America Today
columnist: Mark Vogl

Topic: Conservatism
American Conservatism in the 21st Century

---

The article addresses the different groups who make up the Conservative movement, why governing is difficult because of the diversity of the groups, and the challenges conservatism faces in the future.

---

by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Sunday, January 31, 2010

Conservatism in twenty-first century America

Where do conservatives come from? How come they are as bad as liberals at governing when they are in the majority? How come there aren't any conservatives in the Democratic Party?

This essay will explain one view of where conservatives come from, and why they have such difficulty getting along once in power. Like the liberals, conservatives are not a monolithic group, either in their views or in their hopes for the future.

Conservatives have many originating points. This essay will identify the two sources, and multiple originating points, describe what characterizes each slice of the conservative rainbow, and identify some of the flashpoints within the conservative movement.

I believe the American conservative movement comes from two distinct sources; philosophical and pragmatic. The philosophical conservatives come from three different philosophies, religious, political and economic. Religious conservatives come from the Christians, Jews and Mormon faith. Political conservatives believe in the Constitution and the history of the creation of the early American nation. Economic conservatives come as practitioners of Adam Smith and capitalism. These philosophical conservatives have broader views towards conservatism and may be able to accept many of the pragmatic or single issue conservative groups under their ideological umbrellas.

Pragmatic conservatives, or the single issue group is the second source of conservative. These groups are concerned with policy and law as it affects today, where "the rubber meets the road" so to speak. These groups would include those Americans supporting: the Second Amendment, business men who seek lower taxes, less regulation or government subsidy for their particular industry, Pro Life, Law and Order, nationalists, and Israel.

Before proceeding further, it is important to understand that unlike the liberals, who all rely on a powerful central government, and who are connected through employment, and therefore income to each other, to their causes, and to their politics, conservatives do not share this social glue. There is no common financial well for conservatives. By their very definition, conservatives are less connected to one another, and less dependent on any central government or cause. This political "individualism" (of both conservative individuals and conservative groups) makes their movement more fragile than their liberal counterparts.

The individualism of a conservative goes to their self image, and to their ego. Conservatives are thinkers, albeit, less institutionalized. If we were to survey liberals and conservatives we would probably find the education level of conservatives to be less than that of liberals. However, if we were to survey for success, self-reliance, initiative and creativity we might be surprised to learn the results.

Conservatives are doers. Their education comes from where the rubber meets the road. They live life, try to shape it, mold it, and succeed at it. Their wisdom comes as much, or more, from personal experience as from the classroom. That's not to say that they don't readthey do. But their reading is self initiated, self digested. They don't need someone to lead them in thought.

President Obama once talked about the Bill of Rights as "negative" rights and in one sense he was correct. The Bill of Rights, a conservative addendum to the Constitution, was all about restraining the central federal government and protecting individual rights and the sovereignty of the states. The "negative" rights Obama spoke of were the limits and restraints on the power of a central government. Where Obama and liberals look to government to solve problems, conservatives see government as the creator of most problems.

Philosophical conservatives

Philosophical conservatives come from their belief and study in the Bible,  Free market capitalism, and the Constitution and democratic political theory.

Religious conservatives, whether they be Jewish, Christian, or from some other religion are conservatives because of their belief in Almighty God and the word He has passed down to us. Starting with the Ten Commandments, the Bible lays out what many people consider the definitions of right and wrong. These rights and wrongs establish the social norms for America. A study of early colonial history will demonstrate clearly that many, if not most, of the earliest settlers in the thirteen colonies came to America seeking religious freedom. The earliest settlers saw America as a chance to create nation founded on Christianity.

Religious conservatives were the first community leaders here in America. The very first taxes created to construct a school were justified as a means to teach reading so that citizens could read the Bible. A republication of The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, by Benjamin Morris clearly illustrates the central role of religion, primarily the Christian religion, in the founding of the early colonies through to the creation of the Constitution.

