Slouching Towards A New Conservatism
January 22, 2008
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
- W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”
In the aftermath of the South Carolina Republican primary result, where Fred Thompson — the most conservative choice in the field — placed a distant third behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee, a number of people are wondering whether we have heard the death knell for the Reaganite vision of conservatism.
I am one of those people.
The defeat of Fred Thompson was enormously significant for a number of reasons, as I’ve detailed elsewhere. The brief version is that specifically because Thompson was not a great candidate in the traditional sense, the contest in S.C. became one of substance vs. process, one of product vs. marketing. And marketing, process, and campaigning won out over substance, principle, and consistency.
Because I have always viewed conservatism as a movement first, as opposed to merely the expression of the Republican Party platform, the repudiation of the substance raises the question of whither (or wither) conservatism now? This is an attempt at an answer.
The Reagan coalition could be described in many ways, and the true depiction of the Reaganite conservatism is beyond the scope of this post. In simplified terms, the Reagan coalition was the unification of social conservatives (SoCons), fiscal conservatives (FisCons), and national security conservatives (Defense Conservatives, or DefCons). The three pillars of the movement have always had natural tension between them, especially as each group vied for primacy. It is an oft-heard complaint among the SoCons especially that they are expected to shut up and vote for the GOP candidate, no matter how imperfect he may be to their core issues of the ‘culture of life’. Similarly, there is a large contingent of FisCons (and their fellow travelers, the libertarians) who believe that SoCons hurt the Republican party by making us look like a bunch of Bible-thumping Jesus freaks.
The emergence of Mike Huckabee in particular as a major candidate points to a deep fault line within not just the GOP, but within the conservative movement as a whole. If one can be a conservative and advocate class warfare, huge government programs, and protectionism, then conservatism is dead. The FisCons would absolutely abandon such a Christian populist philosophy. And certainly, at least the large Catholic contingent within the GOP and within the conservative movement as a whole could be said to lean towards a Christian Populist set of principles.
And that is merely one of the many fault lines.
Ronald Reagan welded these disparate, sometimes hostile, pillars together into the modern conservative movement, and into the Republican Party. That feat may have been a work of political genius, as Reagan himself was such an enormously gifted communicator. His legacy, it appears, did not last one generation, since we have not had a leader his equal since his passing from the stage.
So where do we go from here? Is there any organizing principle, or set of principles, that could either weld the coalition back together again, or in the alternative, articulate a new vision of what conservatism means in contemporary American society that could give rise to a new coalition of the willing?
I wish to put forth one such idea for discussion and debate.
Conservatism’s organizing principle should be fidelity to the Constitution.
That’s it.
No more confusion and profusion of various policy positions, issue advocacy, and such. No more conflict between SoCons, FisCons, DefCons, RandomCons. No more rancor amongst conservatives as to whether one can be a conservative and be for amnesty for illegal immigrants, or want gun control, or what federally mandated health care plans. No more list of principles that all conservatives must embrace, or be cast out from the movement.
Rather, the simple question: Is the policy proposed or issue advocated faithful to the Constitution of the United States?
A simple litmus test for candidates, instead of the profusion of single-issue litmus tests: Will you, to the best of your ability, and in good faith, be faithful to the Constitution of the United States?
I believe this new organizing principle does have the possibility of saving the current coalition. But failing that, it has the possibility of creating a new coalition, a new meaning of the term “conservative” that is not only based on reason, based on tradition (important to conservatives), but has the chance to be relevant and competitive in the current socio-political environment.
This is no easy task, as any student of jurisprudence knows. Discerning the meaning of a document written over two hundred years ago is difficult at best. The temptation to impose our own set of meanings to those words, such as “interstate commerce”, is great indeed. The temptation to force our policy preferences by reference to the founding document is enormous. The “Living Constitution” folks do make some good points, after all.
Nonetheless, fact is that the Constitution is the North Star of American politics. Its creators were men of genius, who foresaw some of the difficulties that will arise as mere human beings try to create a more perfect union. It is the one constant in our political life, no matter how events and circumstances change. The Founders even built in safeguards, among them the ability to amend the Constitution to meet the challenges of a new era.
