What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

President Reagan and the Triumph of the Conservative Movement

In 1947, the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. proclaimed: "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals." There is no doubt that champions of big, activist government dominated the first half of the twentieth century. But historians like Schlesinger are better at looking back than predicting the future. The pendulum had indeed swung far to the left but, imperceptibly at first, it had begun to turn by the century’s midpoint.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was so accepting of New Deal principles that both parties sought to make this celebrated war hero their nominee. When he ultimately decided to seek the Republican nomination, he easily beat a conservative challenge from the highly respected Senator Robert Taft. Nevertheless, the relatively serene Eisenhower years were a time when conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman were laying the intellectual foundation for a new conservative movement that would be built with the timbers of a renewed commitment to small government, individual liberty, faith, family, and economic opportunity.

The Kennedy-Johnson years were a triumph of big government liberalism with greatly expanded roles for the federal government. The so called “war on poverty” began with $3 billion and spawned numerous new agencies such as the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Jobs Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Model Cities Program, Upward Bound, and many others. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the National Teachers Corps marked a new and constitutionally questionable role for the federal government in education. Medicare and Medicaid were established, along with the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. There were greatly expanded roles for the federal government in public broadcasting, consumer protection, environmental protection, transportation, and civil rights, with scores of new departments and agencies serving various targeted constituencies.

Finally, many in America, later known as “the silent majority,” had had enough. In 1964, they flocked to the candidacy of libertarian Barry Goldwater. But a nation so recently rocked by the Kennedy assassination was in no mood for a second change in Presidents in little more than a year. Goldwater strategist John Sears observed, however, that Goldwater “changed the rhetoric of politics” by challenging the principles of the New Deal, “something no Democrat or Republican before him had dared to do.”

Although Goldwater lost in a landslide, his bold philosophies inspired a new grassroots conservative movement that produced the entry of thousands of young people in American politics and policymaking. Goldwater’s campaign also spawned a new political star, Ronald Reagan, whose clarity of principle and persuasive speaking captured attention when, late in the campaign, Reagan delivered a speech entitled “A Time for Choosing.” That speech contains the essence of Ronald Reagan – a hopeful, optimistic vision of a better, free and prosperous America, where the foundational principles of our republic and its founding fathers guide America’s ship of state to its “rendezvous with destiny.” The memory of that powerful speech helped him two years later to defeat the incumbent Governor of California by one million votes.

In the fourteen years between Ronald Reagan’s election as Governor of California and as President of the United States, there was little philosophically that separated Democrat and Republican presidents. Federal spending continued to grow at record rates, inflation was frequently out of control, and a Republican president went so far as to impose wage and price controls. By the end of the Carter administration, with unrelenting inflation, soaring interest rates, fuel shortages, and the humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis, Americans were finally ready to break with the political culture of nearly a half century.

President Reagan acted quickly and boldly to cut income taxes 25%. He reduced the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% and indexed all rates to blunt inflation’s hidden impact on those rates. These measures resulted in 60 straight months of growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since government began keeping statistics in 1854. There were 15 million new jobs created and just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services. Policies belittled then and now as “Reaganomics” fired America’s economic engine in ways unseen before or since, and led to the defeat without even firing a shot of one of the most dangerous regimes the world has known.

Great as America’s economic renewal was under President Reagan, his buoyant, optimistic belief in the power of freedom, individual initiative, America’s Constitution, free-market principles, and the idea that America’s greatest days lay ahead, provided spiritual renewal to an America beaten down by twenty years of political assassinations, scandals, advancing socialism, inflation, war and defeat.

The name Ronald Reagan has become the gold standard for conservatives -- his name still is invoked in every debate -- and yet the great movement that he ultimately led to victory now seems fractured and leaderless compared to the conservative movement that emerged as a result of his efforts.

In the past decade, the size of the federal government has exploded, our economy is in extreme distress, and the federal budget deficit has soared to record levels. Yet many in their desperation look for still more government to solve problems that all too often are the result of already too much government.

It has been said that Franklin D. Roosevelt turned to government to solve the problems of the people, while President Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government. Perhaps that is the key to what it really means to be a conservative -- an abiding belief in the dignity and power of free individuals, unshackled from government interference to create lives for themselves, their families, and their communities.

