What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

Freedom’s Deep Roots in the Hearts and Minds of Man

Irishman Edmund Burke, an 18th century contemporary of America’s founding fathers and an eloquent champion of their cause and ideals, is generally regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservative thought. However, the roots for what we regard as American conservatism far predates the 18th century. In fact, one American writer on this subject traces its development through five historic cities – Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London and Philadelphia.

In this long view of history, ideas about the nature and rights of man were molded in Jerusalem with the Old Testament view of a “purposeful moral existence under God.” These ideas were expanded in ancient Athens with the philosophy and insights of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle; they were nurtured in ancient Rome with the Empire’s adherence to universal law intertwined with the Christian understanding of man’s fallen nature and his hope for redemption, brought to Rome by the Apostle Paul. These ideas were then greatly advanced by the development of the parliamentary system in London and the concept of common law, which finally led to the miracle of Philadelphia.

In Philadelphia our founding fathers not only drafted the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, but in doing so created a national government that balanced the conflicting demands of freedom and order and established a remarkably new and effective model for government. This model was a federalism with powers that were so carefully enumerated, separated and restrained, that it would be a true instrument of the people, protecting their rights and drawing its own legitimacy and powers only from the consent of the governed.

Prior to the miracle of Philadelphia, it was commonly believed that rights were granted by the sovereign. However, in the writings of the 17th century British philosopher John Locke, whose influence on Thomas Jefferson is so clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence, people have rights by virtue of having been created in God’s image. Believing that these God-given rights do not flow from governments, Philadelphia turned the world upside down by declaring that government has only those rights that the people choose to give it.

Locke wrote that legitimate governments are instituted for the purpose of protecting rights. The founders understood that for government to serve this noble purpose, people must be free to form governments and to dissolve them, and that the only legitimate purpose for any government is to protect the rights of the people, which America’s Bill of Rights proclaimed to be “inalienable.”

At the foundation of this “classical liberal” view of rights is the idea that one is free to pursue one’s own life, liberty and happiness as long as in doing so one does not violate the right of others to do the same. In this view, there is no obligation to ensure the best interest of others - nor is there a requirement to be selfish. Instead, each person is free to act in his own behalf, but always respecting the right of others to do the same.

The classical liberals and our founding fathers made no distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties. In fact, one can argue that the right to property and to wealth, both of which are economic liberties, is a necessary protection to such rights as the freedom to speak and to worship, both of which are civil liberties.

The respect for man’s full rights, both civil and economic, endured through the nineteenth century, making America both a beacon of freedom and an industrial powerhouse the likes of which had never before been seen on the face of the earth. Sadly that respect for God-given, inalienable, civil and economic rights would be attacked from within our own borders during the twentieth century.

(This is the second installment in a series of reflections on “What Does It Mean to Be A Conservative?”)

The Battle for Freedom Continues

This week the Supreme Court rendered two extremely important decisions in support of the Constitution, freedom, and the individual liberties of every American.

Virtually all of the media attention has been focused on the Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upholds the individual right of Americans to own guns in the District of Columbia. Since Washington, D.C. is federal territory, many of those who oppose the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms continue to argue that the Second Amendment simply allows for state militias to possess guns, and they strive to keep and expand state and municipal prohibitions against individual gun ownership. But these state and local laws will now be challenged in light of the new ruling that makes clear that our Constitution and Bill of Rights not only mean what they say, but apply to every American.

In finding the Washington, D.C. gun ban in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, Justice Scalia eloquently affirmed what our founding fathers understood when saying that certain rights are inherent, natural, and from God, not government, and when he explains how the rights affirmed by the founding fathers have their roots deep in ancient British legal history. These natural, God-given rights include the right to defend oneself and one’s family, to safeguard one’s home and property, even to defend one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against a tyrannical government.

For a great many Americans, what the Supreme Court has done in this landmark case is to affirm what most of us simply regard as “right thinking” or common sense. Yet the Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter was determined by a razor thin vote of 5 to 4.

The national attention that focused on this Second Amendment ruling has eclipsed another Court decision rendered the same day, but one that is at least as important in that it re-asserts our First Amendment right to free speech. The McCain-Feingold law has been seen by many as an “incumbent protection act” in that it restricts the quantity, content, and timing of political speech during federal elections. One provision, known as the “millionaires’ amendment,” had attempted to subdue wealthy, self-financing candidates by letting their opponents receive triple the standard campaign contribution limit of $2,300 per donor. This provision effectively had limited what one candidate could spend, thereby limiting that candidate’s speech, since it costs money to get one’s message to the voters. Also, by “leveling the playing field” in this way, the law provided an advantage to incumbents who typically are much better known than are their challengers.

This week the Court also determined by a 5 to 4 vote that this provision of the McCain-Feingold law is unconstitutional, thereby upholding the right of a candidate to spend his own money for campaign speech.

While we can be thankful that the Supreme Court has aligned itself on the side of liberties contained in our Bill of Rights, the closeness of these votes reminds us of how very fragile those liberties are.

When we hear legislators boast about how much legislation they have sponsored and passed, we need to remember that every law, whether it is promulgated by local, state, or federal governments, limits someone’s freedom. The challenge is in knowing when to make the trade-off.

There was a time in the nineteenth century when many seriously argued that our Congress was no longer necessary since our nation had all the law it needed. With the threats posed by international terrorism, by a public that increasingly thinks government should solve all problems, and by a government that seeks to manage everything from the nation’s economy to planetary temperatures, our liberties come under constant assault.

The noble battles for liberty fought at Bunker Hill, Ticonderoga, Valley Forge, Charleston, Camden, and Eutaw Springs continue today in both political parties, in our state legislatures, in Congress, and as we have seen this week, in the United States Supreme Court. The fight is never ending.