As a nation, we have strayed too far, indulged ourselves too much in the laziness of “judicial interpretation”, resulting in serious social and political dislocation.
The Constitutionalist approach to conservatism could heal the divide.
Social Conservatives, motivated by their fight against abortion, can easily remain within the coalition, as a Constitutionalist approach would repudiate Roe v. Wade as an illegal amendment-by-the-judiciary. Does the First Amendment really require our current war on Christmas? No, it does not. Can a nation be faithful to the Constitution if it has lost all values, all morals, all vestiges of civilized behavior among its people? No, it cannot. Conservatives everywhere, of whatever persuasion, could advocate for family values, for civic responsibility, and for a restoration of morality in government as necessary ingredients for a polity faithful to the Constitution.
Fiscal Conservatives, motivated by the idea that the federal government (indeed, all government at every level) has become too powerful and too intrusive, will take comfort in advocating one of two things: either a return to the government as laid out in the Constitution (once stripped of judicially-imposed doctrines such as substantive due process), or an amendment to the Constitution in order to reflect a changed reality. Do we really need an administrative state to deal with the problems of modern society? Then by all means, let us amend the Constitution to allow for it. Did the Founders envision the modern Federal government with its immense power and total dominance in every aspect of our lives, to the point that some folks are proposing a national ban on smoking? If not, we must oppose such a policy, not simply because it’s bad policy, but because it is not faithful to the Constitution.
Defense Conservatives, I believe, would have little problem with an organizing principle of fidelity to the Constitution. After all, is not one of the great motivations behind its creation the need for a national defense and protection of the entire United States? Is the current climate of legislative meddling with the Commander-in-Chief, or the judicial management of war efforts, something envisioned by the Constitution? If not, we must oppose such unconstitutional moves, or call for an amendment.
And all conservatives, no matter what their pet policy or issue, must curb them by principle if such policy or issue is not faithful to the Constitution. Or else, advocate for an amendment.
I may deeply wish to have a Christian Populist platform — but first, it must pass the test of Constitutional fidelity before it can be accepted into the conservative fold. Populism, I argue, is simply not part of the Constitution as evidenced by how the Founders have set up the electoral college system, and by the creation of an independent Judiciary, and by the Bill of Rights. All of these things are designed to contain the passion of the masses, to slow down the mob, and to let cooler heads prevail.
We may still have, indeed there’s no doubt that we will still have, vigorous disagreement and debate within the conservative movement about this issue or that policy. But we will have a guiding principle within which to argue: the Constitution. We will have a way to evaluate whether conservatives support or oppose drilling in ANWR, or intervention abroad, or national ID cards, or what have you. And should social or technological change bring about an issue completely outside of the ambit of the Constitution — e.g., do conservatives support or oppose the creation of American colonies on Mars — then we can refer to the amendment process to work out our policy preferences, while remaining faithful to the Constitution by following its own processes.
As an alternative, if the Coalition cannot be united under the principle of fidelity to the Constitution, then at the very least, such a principle offers a path forward to organizing a new coalition based not on the pure will to power, but on a philosophical basis.
Perhaps the DefCons will reject such fidelity to the Constitution in a time of war, or the SoCons reject it because an amendment allowing same-sex marriage is passed through the process. At the very least, other Americans may be recruited to the cause of Constitutional fidelity by its simple appeal and inexorable logic.
As an added advantage, I believe this approach helps to eliminate the unhelpful distinction between so-called “moderate” conservatives and “rock-ribbed” conservatives. You cannot logically be “moderately” faithful to the Constitution anymore than one can be partially pregnant. Differences in opinion and policy preference will exist, but all of them will be based on an honest attempt to be faithful to the Constitution — and such differences of opinion have much more in common than they do in disagreement.
This is merely the first step in trying to work out what such a vision might mean. I hope those wiser, more intelligent, and better informed than myself could help discuss whether Constitutional Fidelity might form the basis of the conservative movement.
