The Strength of Conservatism

Rod Dreher had a post last week that encapsulated much of what I believe is the core truth about conservatism. Here is a sample:

Conservatism, properly understood, is not an ideology, but a temperament. TNC is correct that the default conservative position is in favor of institutions and traditions. But it is not for the sake of flattering power, but rather out of a skepticism about human nature and human endeavor, and the fear that as bad as things are now, we could make it even worse. The idea is that tradition is the accumulated wisdom of the species, and while it is not infallible — Burke, the great articulator of modern Anglo conservatism, was quite clear that conservatives had to have some means of change, and accomodating natural change — a wise polity will defer to it as a general matter.

Of course the problem for conservatives is to know when to welcome change, slow it down, or arrest it completely. I tend to fall mostly in the middle camp which welcomes change but wants it to be undertaken carefully. I often think of change as like a car approaching a sharp turn. The liberal puts their foot on the gas and tries to calculate the best time to cut the wheels. A progressive conservative taps the brakes as the car approaches the turn and then proceeds with caution. The static conservative is scared of the turn, mashes down the brakes and pulls the car to the side of the road. To take this analogy a step further, the liberal tends to be a bit reckless and often loses control of the speeding car. The progressive conservative gets the car to the destination in good shape. The static conservative never reaches the destination and convinces themselves that where they came from was just fine.

Dreher seems to recognize the same dichotomy:

The answer will have something to do with elevating conservatism to an absolute principle, and forgetting that our conservatism has to be applied with reference to what we are proposing to conserve. If one is proposing to conserve an immoral institution or practice, then obviously the conservative disposition will lead one to embrace and to defend immorality.

This is always a danger for conservatives. That said, as a general matter, I find the conservative disposition to be a more reliable way of interpreting the world and deciding how to act in it.

 On the other side of the aisle, liberals see themselves as the engine of change or at least a facilitator. Conservatives seem to recognize that society is the engine of change and ideally we simply steer societal impulses in the right direction. I think the latter impulse is the more natural one because the temptation to push society at a faster pace than what it is ready for is always there for liberals. It’s what leads to activism of various forms. There is also a general disregard for institutions and traditions on the Left, a subject that we have discussed here many times.

For several months now I have been having a debate with a fellow blogger named Woozle via the comments section over at Dana Hunter’s blog. It has been a very enjoyable experience even though we have made little real progress. Much of our debate initially centered around notions of conservatism verses liberalism and the strengths of each. One point that we never reached agreement on but that i think is crucial is in the importance of institutions and traditions to conservatives. We see them as important and often worth preserving. Unfortunately far too often liberals see them as something that needs to be broken down.

At bottom, I am not a liberal because I do not share the same view of human nature that most liberals do, and because I think that in my culture and country, our traditions and institutions, broadly speaking, are a wise guide to our life in common. And I believe liberals have such an unrealistic view of human nature that they typically run off to tear down fences without any regard for why the fences were erected, so to speak.

I agree with Dreher and for me I also trust the human impulse less and the societal framework more. It’s not a perfect system but I think for the most part we have been doing something right for the last 233 years.