Jeffersonian Conservatism – Back to Basics
Now that the electorate has selected the most “liberal” presidential candidate ever, it seems as if a lot of people are now trying to re-define conservatism. Claiming the country has veered left, some have declared conservatism’s demise while others claim it was never practiced. Some look to Lincoln’s supposed influence on President-elect Obama as an example of his statesmanship, and are using this premise to obfuscate common political labels. So, while the pundits thrash about to offer their own, personal definition (this is the age of relativism, right?), a few lessons in conservatism’s foundations is in order.
Start with the terms “Left” or “Right”. One historical version attributes these terms to the days of the French revolution – the atheistic, murderous French Revolutionaries were from the Left Bank of the Seine, and their implacable enemies were on the Right Bank of the Seine. Other stories attribute the terms to the fact that the term left wing originates from the French Revolution, when radical Montagnard deputies from the Third Estate generally sat to the left of the president’s chair. The moderate Feuillants generally sat to the right. It is still the tradition in the French Assemblée Nationale for the representatives to be seated left-to-right (relative to the Assemblée president) according to their political alignment.
How about “liberal,” “conservative,” “progressive,” “reactionary,” “revolutionary,” “radical,” and “moderate” – Karl Marx’s writings and those who largely accepted the Marxian view created the lexicon of political shades we currently use. Marx used the labels to describe society’s economic progression, presumably and inevitably toward a Communist system. Notably for our current state, Karl Marx identified socialism as the stage between capitalism and communism. (In fact some have described the incoming Obama administration as the interim stage between Capitalism and Communism foreseen by Marx.)
For the purpose of this post, it is illuminating to contrast the definitions we currently apply with the Classical Liberalism which believed that the state should minimize its intervention in society. These are clearly not the terms currently in use. When did the Orwellian change in the definition occur? By the end of the 19th century, liberals began to assert that, in order to be free, individuals needed access to food, shelter, and education, and government protection from exploitation. This became the foundation for the current use of the term “liberal” – thus, as applied in the US, the term is used to refer to modern liberalism rather than classical liberalism.
Conservatism has been much harder to define. Edmund Burke maintained that classical conservatism has no ideology; instead it was a collection of reasoned positions on many issues. Thus the dissolution of classical conservatism into Liberal conservatism, Conservative liberalism, Libertarian conservatism, Fiscal conservatism (reflective of Burke’s classical definition), Cultural Conservatism and even Green Conservatism.
It is thus no small wonder that the “conservative” movement spends so much time defining itself. So, let’s look to another source for the foundations of current conservative thought. How about our founding fathers?
Jefferson is most often used to reference conservative ideology. But he was a man to whom many labels might apply; he was a classical liberal – believing in absolute freedom from the state, he was a radical, a reactionary, a revolutionary and as President, he ultimately governed as a moderate. In the context of his time, Jefferson was all of the above. It is important to consider that neither he nor any of the Founders used terms like “liberal” or “conservative”. Instead of a specific ideology, Jefferson wrote of specific principles by which he believed the country should be governed, and by which men should abide. He was for limited government; he was a strong advocate of state rights, and he supported a strong nation-state (remember as President in 1801, Jefferson sent the Navy to quell the Barbary (and Muslim) pirates), he was vehemently opposed to a national bank, and he was elected as President in 1800 on a platform opposed to taxes. Jefferson died on the 4th of July, 1826.
So where does this lead us “conservatives”? Like the title of this post – “back to basics”. Before anyone puts a stamp on ‘”conservatism” which promotes their agenda (Green, Liberal, Libertarian, etc.), conservatives need to define the principles by which they propose our political leaders govern, and cogitate on the manner by which we respond to today’s front-page news.
Speaking of foundational influences, the new President-elect has stated the influence of Abraham Lincoln on his thinking. But as is the norm these days – Obama is a “cafeteria Lincoln-ite”. Obama complains that he “cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator” because “as a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race.” It is not clear what Lincoln’s “limited views” were, but in his crusade toward emancipation, Lincoln refused every single compromise on slavery that might have prevented the death of 500,000 citizen soldiers. Over time, Lincoln has become an icon of the left, for many valid reasons – none of which should be ascribed to conservatism. For a good read, try Sam Dickson’s “Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln”. According to Dickson, the Lincoln myth has been sold to both conservatives and liberals, but in his own words, “Lincoln was a demagogic politician who maneuvered with consummate skill on all sides of many burning issues of the day”.
Thus, before buying into the Obama as Lincoln theme floating in the liberal realm (of course they are alike – “two thin men from rude beginnings, relatively new to Washington but wise to the world”), conservatives should go back to basics and consider Jefferson, and not Lincoln, as an inspiration while our country and economy lurches and limps toward the next administration.
-
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
-
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
-
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
-
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
-
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