I would appreciate any thoughts and input.
-TS
Entry Filed under: Politics. Tags: Conservatism, Constitution, GOP, principles, Republicans.
7 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
trbpublishing | January 23, 2008 at 10:36 am
“Defense Conservatives, I believe, would have little problem with an organizing principle of fidelity to the Constitution. After all, is not one of the great motivations behind its creation the need for a national defense and protection of the entire United States? Is the current climate of legislative meddling with the Commander-in-Chief, or the judicial management of war efforts, something envisioned by the Constitution? If not, we must oppose such unconstitutional moves, or call for an amendment.”
Good day.
I should as a Reaganite like to comment on the particulars of the above since it is certainly relavent to this discussion.
Please note that the Constution of the United States of America:
Article I Section. 8.
THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO…
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Article II Section Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
*********************************************************
Now from the early foundations of this country, the writings of our founding fathers, and the clear intent of the Constitution - we cannot, and must not evade the actual language of the Constitution regarding matters of war and peace.
It is the Congress who is charged with the power determining the course of the nation whether to go to war or not.
Once dispatched upon that path, the President then is engaged as the commander in chief.
The commander in chief is not the decider, he is the top military commander ONLY when charged with that duty by the Congress of the United States of America.
The purpose of this is self evident. As a union of states, a government of the people, by the people and for the people - we did not want a KING hauling us off to war for the spoils thereof at his own pleasure or at the whim of an ambitious tyrant set upon the path of empire.
Our founding fathers saw fit to bestow to the people, as expressed by their duly elected representatives, the good judgement regarding the common defense and the necessities of war, should they arise.
Leaving to the people and the Congress the power to DECIDE to spend the blood and treasure of the nation.
The utility of a single Commander in Chief is also self evident in that once the nation has commited to war - it is proper that a single voice guide the conduct of the battle. But this in no way grants the Executive any authority to take actions of war absent the authorization of the Congress of the United States of America.
*******************************************************
Now, should congress in fact authorize military action, again for no more than two years without full reconsideration, and the treasure and blood of the nation are spent therein with either good effect or bad effect; the congress as an extension of the will of the people may rightfully determine to ammend : “….Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” Egro they man withdraw appropriations, ammend or withdraw the authorization for conflict, or they may pass new legislation informing the Commander in Chief that services of the military in conflict are no longer required in regard to specific actions - and thus his role complete in that regard.
The practical application of these Constitutional powers and limits is obviously a negotiation between the people, their representatives in the legislative branch, and the execitive. But let us not draw any other conclusion that we the people are the deciders, and the commander in chief answers to us.
*********************************************************
Because the congress passed the authorization for the war in Iraq, and has not withdrawn that grant of power for military action, and thus provided the Commander in Cheif executive authority - deference to the military and the President is prudent. History will judge whether we as a nation executied wise judgement in this matter, and certainly revisionism is cowardly.
However - the “imagining” of new threats, or the notion of unending occupation in Iraq as context for the Executive to decide further action against other nations, or to forever occupy and engage in combat in Iraq….is wholly UN-Constitutional.
I thank you for your consideration.
2.
TheSophist | January 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Interesting points, and I’m inclined towards them.
However, what needs to be fleshed out is who is responsible for the security of the United States in the absence of an official declaration of War. If this means we need an amendment to clarify the responsibility, so be it.
The “imagining” of new threats, as you say, may or may not be constitutionally justified. I think this actually is an area where the Founders could not have foreseen technological development. In their age, the notion of a massive surprise attack would have been impossible to conceive. The idea of nuclear weapons was not in their mental vocabulary.
So if a nation hostile to the United States is developing nuclear warheads and ICBM’s… do we need a formal declaration of war by Congress for the President to act? Or does his “commander-in-chief” powers include the power to defend the U.S. (and its interests) without a formal declaration?
The question is unsettled. The proposed conservative course is to be faithful to the constitution. If the constitution does not allow the president to defend against a nuclear attack on the homeland in the absence of a formal declaration of war, then we need to amend the constitution.
