Human beings are naturally 'conservative', meaning 'prefering the status quo', in that we are creatures of habit and for the most part prefer things to remain the same. One extremely simple example is that church members almost always sit in the same place in church. And if a visitor sits in their place, they feel that something is wrong. Expand this to all kinds of social patterns, and the point is made. But this 'natural' conservatism is not the same thing as 'political' conservatism.
In Medieval Europe, the political pattern that became accepted by virtually everyone was throne and altar. Kings ruled in the temporal realm, and the Catholic Church ruled in the spiritual realm. This became Western political 'conservatism' par excellence. Any political opinion or theory that opposed this was non-conservative and thought to be upsetting to the eternal order of things.
With the rise of first Puritanism, then the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, different non-conservative ways of thinking about politics began to gain currency. The Puritans in England in the 17th century argued for Republicanism, and for a few years, overthrew the King in England and established the Commonwealth. Puritan John Milton argued for freedom of thought and press.
Later, in the 18th century, John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquiu, Voltaire and other intellectuals elaborated on what the Puritan Republicans had begun and developed what would become the original 'liberal' political perspective, which argued for more 'liberty': in politics, in the economy, in culture and religion. This 'liberal' political position especially grew in England during the 18th century, resulting in a strong Parliament countering the power of the King and other 'freedoms of the British subject.' This 'liberalism' migrated to America and became the dominant political position during the American revolution, resulting in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
So it is actually quite accurate to say that 'liberalism' was the founding political philosophy of America. It became our 'conservatism', so to speak, in the sense that it was the status quo, and to defend it was the American 'conservative' position. So one could call our original political philosophy, 'conservative liberalism' or 'liberal conservatism.' It stressed small, representative government, freedom from arbitrary government, civil liberties, private property, due process of law, and so on. Within this overall consensus, the conservatives tended to be the Federalists, who were often Puritans or high-church Anglicans and oriented to a little more active government, versus the 'liberal' Jeffersonians who wanted less central government, more independent farmers, more individual 'liberty'.
At the same time as American liberalism became the norm, the radical Enlightenment Jacobinism of the French Revolution was the first modern 'radicalism', opposed as it was to the both European conservatism of throne and altar, and the European liberal tradition. It was a more absolutist perspective, wishing to thoroughly transform the society and culture to conform to the ideals of the 'philosophes' (think eliminating Christianity and replacing it with the Religion of Reason), and was thus a very real forerunner of the communist/socialist revolutionary philosophies of the 19th century.
In the 19th century, the American 'conservative-liberal' position was challenged by the socialist revolutionary position coming out of Europe. This took place in the context of the rise of industrialization that led to the rise of the huge corporations and wealthy on the one side, and urban worker masses on the other. This move away from rural agrarianism to urban industrialism changed the political situation fundamentally, leading to a complete social darwinist laissez-faire philosophy on the one hand (conservatism?) or industrial socialism on the other (liberalism?). At the same time in Europe, the rise of Soviet Communion led to an equal and opposite reaction called Fascism, both of which were forms of political absolutism, totally alien to American political philosophy.
After the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, a new coalition and approach to American politics developed under Franklin Roosevelt called the New Deal. It was to become known as 'liberalism', but it was something new: a mixed philosophy of private property and market economy, some nationalization, government regulation of industry, union recognition and support. In other words, it was not a pure philosphy of conservatism, liberalism, or socialism, but a sometimes awkward mix of all three. Some compare it to 'social democracy' of European governments.
For a while, American 'conservatism' disappeared as a coherent political philosophy, until its resurrection under the intellectual William F. Buckley, which brought a coalition of libertarians, throne/altar conservatives, anti-communist hawks, free-enterprise industrialialists, nationalist patriots, and finally, religious social conservatives together in one movement, which took over the White House in 1981 under Ronald Reagan. It is that coalition that is now falling apart after basically a generation in power (even Clinton acted as a 'neo-liberal', having to cooperate with a Reaganite House of Representatives and a powerful conservative movement in the media).
I think in these first years of the 21st century in America, we are returning to a New Deal 'liberalism', that will have to be updated. Obama is most like F.D.R. in this sense, and it's amazing that we are facing a financial crisis some are likening to the Great Depression.
What a chastened and reformulated 'conservatism' will look like in the future is yet to be determined.
No comments:
Post a Comment