Can You Name Three Great Conservatives?
POUNDS and law geek have been battling it out in the last thread, and I invite all those interested in a bright argument to review those exchanges. POUNDS, I should have you know that I’ve promised law geek that I will appoint him Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just as soon as I’m elected president, so please keep that in mind.
Watching those two battle it out reminded me of an argument that POUNDS used to have with any and all comers about the greatness, or lack thereof, of political conservatives.
Put simply, according to POUNDS, there aren’t any, because conservatives fight change, while liberals embrace it. The people who are remembered as great leaders are those who shook up the establishment, he would say. You can’t do that if you’re protecting the status quo.
Because of that, he insisted, it was impossible to name three great conservatives. He’d give you one freebie – Benjamin Disraeli – and then insist that it was impossible to round out the list. I tried, though – I put Ronald Reagan on my list, and then I threw in Dwight Eisenhower. POUNDS rightfully found Dwight Eisenhower to be pretty thin gruel as far as great conservatives go, although I didn’t want to admit that, at the time, I had no idea who Benjamin Disraeli was. (The first and only Jewish Prime Minister of Great Britain. Wikipedia article here.)
Anyway, this greatly disturbed me at the time, but as I’ve mulled it over lo these many years, I’ve come to realize that POUNDS was, intentionally or not, running an intellectual bait and switch.
The first definition of “conservative” from dictionary.com is as follows:
Using that definition, then POUNDS is absolutely right. But notice that this definition doesn’t contain any real political ideology. If your traditions and institutions are solidly Leftist, then you can be termed a “conservative” if you act to preserve them. Thus, when Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms were undermined by a botched military coup in 1991, the media labeled those behind the coup as “hardline conservatives” in the Soviet Government. Same with Tiananmen Square in ’89 – it was supposedly “conservative elements” in the Chinese government that used tanks to mow down the pro-democracy demonstrators.
Looking at these examples, unless you questioned the underlying definition of the word “conservative,” you’d think Leonid Brezhnev and Ronald Reagan were essentially the same person.
And let’s take another look at Reagan, shall we? By this first definition, can he truly be termed a “conservative?” One who wants to “preserve existing conditions” and “limit change?” The guy came in and radically altered how Washington did business, both domestically and overseas. They didn’t call it the “Reagan Revolution” for nothing. Newt Gingrich in 1994 overthrew 40 years of Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives and turned the status quo on its head entirely. How is that “limiting change?”
The fact is that the word “conservative” also has another definition in the political arena, one that reflects a worldview of limited government and skepticism of statist solutions. It has nothing to do with “resistance to change.” It has everything to do with faith in the private sector, not the government, to produce the kind of solutions that will be of most benefit to society. If the US continues to move toward European-style socialism, then you’re going to see a growing number of political conservatives screaming for change with ever-increasing volume.
If they were alive today, how many of the founders would be registered Democrats? You think Washington and Adams and Jefferson would be thrilled with the metastasization of the state? And even by POUNDS’ initial definition, Lincoln could still be termed a great conservative – true, he took the radical step of freeing the slaves, but he did so largely to achieve the goal of holding the union intact. To “conserve” the union, if you will.
Sadly, too many Republicans have abandoned second-definition conservative ideology at the altar of first-definition conservative intransigence – preservation of power over principle, of status quo over small government. It’s time the Republican party got revolutionary again. THAT would be a change I could believe in.
Watching those two battle it out reminded me of an argument that POUNDS used to have with any and all comers about the greatness, or lack thereof, of political conservatives.
Put simply, according to POUNDS, there aren’t any, because conservatives fight change, while liberals embrace it. The people who are remembered as great leaders are those who shook up the establishment, he would say. You can’t do that if you’re protecting the status quo.