-TS
3.
trbpublishing | January 23, 2008 at 3:19 pm
So if a nation hostile to the United States is developing nuclear warheads and ICBM’s… do we need a formal declaration of war by Congress for the President to act? Or does his “commander-in-chief” powers include the power to defend the U.S. (and its interests) without a formal declaration?
The question is unsettled. The proposed conservative course is to be faithful to the constitution. If the constitution does not allow the president to defend against a nuclear attack on the homeland in the absence of a formal declaration of war, then we need to amend the constitution.
Indeed it is a complex issue. However, it is perfectly constitutional for the Congress of The United States to appropriate specific funds for the purposes of missile defense and other defensive measures to protect our citizens. For the good offices of the State Department and our diplomatic relations with other nation states, to engage cooperation for the prevention of hostilities.
” Or does his “commander-in-chief” powers include the power to defend the U.S. (and its interests) without a formal declaration?”
To the above the answer is not ambigous - it is plain - it is NO. Nor is it likely that the people of the United States, The Congress, or the States introduce such an amendment, let alone ratify it. Again - the “Surprise” of 9/11 did not come from hostile nation states aiming ballistic missles at us. The most likely threat from a suprise nuclear attack would come from rouge, black market materials in the hands of terrorist - walking freely across our open borders while our national guard is off fighting on foriegn soil. It would likely be a “dirty” radiological weapon, as the technical requirements for a fissionable device are quite demanding.
We must also understand the threats we face in CONTEXT. That is to say symetrically. While it is true that nation states may sponsor with funds and intellegence, the loose networks of terrorists, the functional application of military tactics by these small groups is fairly limited. Thus the focus of their activities is targeted at mass casualties, and maximum economic impact. Let us not however, translate this into the language of fear - et al - they have the capacity to destroy western civilization. Quite frankly they do not. Furthermore, their would be sponsors, such as Libia and others, are fundementally understanding that they will not win this war. We have over 5 THOUSAND nuclear weapons which can be deployed on target anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes. Despite the near paranoid rhetoric from some circles - in fact - the terrorist understand this also.
Now specifically, Iran is a problem for the world. Even as North Korea was and still is a delicate matter for multi-lateral negotiations and cooperation. Both Europe and Russia have a vested interest in seeing that the Iranian nuclear programme does not extend beyond the research phase, and the stated objective of civilian power. Let us not forget that it was Kissenger and Nixon who first purposed and supplied the Shah of Iran with nuclear technology understanding that reserves of oil would eventually be scarce.
The President of the United States is not Constitutionally Authorized, based on limited, perhaps flawed, or otherwise “selectivly managed” intellegence - to commit this nation to an act of agression against Iran. Quite simply it is not going to happen. I believe that this is now well understood in the administration and that the focus on Israel and the Palestinians is a wise effort. Re-building regional cooperation in the middle east with Russia and China is also vital. Their tepid support for any new, relatively toothless sanctions is simply a step in the direction that we ultimatly took with North Korea.
I will conclude my remarks on your blog, thanking you for your gracious attention and moderation. I end with this. As a nation let our hearts be filled with Justice, not revenge. Let our minds be guided by reason, prudence, and the rule of law - not by fear and the rush to act on phantom threats yet to materialize. Fear is the mind killer. Fear is a loathsome and brute passion. And it is the only real thing, that we SHOULD FEAR.
4.
TheSophist | January 25, 2008 at 10:17 am
There are a lot of factual and conceptual errors here, unfortunately. I don’t know if the comments is the place to hash them out. But let’s handle just a few.
Indeed it is a complex issue. However, it is perfectly constitutional for the Congress of The United States to appropriate specific funds for the purposes of missile defense and other defensive measures to protect our citizens. For the good offices of the State Department and our diplomatic relations with other nation states, to engage cooperation for the prevention of hostilities.
First, the State Department is a department of the Executive, and therefore completely under the control of the President. You seem to think that the Constitution restricts the President from taking military action when diplomatic options may exist; that is simply not so. Both the military and the State deparment are 100% under the control of the Executive, i.e., the President, under our Constitution. Congress controls the funding, and can make laws governing the military, but that’s it.
