Three Great Conservatives: Making My List
POUNDS, in yesterday's comments, noticed that I had limited the definition of conservatism to primarily economic factors. He's right; I consciously limited it to economics, not because that's the sum total of conservatism, but rather because it was the easiest way to set a working definition.
My point was that naming great conservatives is easier to do when you broaden the definition of conservatism to include more than just "resistance to change."
But in the case of social conservatism, "resistance to change" becomes part of the discussion, and I didn't want to get sidetracked. And "foreign policy" conservatism calls to mind a very large, very muscular government a la the military, so that complicates things even further. By today's standards, FDR and Truman were clearly "foreign policy" conservatives. But the Right has no claim on them. And where does that put LBJ who was both Mr. Great Society - wildly liberal - and Mr. Vietnam - not so liberal?
But POUNDS has made some wise stipulations, to which I agree. To be on the list, a great conservative had to have had a) a profound and lasting impact on society and b) have generated that impact as a result of their political philosophy, i.e. conservatism.
POUNDS suggests, then, that religious icons should be excluded, and I'm cool with that. Questions like "how would Jesus vote?" tell you a lot more about the person answering than it does about Jesus. Pat Robertson will tell you God is a Republican; Cornel West will tell you God is a Communist. You sort it out.
POUNDS also wants to exclude the founders from the discussion, but I think that's a little trickier. Certainly all of them would be termed "social conservatives" by today's standards, but I think Hamiltonians would be considered economic leftists, although Jefferson had profound leftist sympathies too, particularly for the French. I'd say Washington and Adams were men of the Right, but once you start going back that far, shifting societal mores get in the way. Even Lincoln, the first Republican president, would be seen as very much a racist if he were magically transported to the 21st Century. Although, racism aside, I think a strong case can be made that he was a conservative, although many credit his unwillingness to allow secession as the beginning of the bloated federal government we have today. So it's all a bit nebulous.
It gets easier if you stick to the 20th and 21st Centuries, where you can measure a person against a world that isn't so foreign to us. POUNDS put Churchill on his list, and he's an easy call. He was essentially the savior of Western civilization in World War II.
But does that mean FDR and Truman should be on there, too? FDR is the father of modern economic liberalism, but he was quite the hawk militarily. And Truman is the only person who has ever dropped an atomic bomb on a population center. You think the lefty peaceniks were OK with that?
How do you classify Soviet resistors like Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel? The Left's sympathies were with the Soviets, and these guys fought the USSR tooth and nail. But are they really, on the whole, conservatives?
If POUNDS is unwilling to recognize the greatness of a Reagan or a Thatcher, then how about John Paul II? Too religious? Maybe. But he was also a fierce political opponent of the Soviet Union, and he, as much as anyone else, was instrumental in the Soviet Union's collapse.
If you look among U.S. presidents in the 20th Century, you see a lot of mediocre ones in both parties, and very few who could be considered "conservative." Calvin Coolidge? Yeah, probably a conservative, but hardly great. Teddy Roosevelt? Republican, yes, and Beavis McCain's hero, but hardly a conservative. (And, I don't think, nearly as great as his hype would have you believe.)
See, it's not an easy list to make, but not because conservatism is incompatible with greatness. It's because it's very difficult to fashion a definition of conservatism that anyone fits perfectly. I'm as big a Reaganite as anyone, but I have to concede that Ronnie was the guy who raised self-employment taxes by over 200%, which hits me squarely in the pocketbook.
Anyway, if I make a list, I think I can defend this one:
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) Winston Churchill
3) The John Paul II/Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan trifecta. (Pick one.)
Let's see what POUNDS does with that sucker.
My point was that naming great conservatives is easier to do when you broaden the definition of conservatism to include more than just "resistance to change."
But in the case of social conservatism, "resistance to change" becomes part of the discussion, and I didn't want to get sidetracked. And "foreign policy" conservatism calls to mind a very large, very muscular government a la the military, so that complicates things even further. By today's standards, FDR and Truman were clearly "foreign policy" conservatives. But the Right has no claim on them. And where does that put LBJ who was both Mr. Great Society - wildly liberal - and Mr. Vietnam - not so liberal?
But POUNDS has made some wise stipulations, to which I agree. To be on the list, a great conservative had to have had a) a profound and lasting impact on society and b) have generated that impact as a result of their political philosophy, i.e. conservatism.
POUNDS suggests, then, that religious icons should be excluded, and I'm cool with that. Questions like "how would Jesus vote?" tell you a lot more about the person answering than it does about Jesus. Pat Robertson will tell you God is a Republican; Cornel West will tell you God is a Communist. You sort it out.
