ America : Christian Origins, Secular Future,” to understand why the U.S. Constitution is a secular document.)

Implied in honoring these “old systems” is a general tendency to resist change, hence the perfectly appropriate moniker “conservative.” Conservatives proudly give historical lessons their rightful due, whereas others make rash proposals at the first sign of trouble. Progressive Democrats’ headlong retreat to socialism in the face of problematic wealth disparities is a case in point—they think Hugo Chavez’s “participatory economy” will save Venezuela , and not destroy it like communism destroyed Russia . So, the values molding conservative political positions match those of our Founding Fathers and the economists who launched capitalism, which includes a belief democracy requires a civil, ethical and moral citizenry. I won’t list other conservative values, because truth is deduced from actions, not lofty ideals, as progressives who want “strong families” can attest when seeing the religious right adopt this identical ideal. Here are the defining conservative political positions, which antagonize liberals and progressive Democrats (I exclude shared positions):

1. Economic power must be vested in private, profit-motivated individuals.

2. Personal wealth should be encouraged.

3. Citizens are accountable for their actions, even if social or economic inequality results.

4. Equal opportunity programs must dominate social policy.

5. Businesses obeying the law are always good members of society.

6. Government must not interfere in the employer/employee relationship.

All conservative sociopolitical proposals emerge from these defining (and unique) positions, which in turn emanate from the two core principles (from principles to positions to proposals). Most libertarians and liberals also support the U.S. Constitution, and politicians of all stripes regularly interpret the Constitution to fit their immediate need, so it is capitalism that separates conservatives from others, especially progressives. And despite progressive denials, capitalism supports humanitarian ideals. Many liberals argue they support capitalism, but their incessant proposals for market interventions or cries for a social market economy, belie them (see Liberal International).

Under capitalism, the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated in a competitive environment. This produces position one for conservatives: economic power is vested in private, profit-motivated individuals. To understand why this is important, one must first understand that economies are no longer parochial. Capitalism brought man out of the dark ages of agrarianism, operating with lightning speed in maximizing new technologies and discarding outdated ones. It is superior to government at making adjustments necessitated by shifts in capital resources because it taps the power of tens of thousands of independent, self-interested, profit-oriented decision makers, whose shared target is economic prosperity for the global community; progressive-championed economic policies inevitably sequester nation-states. Owners making selfish decisions drag others along in geometrically-increasing numbers, many becoming wealthy and most enjoying higher wages. A fair analogy is that of the immense power of parallel computers (individual capitalists) versus the puny power of a single one (state bureaucracies, whose centralized essence breeds corruption). Socioeconomic disturbances—inevitable under vibrant economies—are realigned as quickly as possible within the overarching goal of economic prosperity, not for the sake of impatient compassion, which perversely acts to delay recovery. Capitalism strikes the right balance between individuality and interdependence, and is not predisposed to exhausting natural resources. Capitalists accept public decisions regarding externalities, as long as the policy-making structure isn’t skewed to favor minority opinions, which it often is, thereby distorting the collective process.

Position two celebrates personal wealth, recognizing that it is against human nature to be productive in a system not rewarding personal achievement and minimizing opportunities to own the means of status (progressives deny that humans are predisposed to seek status and form hierarchies; see my essay, “Human Behavior”). This is probably history’s most valuable lesson, that the wonderful-sounding experiments in communism and other forms of socialism “foundered spectacularly on the shoals of human nature” (Randolph M. Nesse, “Natural selection and the elusiveness of happiness”). But this also means if distinctive enterprise, ingenuity, risk taking, or industriousness are not rewarded by distinctive status (i.e. wealth) man’s spirit is equally muted. Tiered tax policies are not an anathema to capitalists, but confiscation, abetting the less industriousness (not the disadvantaged), or eliminating inheritance are unnatural and ultimately destructive. Individual success inevitably creates wealth disparities, but when capitalism works as intended, it provides a just distribution of nature’s resources, as idealized by many. “Fair,” the progressive mantra, really means demonizing wealth disparities… regardless of why they exist! Progressives would forcefully eliminate wealth disparities if even one person is disadvantaged. This thinking mirrors the excessive egalitarianism of communist and socialist failures. Under capitalism, every individual has equal access to ownership, which means they have equal economic rights. Inequities of circumstance (e.g. birthright) give some improved access, but the vibrancy incorporated in capitalism ensures everyone has an equal opportunity to change their circumstances, which is the true measure of just distribution.

Conservatives do not condone unlawful wealth accumulation, like illegally gained or maintained monopolies and cartels, which limit the number of individual profit-oriented decision makers. Such an environment deprives the system of its socially beneficial power: the competition for profitable strategies. Excepting farming, successful small business owners—capitalists—are more numerous than at any time in history… across the world. Wealth is one determinant of social power, but if, say, giant, non-monopolistic conglomerates dominate power to the prolonged detriment of society, blame political corruption, not capitalism.

No ideology claims to be a panacea for addressing social ills or pretends to be infallible, but vesting economic power in private individuals invigorates compassionate social welfare. Capitalists understand that improving everyone’s economic viability promises attractive returns on investment (for one, purchasers multiply), and social upheaval due to prolonged impoverishment of any group is not in their long-term, selfish interests. In fact, compassion is a natural extension of wealth. Man is selfish by nature, which fosters individual productivity for social benefit, and personal survival improves in groups, so we evolved an instinct for social exchange, or reciprocal altruism. Thus, man is driven to be productive and accumulate wealth or status, and also driven to engage in social exchange, but with a caveat: altruism would not have evolved without a skill for identifying cheaters and an instinct to punish them (see Morris B. Hoffman & Timothy H. Goldsmith, “The Biological Roots of Punishment,” for a discussion of cheater detection and punishment). Furthermore, sharing is greatest among closely-knit groups, and sharing increases as the expected outcome of effort increases in variability, which epitomizes the competitive, risky environment of capitalism. A good argument is made that sending taxes to a distant bureaucracy, which then distributes it back to communities for social welfare diminishes altruistic behavior.