For religious conservatives the government should pass laws which reflect or mirror the values espoused in the Christian Bible, both the Old and the New Testament. While liberals, or libertarians would point to Jesus' protection of the harlot, conservatives would point to his command to the harlot, "go and sin no more."

I assert that religious conservatives are philosophical conservatives because their faith leads them to embrace many political positions which emanate from that faith. These "social conservatives" oppose homosexuality, abortion, gambling casinos, state lotteries, and the foul language of modern radio and television because of their religious faith. And since many Christians see life here on earth as preparatory to a life in heaven, they see the role of government as shaping or molding a societal framework conducive to that end.

Some social charity by government can be supported by those of the religious right because it reflects the love of Christ. But, most would prefer to see charity emanate from individuals through churches. The very nature of government is contrary to effective charitable work. And even religious conservatives would be suspicious of mingling too much faith in the social programs of the state. As a democracy, one could never be sure how those faith messages could be mangled or manipulated. Better just to leave caring for the poor, the suffering and less fortunate to the churches and their families. Were the government to eliminate its social programs, and eliminate the spending and taxing in that area, and leave the monies in the hands of its citizens, the churches would grow, and programs to end or deal with poverty, drug abuse, criminal activity, unemployment, etc could be shaped by the word of God.

In the South churches are a large employer, and there is a connection between personal income and politics, though much less so than in the union states where salaries are much higher, and many more people are employed through the unions and government.

A secondary, but very important aspect of the Religious Right is their close association and commitment to Israel as the home of God's people and Jesus Christ. This connection has implications across a wide variety of disparate issues, from energy to relations with 1 billion Moslems within the world. The American commitment towards Israel is substantially rooted in the Religious Right. For me that has always been an irony since the American Jewish Community could easily be seen as the heart or core of the American left. (Not to say there are not American Jewish Conservatives, Michael Savage instantly coming to mind. But even Dr. Savage comments about the liberal bent of many American Jews.)

One last but very important doctrine of the Religious Right which extends to much of American political heritage is that each individual is "endowed by their Creator." No other belief could be as important in creating the doctrine of equality and dignity of indeividual human beings. If each person is the child of God, if each person has a soul which carries the Holy Spirit, than all people are equal. There is no way to minimize the importance of any one individual, in the womb, or alive, if we assume that God is Creator of each of us. Our equality comes from the Almighty God.

A second philosophical group of conservatives are the practitioners of Adam Smith and the Free Market. These are America's businessmen, bankers, and some economists. This school of conservatism has been infiltrated, in most recent years, by European socialists who have run their own nations and corporations into a near coma state.

For centuries American businessmen, and now women, have been able to influence US policy through their place as the principle employer of Americans and the holder of much America's wealth. Essential to the free market is freedom from government's control in developing products. Secondarily, but even more importantly has been the belief that trade with the rest of the world was essential to America's prosperity.  Most recently, American business has sought to manipulate government to create profit. This profit comes not just from tax breaks, and possibly government contracts, but from laws which mandate the ownership or use of a product. 

Originally, America's business community maintained pressure on the government to control spending. This pressure kept a lid on taxes and debt, and helped insure a stable dollar.

However, slowly the left demonstrated that much of the monies spent on social programs, in the form of welfare, food stamps, child care, unemployment, and health care found its way into the market place after only a short detour. In fact, the argument could be made that these monies created a kind of floor for consumer spending. Added to this floor were the large retirement payment paid to government workers. Government, through slick economics and deficit spending, could easily build a case that the more government spending the better for the consumer economy.

The ramifications of the pro trade policy are as, or more, important to America's foreign policy then the Religious Right's commitment to Israel. The pro trade policy began very early in America's history. America's third President Thomas Jefferson invested heavily in the building a navy so that the infant United States could fight the pirates of Mediterranean. By 1860 the United States would carry seventy percent of the world's ocean going trade. While America's political theory was not necessarily expansionist after we had completed our "manifest destiny," our economic policies capitalism and free trade would make America a presence around the world and create a constant need for a standing army.