Because of that, he insisted, it was impossible to name three great conservatives. He’d give you one freebie – Benjamin Disraeli – and then insist that it was impossible to round out the list. I tried, though – I put Ronald Reagan on my list, and then I threw in Dwight Eisenhower. POUNDS rightfully found Dwight Eisenhower to be pretty thin gruel as far as great conservatives go, although I didn’t want to admit that, at the time, I had no idea who Benjamin Disraeli was. (The first and only Jewish Prime Minister of Great Britain. Wikipedia article here.)
Anyway, this greatly disturbed me at the time, but as I’ve mulled it over lo these many years, I’ve come to realize that POUNDS was, intentionally or not, running an intellectual bait and switch.
The first definition of “conservative” from dictionary.com is as follows:
Conservative: adjective:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Using that definition, then POUNDS is absolutely right. But notice that this definition doesn’t contain any real political ideology. If your traditions and institutions are solidly Leftist, then you can be termed a “conservative” if you act to preserve them. Thus, when Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms were undermined by a botched military coup in 1991, the media labeled those behind the coup as “hardline conservatives” in the Soviet Government. Same with Tiananmen Square in ’89 – it was supposedly “conservative elements” in the Chinese government that used tanks to mow down the pro-democracy demonstrators.
Looking at these examples, unless you questioned the underlying definition of the word “conservative,” you’d think Leonid Brezhnev and Ronald Reagan were essentially the same person.
And let’s take another look at Reagan, shall we? By this first definition, can he truly be termed a “conservative?” One who wants to “preserve existing conditions” and “limit change?” The guy came in and radically altered how Washington did business, both domestically and overseas. They didn’t call it the “Reagan Revolution” for nothing. Newt Gingrich in 1994 overthrew 40 years of Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives and turned the status quo on its head entirely. How is that “limiting change?”
The fact is that the word “conservative” also has another definition in the political arena, one that reflects a worldview of limited government and skepticism of statist solutions. It has nothing to do with “resistance to change.” It has everything to do with faith in the private sector, not the government, to produce the kind of solutions that will be of most benefit to society. If the US continues to move toward European-style socialism, then you’re going to see a growing number of political conservatives screaming for change with ever-increasing volume.
If they were alive today, how many of the founders would be registered Democrats? You think Washington and Adams and Jefferson would be thrilled with the metastasization of the state? And even by POUNDS’ initial definition, Lincoln could still be termed a great conservative – true, he took the radical step of freeing the slaves, but he did so largely to achieve the goal of holding the union intact. To “conserve” the union, if you will.
Sadly, too many Republicans have abandoned second-definition conservative ideology at the altar of first-definition conservative intransigence – preservation of power over principle, of status quo over small government. It’s time the Republican party got revolutionary again. THAT would be a change I could believe in.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 3:55 PM
17 Comments:
wow...
How do you remember this stuff from more than two decades ago?
Interesting and impressive blog entry, though. I will need to give it some serious thought.
One aside though.... I consider Dwight Eisenhower to one of the BEST presidents of the 20th century. (I cannot say I feel that way about R.R. though.)
The USA will forever be in the debt of the president who is responsible for our interstate highway system.
Before "Ike" you drove across the country (mostly on old route 66) which had stop lights in the middle of towns and often one lane in each direction.
Eisenhower witntessed the German highways at the end of WWII and was immediately in awe of them. He set out to replicate them in the US and made modern trucking and travel a reality.
We became an economic powerhouse largely because of Eisenhower's vision in that area. (Dare I say his great "liberal" venture? Many conservatives thought it was a bad idea.... too much a "big government" over-reaching and over-spending.)
Of course, I also admired his warning (on leaving office) to "Beware the Military-Industrial Complex." If only we had listed to him our economy, morality, reputation in world, and future would all be better / brighter.
Anyway, I am gonna mull over some good points you made in this blog.
POUNDS
What's the "Military-Industrial Complex?" that we need to beware?
Ronald Reagan
Sarah Palin
Bobby Jindal
We can also thank IKE for Vietnam. Thanks IKE.
If I remember my western civ. classes there is no such thing as a Consultative. The proper definition is Classical Liberal. President Regan was one of these.