Following this, conservatives believe in accountability, tempering compassion if a citizen’s voluntary actions result in inequality (see my essay, “Free Will and Moral Responsibility,” to understand what is meant by accountability and related terms like “voluntary actions”). Conservatives want those whose free effort is not comparable to their ability (they cheat) relegated by laws and customs to unequal social and/or economic status. Not for retribution—such odious, unhelpful action has no place under capitalism—, but to promote social exchange and discourage cheating, to teach others how to flourish in society. Conservatives interpret Humanist Manifesto’s words, “making informed choices . . . consonant with responsibility,” as synonymous with conservative policy (see Humanist Manifesto III, a document I endorse). Conservatives value providing everyone the means to achieve their innate ability so they become productive (and buying) members of the global community. If they fail after getting such provisions, they are cheaters or legitimate social wards, which introduces position four. The liberal contra-opinion favors needs-based programs, which usually ignore personal responsibility and merely seek income redistribution, killing the profit motive and overall social welfare. And worse, many needs-based programs destroy personal worth and dignity. America ’s liberal-designed, three-decades long welfare program reveals the problems inherent in many needs-based programs; it fostered dependency. Conservative-championed equal opportunity programs satisfy man’s altruistic nature and mitigate the inequities of circumstance and ability, thus better achieving humanitarian goals. Conservatives favor tax and welfare systems designed to ensure everyone has the means to maximize their ability, like eliminating world hunger, poor health and unequal education, which scar human potential. If needs-based programs abetting cheaters were eliminated, the wealth available for enabling programs would be impressive. (See my essay, “SoNeT: Social Needs Tax System,” for a conservative proposal addressing the world’s growing social deficiencies.)

As to position five, progressives believe businesses are inherently anti-social; if not heavily controlled they will damage society. This is counterintuitive. Businesses are not cyborg-like but human-directed institutions. Corporations are the most efficient form of business and, therefore, the most socially beneficial. And business crimes are just that, crimes committed by individuals; vigorous prosecution is required and business models should be revamped if they abet the crime.

Position six encompasses business and political arenas. Employees are disadvantaged in neither field, contrary to progressive opinion. Labor is an essential free market commodity. Capitalists cannot acquire wealth without labor and man’s labor is not socially productive without capitalists (unless we regress to a parochial, agrarian society). Business specialists agree owner/employee tension is as healthy as, say, the conflict between sales and production. The latter balances price and quality costs whereas the former balances human capital investment with its return. An open, plentiful job market provides the best balance, and this is not always a constant state, but refer to earlier discussions regarding capitalism’s superiority in making socioeconomic adjustments. As to the political arena, neither ownership nor employees should be given an advantage by government policy.

These are the core positions giving rise to innumerable conservative political proposals, and which alienate them from progressives (shared positions are not discussed). There are a number of additional positions many would suggest, but they do not meet the rigorous test for exclusive domain. For instance, conservatives and liberals often coalesce around different positions regarding limitations on the federal government’s power, but these cannot be translated into defining positions (besides, none violate humanitarian ideals). Or many claim conservatives are anti-abortion and favor school vouchers, but supporters of those positions (and many others) are conservative or liberal, so they are not within this essay’s purview (I favor school vouchers, but that’s another discussion). However, the following positions are generally shared by conservatives but rejected by most progressives. They are not defining tenets but worthy of justifying:

1. Humans have rights superior to the world’s flora and fauna.

2. International coalitions are not necessary to legitimize foreign military action.

Most conservatives agree the global ecosystem is the source of man’s present and future wealth—they depend on it—but believe human welfare should not be wounded because flora or fauna are endangered. Extinction is natural. The conservative ethos includes nature’s protection and conservation, but only up to the point it threatens humanity. Conservatism is human-oriented.

The next position is fraught with emotion because of America ’s actions in Iraq and President Bush’s irresponsible link between his god and military actions. Supporters of Bush’s foreign policy can endorse the Humanist principle, “differences should be resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence,” and retribution need not be their motive for global conflict—retribution is not in the conservative lexicon. Most are motivated by preventing fanatics (those refusing cooperative resolution) from harming Americans to advance their cause. But history has taught conservatives to generally mistrust international coalitions, especially the United Nations, which is infested with corruption. The use of violent response to provocation is not prima facie evidence cooperation was lacking. A humanitarian need not endorse a pacifist philosophy. We should fiercely debate the war against terrorism, international coalitions and preemptive military strategies, but calling one side or the other “anti-humanitarian” belittles reasonable discourse.

Only an extended forum provides a full and fair illumination of conservative positions, an understanding of how capitalism is intended to work, and this is outside the scope of this essay (hundreds of books cannot meet the challenge of discussing the full range of capitalism’s mechanics). Matters such as accommodating capitalism and natural resource preservation, ensuring competitive markets to eliminate monopolies, providing open, plentiful job markets, and meeting global social needs in health, education and self-sufficiency within the purview of capitalism have not been addressed. What has been demonstrated is that neither conservatism nor its core belief in capitalism is inherently antagonistic to humanitarian ideals. Disagreement is inherent in the political process, but we need calm voices ensuring a fair debate among all freethinkers in order to resolve differences and, most importantly, rearrange political coalitions so the religious right is consigned to impotency.