The most recent flirtations with socialism known as Obama-care are as much a result of business pressures as they are of left. For many businesses which compete internationally, health care costs are a huge reason for America's sagging competition with foreign companies. The right had few answers, the left offered business relief. It could be argues that American economy has remained in neutral because investors cannot tell where Obama-care is going, and therefore what the cost structure of American business will be.

The real answer to inflating health care costs rests in increased supply of health care systems and the check of consumer caution in purchasing the care. The conservative alternative to Obama-care rests in business and economic considerations, but the right has not yet devised that solution. In this case socialism is the more obvious answer, though its implementation would end the American experiment.

One last element of the business community's agenda has had profound affects on the Republican Party. Business is most concerned with eliminating obstacles to consumerism of all types. Morals and values tend to be obstacles for certain products, from movies and music to clothes, drugs, medical procedures.

So while business used to be a philosophical foundation of the right, at present its ideological compass is undecided. In addition, the inclusion of so much foreign influence in America business, through investment, and in the intended markets, and in the management has diluted what used to be an anchor of the right.

The last of the philosophical foundations of conservatism is the Constitutional nationalist group. These people have a patriotic belief in American history, and a nationalist view point.

Those who believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution are active across a broad range of issues. The Founders knew things changed. They may not have anticipated that the volume and velocity of change would increase at the rate it does in modern times, but they did recognize that a wide variety of causes are responsible for change. They allowed for a process to change the Constitution, though the amendment process has fallen into non use as the Supreme Court rose in the roll of arbiter and law maker (ie. Roe v. Wade). If any part of the Constitution has probably developed in a way unanticipated by most of the signers of the Constitution, I would suggest it could be the role and authority of the Supreme Court.

Strict constitutionalists are not just a guardian of the Constitution, but champions of American nationalism. Nationalism has come under attack not only by academicians and elitists, but through business and economics through open markets and globalism. In fact, there may be no greater threat to America's sovereignty than the emerging ideology of globalism. For the purposes of this discussion, globalism is the free and unrestrained movement of people, goods and money across national borders. A component or tenet of globalism is "diversity is inherently good." Globalism has infested both the Democrat and Republican Parties, both liberals and conservatives. However, globalism has an acidic nature towards national culture, national patriotism, and the sovereignty of nations.

Constitutionalists are generally for smaller, more restrained government.

One element of these conservatives are known as "hawks." They see America's role as the leader of the Free World. They settled in during the post World War II era and found their place in the Cold War (1945-1991.) With the Cold War won, the hawks scanned the horizon for the next foe. The People's Republic of China seemed to be emerging as the front runner, til the Adam Smith conservatives identified China as the world's largest potential market. With China removed from the enemies list, the Moslem terrorists rushed to the forefront creating a whole new global enemy.

Interestingly, most military professionals would not be included in the "hawks" category. In the past, America's military professionals are more concerned with real life missions and threats. Since 1991 they have been pushed to deal with the threats in the Middle East to the world's oil supply. Homeland defense, (meaning the defense of America's borders) should have been the province of the American military. But illegal immigrants, like terrorists, seem to be in some kind of gray area, not citizens or soldiers, but not exactly not citizens. Deploying US forces along the border was painted as to threatening to Mexico. But the deployments could have tens of miles from the border, with the use of helicopters, light vehicles, and sophisticated sensor and imaging technologies could have been used to literally seal the border.

Pragmatic Conservatives

Pragmatic conservatives tend to embrace conservatism through a single issue. These groups include:

Right to Life, Second Amendment (NRA), Law and Order ( Death Penalty supporters, War on Drugs, Police unions, community groups) Supporters of Israel, Nationalists, Fiscal Conservatives (Anti Tax groups, Debt-busters)

Each of the pragmatic conservative groups have relatively narrow interests. However, the narrower the interest the more intense the passion of those interested in the issue. These groups can count supporters in the millions respectively, and can rally large sums of money in brief periods of time when a recognizable political threat arises.