Second, the part about ‘appropriating funds for missile defense’ goes to a conceptual error. Congress can do whatever it wants in appropriations, assuming the President signs the bill. But that isn’t the point. The point is that even if a missile defense shield were built, the Constitution is utterly silent on who has to authorize launching those missiles against the incoming ICBM’s. Presumably, that is an act of war that would require a declaration of War under your limited view on Presidential war powers.
Put another way, if the US Navy spots an Iranian nuclear missile submarine 500 miles from Washington DC, does the President have the power on his own authority to order its sinking before it gets any closer to American shores? Or does he have to seek a Declaration of War?
Even your examples show a fundamental lack of understanding:
The most likely threat from a suprise nuclear attack would come from rouge, black market materials in the hands of terrorist - walking freely across our open borders while our national guard is off fighting on foriegn soil. It would likely be a “dirty” radiological weapon, as the technical requirements for a fissionable device are quite demanding.
That’s fine and good. Does the President have the right to order the CIA or special forces troops to shoot that terrorist approaching the Texas border before he reaches American soil, or does he need a Declaration of War on… whom exactly?
Turns out your positions are well-hashed, and intellectually indefensible liberal positions. I get that you don’t like war, but that isn’t the context of my post, and it appears that you have little to add to the meaning of conservatism after all.
Thanks for your comments, nonetheless.
-TS
5.
msh96 | January 28, 2008 at 9:43 am
Trbpublishing,
You may know better than me, but I think you are misreading Article 2 Section 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
I think the section you highlighted refers only to the militia of the states, not to the role of the President as Commander in Chief. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, at all times. He is Commander in Chief of the Militia of the several States, when the militia of the several States (state national guard) are called to federal service.
As a National Guardsman I reported to the governor of the state, period. Unless we were called to active duty and placed on Title 10 orders. Then and only then, were we under the direct control of the President.
The military does not report to Congress, and the Congress does not “engage” and “disengage” the President as Commander in Chief. Congress’ ability to declare war is wholy separate from the President’s role as CiC. Saying otherwise is to say that the executive powers delineated in Article II are subordinate to the powers of Congress in Article I, and that clearly is not how the Constitution works.
TS- This is an excellent post. Following Fred’s loss and the rise of McCain and Huckabee I lamented the leftward shift of the party on my own blog and called for rethinking of the planks of the Republican party. Though I admit, I did not come up with an answer as eloquent and simple as yours.
I think that a return to Constitutionalism would be a great thing for America and the Republican party. It’s what we, as a nation, should have kept in sight all along. I wonder though, if it really solves the question of keeping the conservative coalition together. As you point out, the movement can still be abandoned if something happens that a group does not like.
While we would have a more coherent, and rational philosophy, we would still need all parts of the coalition to remain loyal and we would still be at the mercy of one wing or another. Say the SoCons agreeing to stay with the party only if the FisCons and DefCons agree to support an amendment to ban gay marriage. I think in many ways we end up right back where we are now, trying to maintain a coalition.
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
6.
epluribus | January 30, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The tensions (or perhaps not) between the 3 pillars of conservatism - that is something I’ve been pondering for a few days. I like what you are doing there, and I think I’m in line with you - namely, the idea that each brand of conservatism, IF it holds to the whole of the Constitution and the the whole of Kirkian, Burkean conservatism, will find itself surrendering a small bit of its native ‘turf’, if you will. Ultimately meaning that the 3 philosophies are NOT in tension as long as each does not try to reign supreme.
7.
TheSophist | January 31, 2008 at 4:55 pm
EPU -
That’s right, with a little gloss. The pillars can strive for supremacy, but there will be a principle guiding what should be supreme: the Constitution.
For example, the DefCons may want to establish a domestic spy agency like MI6 to combat homegrown terror threats. FisCons, or libertarains, may oppose that because it represents an expansion of government power unprecedented in American history.
Who wins is determined by fidelity to the Constitution.
-TS