Concluding his first Inaugural Address, President Reagan told the story of Martin Treptow who gave his life for our country in the First World War. The President concluded by saying:

“The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.”

Reagan’s words were so true then. They are so true still.


(This is the fifth and concluding installment in a series on What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?”)

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

Conservatives Treasure the Tried and True

In reflecting on conservatism, also referred to as classical liberalism, some historians have commented that the American Revolution is one of history’s only revolutions to actually succeed, while revolutions in France and later in Russia were catastrophic, resulting in murder and tyranny. Edmund Burke, who had championed revolutionary America’s cause in the British Parliament, understood the difference and in his most famous work, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), strongly opposed that revolution even before its murderous Reign of Terror began. The difference between the two revolutions for Burke goes to the heart of what it means to be a conservative.

Burke revered history as well as those institutions that have been tested through the crucible of time. For Burke, the American Revolution was fought not to impose a new order of untried ideas, but to secure rights that had evolved over centuries, from those individual rights provided by the Magna Carta in 1215 to the breaking of the absolute power of the monarchy accomplished through Great Britain’s “Glorious Revolution of 1688.”

Burke was not opposed to change, but he venerated natural change that evolved through time and human experience. The French Revolution, on the other hand, sought through bloodshed and legal decrees to suddenly impose new rights and a new social order that had never before been known in France. The results of radical change in France, like those imposed later by the Bolsheviks in Russia, were disastrous.

In our own country, the nineteenth century was filled with the classical liberalism that was championed and handed on by America’s founders. But in the twentieth century powerful movements in America and throughout the world rejected classical liberalism and began to assert the rights of the collective over those of the individual.

Communists set the collective at war with the rights of the individual; Nazis set the needs of race and nation against individual rights; and fascists and the architects of the welfare state set the material needs of society in conflict with the rights of individuals. Reversing the idea of our founders, they asserted the idea that individuals should serve the state, rather than the state existing at the pleasure of individuals to protect their rights.

It is no accident that those who would overturn the social order and radically change our nation today downplay the teaching of history, ignore giant historical figures, and even distort its lessons. We see references to the efforts of “dead, white men” in attempts to eliminate our religious roots, and to distort the story of America’s discovery and the role of our founding fathers.

By imposing on people ideas that were radical, untried, and alien to human experience, humanity experienced during the twentieth century a century of despotism, depression and war, with approximately 265 million people killed by their own governments. Many believe that the carnage exceeds all previous centuries combined. This barbarous history, so recently experienced, makes clear that Burke was a wise champion for older truths. Indeed, many of these older truths were from the Bible, the world’s greatest chronicle of individual salvation history. It is quite natural then that so many champions of today's conservative movement obtain their world view in transcendent Scriptural truths that have withstood repeated tests from generation to generation.

Perhaps no figure more embodied the spirit of Burke and conservative respect for the tried and true than South Carolina’s own “cast iron man,” John C. Calhoun. He spoke to his time and ours when he warned that “It is harder to preserve than to obtain liberty.”

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?”)

What Does It Mean To Be a “Conservative?”

For a half century before the election of President Ronald Reagan, it was politically acceptable throughout much of America to describe oneself as a “liberal” or a “progressive.” Since the election of President Reagan in 1980, it is increasingly difficult to find a self-admitted “liberal,” but politicians of all stripes and philosophies are happy to call themselves conservatives.

Within the Republican Party there are “economic conservatives,” “social conservatives,” “religious conservatives,” “fiscal conservatives,” “neoconservatives,” “paleoconservatives,” and given the enormous growth of government in the past decade here in South Carolina and at the federal level where most Republicans consider themselves conservatives, it appears there are even “big government conservatives,” or as they prefer to call themselves, “compassionate conservatives.” Indeed, both of our political parties contain a mixing of political philosophies, and this mixing can even be found within single candidates and elected officials.

To make matters even more confusing, the terminology we use for describing the major political philosophies has evolved to the point that what we regard as conservative today is really classical liberalism, which was the philosophy of Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence. It is the philosophy that permeates our founding documents and strongly shaped American thought and history until fairly recently.

Many Americans are frustrated by the inconsistencies, contradictions, and compromises that are all too typical of so many holding offices today. Accordingly, in the coming weeks this blog will attempt to objectively address the history of the conservative movement, its major thinkers and political practitioners, its major philosophical foundations and ideas, and how those ideas translate into policy today.