The pragmatic conservatives can, from time to time, be allied with, and act as foot soldiers for, the larger philosophical conservative groups whose supporters/proponents may not be able to muster and demonstrate the same degree of popular mass.

The important fact with respect to single issue conservatives is that they are not necessarily committed to, or friendly with a larger conservative agenda.

One paradox of modern American politics is the Pro Life tendencies of the Latin American and other Spanish immigrants to America. While American Catholicism, especially in the northeast, seems to have a blind spot concerning abortion, the Latin American Catholics don't. In fact, it is possible that their political influence has already been felt on this issue. Recent polls indicate a shift within the American public concerning the issue of Life. While I have no knowledge of the poll itself, unless there were questions within the poll identifying whether the respondent was an American citizen, it seems entirely likely that almost all polling results reflects the opinions of illegal immigrants.

The different single issue groups can be composed largely of slices of the philosophical conservatives. For example supporters of Israel would come primarily from the different Jewish and Christian churches across America as would much of the Pro Life movement.

The Fiscal Conservatives are actually composed of two groups whose focus is on different aspects of financing the government. One group is focused on the size and scope of taxation. This group would be primarily interested in lowering taxes. Another group of Fiscal Conservatives are concerned with the fiduciary responsibilities of Congress with respect to debt financing day to day operations of government and thus could have positive impact on raising taxes in order to properly finance spending.

We can see that from this brief survey of the component groups of the Conservative movement there are clearly flashpoints where conservatives can be diametrically opposed to each other.

And than there are groups which are not conservative, but from time to time align themselves with conservatives because of the challenges and situations facing the nation or state. These groups are most often libertarians and moderate Republicans. The more the conservatives rely on these groups for electoral victory, the more diverse the political coalition governing and less pro-active the government can be to enact the conservative agenda.

American conservatism today, in many ways, resembles the Southern Confederacy of 1861 1865. Though I will not address this observation in depth here, I would offer that a careful survey of the Confederate Constitution would demonstrate an anticipation of many of the issues which presently frustrate the American people. Whether it be a more constrained government in terms of spending, free trade, or a more open government to Christian morality, or state's rights, the Confederate States Constitution had been shaped to implement these initiatives.

Conservatives in the twenty first century must develop a new, all encompassing, philosophy which uses the foundations of conservatism to answer the most pressing questions facing our nation. While these solutions need not be government based, they must be practical, real, and applicable.

While health care has demonstrated a weakness in Conservative theoretical advances, it may be only the first of many areas where technology, previous policy decisions, developing global competition, and domestic expectations overwhelm previous political decisions.

In health care, it is not simply a question of whether government should provide health care as a right. It is also a question of how health care will be financed. Because much of the rest of the world has chosen to finance health care through taxation, it has placed American business at a disadvantage. Further, medical care violates the basic controls of the market because the consumer is divided into two different components, the person needing care, and the payee for the care. If individuals had to pay for their own care economic restraints would limit how fast costs could inflate. But since a combination of deficit financed government and insurance pay for the great majority of health care in the United States the costs have been able to grow without the normal economic restraints.

For policy makers, in this case conservative, the problems and challenges of health care offer a very wide and diverse set of questions.

I suggest that in the future, because of technology advances, more sophisticated compensation packages, and continuous challenges from overseas, the complexity of policy issues across a wide spectrum will continue. For conservatives to stay relevant, we must anticipate the issues and evaluate them in more comprehensive way.

A secondary issue, but just as important, will be which direction will America head in? Will we become more liberal or more conservative? It may be that compromise is no longer a viable political governing alternative. Instead, the nation may have to chose. Conservatives must work to create a modern philosophy which can address the brave new world we face.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
5 thumbs so far

©2010 Mark Vogl, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, January 31, 2010
Last modified: Monday, February 22, 2010

The views expressed in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Mark Vogl of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.