Two Core Conservative Principles

Discussing two essential differences between Progressive and Conservative thought.

As always, please subscribe if you want to get these newsletters delivered straight to your email!

Charles C. W. Cooke’s Insight

I don’t remember when it was but maybe a year or so ago Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review casually mentioned on The Editors podcast what he believed to be the two tenets of conservatism: the world is imperfect and human nature is immutable. Since he said this, it has stuck with me as an easy and clear way to describe core differences between conservatives and progressives. It’s not that these two tenets were an innovative way of viewing the world, I instinctively believed them to be true, but I had never heard conservativism summarized so well. I’m sure these tenets did not originate with Cooke but he was the first person I heard articulate them so I am going to give him the credit here.

Just to be clear, when I say conservatism I do not mean the same thing as Republican party. In fact, I would argue that most current Republican politicians are not very conservative at all but that’s a conversation for another day. When I say conservative, I mean a sort of broad inclination towards self-reliance, limited government, tradition, and promotion of social institutions. I’m sure one could add more to this list but hopefully this list gives a good enough idea what I mean. In case of lingering confusion, I mean the conservatism espoused by Burke, Buckley, and Reagan in a general sense.

On the other hand, the figureheads for progressivism were people like Rousseau, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Generally, these progressives possessed a vision of a better world and believed that better world could be accomplished through human ingenuity and cooperation. In progressivism (at least how I perceive it), government is not something to be limited, but something to be used to bring about the best possible world. In order to accomplish this task, new ideas must be put into practice because the old ideas and institutions that have gotten us this far are unable to bring about this better future. Cooperation and a shared vision are essential to the success of this better future, so self-reliance is shunned as too individualistic.

I am very biased towards conservatism, so I am sure that my description of progressivism demonstrates that bias. However, I believe this description to be accurate or at least as accurate as I could make it, so it will have to do for now.

The World is Imperfect

With these descriptions in mind, Cooke’s two tenets of conservatism, I believe, make all the more sense and can serve as a quick and easy way to distinguish between conservative and progressive thinking. Furthermore, understanding these differences will help build understanding between people of different political bents— something we need desperately right now.

Let’s start with Cooke’s recognition and acceptance that the world is imperfect. Implicit in this statement is not only the belief that the current world is imperfect, but also that a future perfect world is impossible. For if a perfect world were achievable, then conservatives would of course want to live in that perfect world. Who wouldn’t? As John Lennon sang in his famous song Imagine, “Imagine all the people/Livin’ life in peace.” This sounds awesome even to conservatives. I don’t know any conservative that would rather live in a world full of violence, death, and destruction.

However, Lennon himself anticipated the conservative response in the very next line when he sang, “You may say I’m a dreamer/But I’m not the only.” This is exactly what conservatives would (and do) call Lennon: a dreamer. In other words, Lennon and the world that he and other progressives envision is an illusion that will fade because it cannot be actualized. In the eloquent words of former Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge:

But visions are one thing and visionaries are another, and the mechanical appliances of the rhetorician designed to give a picture of a present which does not exist and of a future which no man can predict are as unreal and short-lived as the steam or canvas clouds, the angels suspended on wires and the artificial lights of the stage.

In fact, Lodge said this in a speech in direct response to a progressive’s (Woodrow Wilson) vision for world peace carried out through the League of Nations.

This difference between progressives and conservatives often leads the two groups to talk past one another in policy and cultural debates. This is evident in numerous instances so I will just go through a few briefly.

Immigration

The first is immigration. Again, John Lennon in Imagine expounded a progressive position regarding immigration that is seen throughout political discourse today. Lennon wrote, “Imagine there's no countries/It isn't hard to do.” Essentially, Lennon was depicting a world in which everyone is so united that there is no need for boundaries to separate us. Progressives believe this kind of world can be a reality so they tend to view immigration policies that make illegal immigration difficult as a roadblock to this world without countries.

On the other hand, conservatives do not believe it is possible to have a world without countries. Nations develop out of a sense of identity and unique interests that do not apply to other people in the world. Consequently, nations develop governments to primarily address and protect their own interests, not the interests of the world as a whole. Inherent in this understanding is the reality that nations frequently have different interests that are sometimes diametrically opposed, thus, requiring them to have their own government. Stark borders are necessary because they make distinctions between people so that it is clear who’s interest the government is supposed to look after and who’s interest they are not.