I am convinced that the ideas upon which our nation was founded account for the freedom and prosperity that we have enjoyed for much of our history and that when we depart from those principles our economy suffers and the social fabric of our nation begins to fray. I am also convinced that only when we understand the great principles, formed through centuries of experience, secured through much bloodshed, and upon which our nation was founded, can we ensure the survival of our great republic, which is, in the words of President Reagan, “the last best hope of men on earth.”

The subject I will tackle in coming weeks is large, but it is an exercise that I believe is important to our state and nation. As always, I hope you will share your thoughts and join the discussion.

The Legacy of a Great Leader

As the seemingly endless presidential campaign has narrowed to the two major party’s presumptive nominees, some conservative Republicans are nostalgically longing for the Reagan years, and regret that a conservative leader of President Reagan’s stature seems not to have emerged.

President Reagan was an extraordinary leader, and many eloquent voices call him the greatest American of the 20th Century. In her moving eulogy for the late President, Lady Margaret Thatcher pointed out the daunting, historic tasks he set for himself. “Ronald Reagan,” she said, “sought to mend America’s wounded spirit; he sought to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism.”

These she said were “causes hard to accomplish and heavy with risk.” Yet this great, “providential figure” was a man “who knew his own mind, had firm principles, expounded them clearly, and acted on them decisively.” We know that with his unfailing optimism, humor, charm, and persistence under fire, he accomplished all that he set out to do. He won the cold war without firing a shot, and left America and the world far more free, safe, and prosperous.

President Reagan accomplished the impossible and made it look easy. His presidency was very much the culmination of what has been called “the greatest generation.” It was a generation that was forged in the Great Depression, tempered by war, and whose patience, fortitude, and faith was proven through uncertain and dangerous decades when the Cold War’s outcome was far from certain. It takes nothing away from President Reagan’s epic accomplishments to recognize that his great triumphs were the result of service and sacrifice rendered by millions of his generation over the course of their lifetimes.

It is not surprising that in our own difficult day we long for a monumental leader like President Reagan to deal with problems that seem overwhelming. Domestically we are experiencing out-of-control government growth, spending and deficits, growing political support for big government, socialist programs, record costs for oil that not only threaten families, but threaten economic havoc in our nation and throughout the world, a growing trade deficit, the export of American industry and jobs, and the continuing breakdown of the most basic units of civilization, marriage and the family. Internationally we are experiencing a weakened economic and strategic position relative to hostile governments, two costly wars with no end yet in sight, and the constant threat of terrorism with its potential for catastrophic destruction.

These epic threats, like the threats that confronted “the greatest generation,” will not be resolved with one Congress, one presidency, or even one great, historic figure. Overcoming these threats will likely consume the century ahead, and triumphing over them will likely require principled, resolute, and unifying figures like Ronald Reagan to lead the way.

As conservatives and Republicans, we need to remember that the triumph of Ronald Reagan was prepared over decades both by great names and by unknown Americans who were faithful to their present moment, relied on God’s protection, and did what they could, where they were, with what they had. Many did not live to see the great victory to which they contributed, but they share in our triumphs nonetheless.

While Ronald Reagan may have come closer to our ideal of political perfection than any other American in the 20th Century, today we face a choice between two candidates. In that choice, Senator McCain is exceedingly closer to President Reagan than is his opponent. McCain shares Reagan’s love and optimism for the United States and he believes to his core -- and spent over five years of intense suffering in the Hanoi Hilton because he would not renounce these beliefs -- that the US is a force for good in this world. He also believes, as did President Reagan, that individual Americans create our nation’s wealth, build our communities, invent today’s breathtaking new technologies of tomorrow, educate our young, and possess primary responsibility for raising new generations. All of this is in direct contrast to his opponent who believes that these are the responsibilities of nameless bureaucrats working in a labyrinth of government departments, bureaus, and agencies.

Each of us has a God-given role to play in the great epic struggle of our day. In that struggle we need first and foremost to arm ourselves with faith, as though everything depends on God, while we work in our homes, communities, civic groups, and political parties, as though everything depends on us. When we trust in God’s mercy and grace in that struggle, we not only labor to achieve President Reagan’s vision of the “great, shining city on a hill,” we participate in the eventual triumph of good over evil that God has promised to all those who put their trust in Him.