Defending Conservatism, Part 1: An Introduction

Much of this was put together in a fit of excess energy after a particularly busy few weeks at work, so it’s a scattered brain dump. But I found myself writing a defense of conservatism, and it kept going on and on and on. I did some aggressive cut and paste and reorganization, and this is what emerged. I originally was just going to post to Facebook, but it makes sense to post here as well.

These are dark days for those of us with a conservative outlook on things: the so-called “conservative” party has taken power in ways almost unimaginable eight years ago, but conservatism itself is beset on multiple fronts. The principled conservatives in Congress are mostly backbenchers acting in exile, or tiptoeing around the emergent new nationalism. The president professes himself a conservative, but he has spent his whole life in a deeply liberal enclave and has no real philosophical grounding. A growing “white nationalist” movement with a keen understanding of social media is attempting to take the reins by appealing to the desire of conservatives to oppose a common enemy; an ally of theirs is the president’s chief strategist. Meanwhile, the Left has grown increasingly strident and certain of its positions; if the president’s approval rating is where it is now in three years, nominating someone on the Far Left will be awfully tempting for the Democrats. If these are victories for conservatives, I should hate to imagine what defeat would look like.

However, dark days lead to opportunities, and this is an opportunity to start fresh, and to make a public case for a different understanding of conservatism. Why here, why now?

Some context: I grew up on the east coast and currently live on the west coast, so most of my friends  and associates are quite liberal/progressive. Judging by my Facebook feed, many are rapidly becoming moreso in the age of Donald Trump. I intend this in part as a dissent, but more as an opportunity to present some ideas that don’t usually kick around in academia. Academia is deeply focused on privilege, power structures, and the role of race, class, and gender in societies. When you start from this position, your conclusions drift in a progressive direction. Indeed, as someone who has studied those areas as an undergraduate and graduate student, I agree that the evidence is clear that race, class, and gender do matter, that differences in these areas have been the foundation for oppression, that progress has been made on these issues thanks to increasing awareness and action, and that there is much work still to do. But there are other starting points for thinking about organizing a “good society,” ones that don’t usually get much traction or focus in an academic setting.

In the absence of this sort of exchange of ideas, conservatism is represented by the hucksterism of folks like Sean Hannity, or Bill O’Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or Joe Scarborough, or Tucker Carlson, or any of the other vapid entertainers that have claimed the mantle of conservatism over the past few decades. Bill Buckley, they are not. But they become the faces and voices of a venerable philosophy. It’s disheartening.

Thus, with Donald Trump and his allies as standard-bearers for conservatism, I’m basically a guy without a home politically. I am deeply concerned that “conservatism” and “Trumpism” will become one in the same by the end of his first term. I intend to fight that with every (available) fiber in my being that is not otherwise occupied by family, social, and professional commitments. (So, probably not with all too much effort, I guess. But I can at least put pen to paper. Or fingers to keys, as it were.) If Trump is conservative, than what I propose here is not conservative, but it’s worth saying anyway.

A couple of disclaimers, before I begin. First, I am Catholic, and much of what I believe is informed by my Catholicism. I intend for the arguments I make here to stand alone, apart from any particular faith tradition, but it would be dishonest to suggest that my political views and my religious views are unrelated; on the contrary, religion very much informs my politics. Second, I have been a self-professed conservative since I was 15 years old, and I wouldn’t have defended my views this way back then. It’s possible that this is all an elaborate post hoc rationalization. So please take everything I have to say with a grain of salt (or three or four).

Lastly, the framing I work with is my own, but the ideas are not; I am merely trying to publicize them, using my (admittedly) small platform. Any errors, of course, are mine and mine alone.

For the next seven days, I will post an article here, making the case for an alternative to progressivism and Trumpism. If you’re interested, follow along! If not, more power to you. Use your time for good.

Part 2 - The Problem of Modernity
Part 3 - In Favor of Decentralization and Subsidiarity
Part 4 - The Benefits of Social Harmony and Apolitical Spaces
Part 5 - The Imperative of Predictable Laws and Regulations
Part 6 - The Legitimacy of Tradition
Part 7 - The Virtues and Vices of Populism
Part 8 - The Way Forward and Additional (Better) Reading