International Relations

Closely related to immigration is the conservative view of international relationships. Conservatives tend to be skeptical of the idea that nations can simply agree to get along and prosperity prevail throughout the world. This is why conservatives are skeptical about international organizations such as the United Nations. These organizations can be useful but they can never achieve their ultimate goals. For example, one of the stated goals of the United Nations on their website is “the maintenance of international peace and security.” The United Nations “accomplishes this by working to prevent conflict, helping parties in conflict make peace, deploying peacekeepers, and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish.” While this is an admiral goal, conservatives tend to believe that the UN can try as hard as it wants to achieve world peace but it is doomed to fail.

Conservatives are not opposed to the UN because they are war hungry lunatics that do not want world peace. Rather, conservatives believe world peace to be unattainable so nations must be prepared for the possibility of war. Also, nations would be foolish to sacrifice their own interest in pursuit of this goal that can never be reached. That’s not to say that conservatives are always opposed to cooperation with another country, but they believe that there should always be a level of skepticism and unwillingness to sacrifice their own interests in order to cooperate. In other words, if it is not in its own interest, a country should not concede to another country for the sake of cooperation in pursuit of world peace because, as conservatives would argue, world peace is unattainable.

Social Justice

Social justice is yet another area that progressives very often do not understand the conservative position. Social justice, as I understand it (though I am aware that there are different definitions used), is the pursuit to eliminate inequities that exist among various social groups. As a gross simplification, this means equal outcome for everybody. Putting aside differences in inputs such as work put in, I don’t really know any conservatives that would not want to live in a world where everybody had equal abundance. Conservatives simply believe this world to be an impossibility.

To conservatives, history has demonstrated that in every society there have been some sort of disparities between groups. Whether it was the god-kings of Mesopotamian cities, Roman patricians, or feudal lords, there has always been a group that accumulates more wealth or higher status than others. Since this has been true for all of history, there is no reason to believe that it won’t remain true into the future. A world without some sort of privileged group is impossible.

Therefore, conservatives focus on individuals instead of focusing on social groups. Whether it’s through the free market or individual political rights, conservatives are determined to set and protect neutral principles that do not give any one person an advantage over another. This isn’t to say that perfect equal opportunity is a reality since some people are born into more advantageous circumstances than other (someone who is born into a rich family) but since perfection is impossible to achieve, so far it is the best we can do.

Free Market Capitalism

This is in a similar vein as the conservative belief in free market capitalism as the most meritorious economic systen. Progressives very often criticize capitalism for the inequalities that it produces and seek to address these inequalities. However, as I previously mentioned, inequalities are a reality of life. Capitalism does not do away with inequalities, rather it allows those who are the most efficient, innovative, or simply hardest working to accumulate the most wealth. In the meantime, the standard of living for everybody increases in the process.

Take Jeff Bezos as an example. Bezos is the wealthiest person in the world with a net worth of almost $180 billion. Meanwhile, the median income in the United States is only $36,000. However, Bezos founded and ran Amazon into the most efficient and innovative retail company in the world. He almost certainly sacrificed many things along the way and put in many years of hard work. Since inequalities, in the conservative mind, will never go away, positions of power and wealth accumulation are better off being occupied by those who have put in the most work and produced the most value. Yes, inherent in a capitalistic system are inequality. However, inequalities have always existed and will always exist so its the best system that we have figured out.

Conclusion to Part One

In each of these areas, progressives focus more on the ideal instead of working with the world as it is. Conservatives, on the other hand, take the world, as imperfect as it is, and attempts to operate within the confinements of reality. Consider the saying, “If you aren’t liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you aren’t conservative when you’re old, you have no brain” At the heart of this statement is the recognition that the world is imperfect and there is a yearning to make it perfect especially when consumed with youthful idealism. However, the longer one lives, the more they learn that changing this imperfect world into a perfect one is impossible. Furthermore, in order to prosper in the world one must live within the constraints of reality, not in the possibilities of the ideal. In other words, conservatives recognize that the world is imperfect and, rather than try (and fail) to make it perfect, we should live within the constraints of reality so that all may prosper.

Since this has run much longer than I anticipated, I am going to split it into two parts with next week talking about the other tenet of conservatism: human nature is immutable. Make sure you subscribe so that you can receive part two in your email as soon as I publish it!

God Bless,

Hunter Burnett