Military men rarely make good presidents (Grant, IKE). Of course Washington was the wonderful exception.
SOrry for the spelling of Conservative
Palin?! Wow.
POUNDS, back in high school, I cited Eisenhower because my dad was so impressed with him, precisely for the same reasons you are. He considers the Interstate Highway System one of the greatest governmental accomplishments ever.
I don't think, however, he's a good example of Bill Buckleyesque conservatism.
I also think Bill Clinton was a far more conservative president than EPA/OSHA/Wage-and-Price-Controls Richard Nixon.
Sarah Palin a great conservative? Yikes. I like her, and perhaps the potential is there, but she has to actually do something significant to earn that distinction. Jindal's further down that road than she is, but he's a newbie on the scene, too.
To Stallion:
Agree, Eisenhower was not a hard line conservative. The guy he beat for the GOP nomination, Robert Taft (of Ohio??)was the conservatives choice. In fact both major parties sought Ike as a candidate four years earlier (right after the war).
And, yes Clinton was more conservative than Nixon on economic issues. That is why the DLC nearly ruined the Democratic Party. (Triangulation, my ass, that was capitulation.)
To Anonymous (at 6:07 PM):
Blaming the Vietnam War on Eisenhower (who sent several hundred "military advisors") or even Kennedy (who sent about 3,000) is ridiculous.
That became LBJ's war when he sent over a half million combat troops. And Nixon was just as bad, needlessly prolonging the war for another 6 years or so.
Blaming Eisenhower is kind of like blaming Ben Franklin for electrical "brownouts" when we overload the power companies with demand.
POUNDS
What do you know, a quarter pounder with cheese.
I'am
SM
Sarah Palin a great conservative? Yikes. I like her, and perhaps the potential is there, but she has to actually do something significant to earn that distinction.
You leave my girl alone you brutish thug.
Pounds.
IKE started the march into Vietnam. He put the first boots on the ground.
Kennedy was going to get us out but Texas killed him before he could do it.
Stallion,
I am almost ready to respond to your contentions, but there are a few things that should be determined first.
When we use the term "great conservative" or "great liberal" what we mean is someone who has generally (pretty much by consensus of historians)been recognized as having made profound and lasting contributions (to country / world / society / progress / etc.)
AND those generally recognized contributions were actually based (in whole or in part) on the "conservative" or "liberal" beliefs (or approach) of that person.
Agreed?
I have a question about your description of conservatives. You seem to be limiting it to the economic sphere (based on what you wrote)... is that correct? Or are we also using the more general view that includes cultural and societal views and values?
And finally (for now) I suggest we eliminate from discussion any specific founders, prophets, or religious icons... since, not only might some people get insulted, but it would probably turn out that believers in a particular religion would always determine that "their guy" was great, while others would favor "their guy" (or no religious figure). So lets leave out Jesus, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Mohammed, et. al.
By the way....... where's your list? lol
I would point out that the most heroic statesman of the twentieth century was a conservative, although by no means a doctrinaire one (as seen by his alliance with Lloyd George in the first decade of the century). I give you:
Winston Churchill
I can think of no leftie statesman who can hold a candle to him in terms of heroism or grandeur.
Classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States, simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries...
Milburn Drysdale
Montgomery Burns
Thurston J. Howell, III
If you're going to label Disraeli a conservative, I don't see any grounds for excluding Eisenhower. Yes, he fought his right-wing over a number of issues, like McCarthy, but he was hostile to growing the government--in all areas, especially defense.
The one exception was the Interstate system. Now as building roads is a legitimate function of the federal government, one that conservatives largely agree with, I don't think it's "liberal" per se.
George Washington and John Adams should go on the list. Yes, he was revolutionary, but the American revolution was a reaction against innovations from Britain. After Independence, they formed the opposition to Jeffersonian innovations.
Since we're in that era, we should also add the father of modern conservatism himself: Edmund Burke. David Hume was a functional Tory, too, despite his atheism.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home