POUNDS also wants to exclude the founders from the discussion, but I think that's a little trickier. Certainly all of them would be termed "social conservatives" by today's standards, but I think Hamiltonians would be considered economic leftists, although Jefferson had profound leftist sympathies too, particularly for the French. I'd say Washington and Adams were men of the Right, but once you start going back that far, shifting societal mores get in the way. Even Lincoln, the first Republican president, would be seen as very much a racist if he were magically transported to the 21st Century. Although, racism aside, I think a strong case can be made that he was a conservative, although many credit his unwillingness to allow secession as the beginning of the bloated federal government we have today. So it's all a bit nebulous.
It gets easier if you stick to the 20th and 21st Centuries, where you can measure a person against a world that isn't so foreign to us. POUNDS put Churchill on his list, and he's an easy call. He was essentially the savior of Western civilization in World War II.
But does that mean FDR and Truman should be on there, too? FDR is the father of modern economic liberalism, but he was quite the hawk militarily. And Truman is the only person who has ever dropped an atomic bomb on a population center. You think the lefty peaceniks were OK with that?
How do you classify Soviet resistors like Lech Walesa or Vaclav Havel? The Left's sympathies were with the Soviets, and these guys fought the USSR tooth and nail. But are they really, on the whole, conservatives?
If POUNDS is unwilling to recognize the greatness of a Reagan or a Thatcher, then how about John Paul II? Too religious? Maybe. But he was also a fierce political opponent of the Soviet Union, and he, as much as anyone else, was instrumental in the Soviet Union's collapse.
If you look among U.S. presidents in the 20th Century, you see a lot of mediocre ones in both parties, and very few who could be considered "conservative." Calvin Coolidge? Yeah, probably a conservative, but hardly great. Teddy Roosevelt? Republican, yes, and Beavis McCain's hero, but hardly a conservative. (And, I don't think, nearly as great as his hype would have you believe.)
See, it's not an easy list to make, but not because conservatism is incompatible with greatness. It's because it's very difficult to fashion a definition of conservatism that anyone fits perfectly. I'm as big a Reaganite as anyone, but I have to concede that Ronnie was the guy who raised self-employment taxes by over 200%, which hits me squarely in the pocketbook.
Anyway, if I make a list, I think I can defend this one:
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) Winston Churchill
3) The John Paul II/Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan trifecta. (Pick one.)
Let's see what POUNDS does with that sucker.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 11:49 AM
6 Comments:
GREAT post Stallion!!
Before I respond, let me clarify what I meant about excluding "founders."
I was speaking within the context of religion only!! (That is, founders, prophets, icons with religions.)
Founding Fathers of the republic are completley acceptable..... though as you said sometimes difficult to categorize.
POUNDS
1) Walter O'Malley
2) Charlie O. Finley
3) Wendy O. Williams
Good list Stallion.
Of course I consider Lincoln our greatest president (well actually tied for first with FDR).... but to classify his efforts to preserve the union as conservative you must cast the southern secessionists as liberals. Now that is really a stretch.
Lincoln's Reconstruction Plan was definitely a generous and "forgiving" approach that most historians would classify as more liberal than the harsher and more punitive plan urged by the extremists in his party.
I have trouble viewing Lincoln as a conservative. He certainly believed state sovereignty was the wrong approach to resolve issues (like slavery or anything else). I am pretty sure he helped arrange federal funding for railroads, colleges, and infrastructure.
Winston Churchill was one of the great leaders of the 20th century. No doubt about that. His claim to that mantle, however, rests entirely on his efforts as an early opponent of German aggression and then as such an inspirational leader during the actual war.
I may be an admirer of Churchill but his economic views were a disaster (including some disturbing positions on the advantages of basing currency on a gold standard.)
Churchill was a great, great man.. but was it his conservatism that motivated his efforts? (Also, be aware that early on Churchill was willing to tolerate Nazism as some kind of bulwark against Communism.)
I will avoid commenting on John Paul II since I said we should avoid leaders / founders of religion. Oh hell, since you brought him up I will, at least say this much: J2-P2 was not even the best Pope of the 20th century. Pope John XXIII deserves that claim to fame. A kind and generous man who opened up the Catholic Church and let some light shine in. His views of tolerance and harmony reversed years of intolerance, bigotry, secretiveness in the church.
Maggie and RR will have to wait for another post. The cable guys are here to fix somehting.
POUNDS
I'd like to hear a little more on what SC classifies as "conservatism".
Because I have doubts about his second choice. Churchill was a great leader, he was also an excellent statesman with great charisma. But I seriously don't think porning off the British empire as being a conservative value. Anthony Eden was far more in tune with that conservative ethos....
I think you guys need to define what "conservatism is" rather than just plucking names from the ether for a top three.
I'd have to agree on Thatcher to an extent. But I think we're all feeling the effects of her "right to buy" several decades on.
It's an interesting topic. Thanks for starting it.
Will this blog be "calling in gay" tomorrow?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home