Friday, August 18, 2006
Conservatism - Rooted in Religion or Not?
One of my favourite blogs is found at corner.nationalreview.com. It is the best interchange of deep, funny, and sometimes strange thought for all things conservative. One of the best discussions of late is whether or not conservatism has to be rooted in religion.
National Review Online’s The Corner (corner.nationalreview.com) has featured this week an interesting discussion (brought up by Heather MacDonald) on whether or not conservative thought and the movement it spawns is damaging itself by being too religiously oriented. Now it must be admitted, that in America atheism and agnosticism as official categories represent only a small portion of American (less than 20%). That is however, a poor measure of how people form their political ideology and make their life decisions. Probably less than 30% of Americans use religion as the primary centre-point of their political ideology, which means that indeed if one must first become religious to a conservative that conservatism is placing a natural ceiling on its growth and its influence. The real question is, does conservatism have at its core a religious centre?
The clear answer is, well, yes and no (how is that for clarity). Yes, because many of the institutions and freedoms that conservatism is oriented around have clear religious foundations in our society (marriage being the obvious example). But no because, as many religious philosophers and theologians have pointed out over the centuries, all truth is God’s truth. If someone arrives at the same conclusion, but through different methodology, that does not make the conclusion any the less true. The issue though is do we arrive at the same conclusions and, does for the non-religious conservative, is there a natural stopping point to their decision set.
I raise this second issue because, and here I write more as a historian than a theologian, the right (with which conservatism is typically lumped) in Europe has often had difficulties at knowing where to place the stopping point of their policies. No, I don’t mean to say that conservatism unleashed from a religious worldview naturally ends up in fascism (I am tired of hearing conservatives labeled crypto-fascists). But there is always a danger that without some set of universals that say, “This far and no further” the question of when to stop with any policy direction is hard to reach (to be fair to Heather MacDonald, she points out even religious people have had this difficulty, as the witch and heretic burnings of the past millennia point out).
Lets think about two of the cores that lie at the heart of conservatism as I understand it. The first is that human beings, in all their glory, are not all-good creatures. As a Christian (or religious person of the Western tradition), I place this under the rubric of the fallenness of humanity to original sin. A non-religious conservative can and does reach this same conclusion by a careful and rational review of human history – people always make a mess of things, and usually pick the worst option (we can of course point to the good people, even non or semi-religious people like George Washington, who walks away from being made monarch, but alas these folks are few and far between). This is a central tenant of conservatism that comes out when we discuss things like foreign powers, the criminal justice system (I know of no conservatives who accept, “Well, lets just give them a second, third, fourth chance to commit crime). It is this fallenness of humanity that also makes conservatives very anti-government, since governments, like all institutions comprised of human beings, not smart enough to solve life’s problems.
Having said that, the second core tenant is the right to choose, i.e. personal freedom. Since we do not trust government to make the right choice for people, we give that freedom (I will discuss abortion below) to the individual. Here both religious and non-religious conservatives can agree. The conservative religious person remembers that if there is no compulsion in religion (yes, the Church practiced force religion in the past, but we reject that today and with grace and gentleness say quite freely that those actions are contrary to the spirit and law of our religions). If there is no compulsion in religion, then there sure shouldn’t be in schooling, economic choices, or other individual decisions. The non-religious conservative is a more natural advocate of the right of free choice by the individual, understanding that as the most fundamental right of humanity. In both of these areas, we are in full agreement, and if we come to them by different foundations, perhaps we can understand each other and celebrate that all truth is God’s truth all truth should be (to use that great phrase) self-evident. I will discuss this in more detail after listing the third shared tenant.
The third tenant is tied to these first two – taking responsibility for your choices. In religious terms this is “what you sow you reap.” In non-religious terms it is simply the flip-side of freedom. Why were many religious conservatives behind the bankruptcy bill that became law recently (okay, aside from the hope that it would help anti-abortion protestors)? Because the idea of people spending their selves into oblivion and then walking away from their debt is morally outrageous (see what is happening in Britain since they changed their laws (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/05/nbust05.xml). Taking responsibility for your actions – whether it be out-of-control spending, committing a crime, or having a baby out of wedlock is important if people are to become the best human beings they can, and if society is to be healthy and sustainable (another shared outcome).
Now, back to freedom of choice. But of course conservatives are often seen as anti-choice. We are (in general) opposed to abortion. We are opposed to gay-marriage (again, in general). We are opposed to the legalization of drugs. Aren’t these just religious values? Isn’t freedom of choice the ultimate value for conservatives? Then are we hypocritical?
For me personally, I came to my pro-life position not through religion, but through the writings of Nat Hentoff (an atheist if I do believe). His writings informed me of the concern for others and for society. Absolute freedom of choice is always anarchy, which I don’t believe many are particularly interested in. Freedom always must have a bound (now I do sound religious), and that boundary is most important when others are involved.
Abortion is one of those instances. As a historian, I am appalled to hear the argument that “well, that isn’t a human being” because the arguments mirror those of the 19th century slave holding class (yes, I know that is incendiary, but alas accurate). Today’s technology increasingly demonstrates that what is growing inside the human womb is indeed life, and of course, human life. More and more pro-abortion individuals are being made uncomfortable by the view from the womb. While the life may not be viable outside the womb (as of yet), it is life (while we are at, my five month old daughter is not particularly viable without my and my wife’s constant interventions even outside the womb). If, as our founding documents state, the self-evident truths include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even non-religious conservatives can see the need to protect the most helpless of our society. And it is clear that even liberals are concerned about protecting vulnerable life, as Jay Nordlinger’s correspondents have pointed out with the absurd juxtaposition of pro-vegetarian bumper stickers next to Pro-Choice stickers (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTA1NmFlN2Q3NDM5NjI2NWE0MzM0MzljZTVhNmUxOTg=) (as a vegetarian I find these bumper stickers particular heinous)
Of course pro-slavery arguments were pro-choice – you could own slaves or not, that was your decision. Don’t force your abolitionist religion down my throat! Thankfully good men and women in the 19th century, Christian and non-Christian alike, worked to overthrow the slavery regime, and I believe that conservatives, regardless of their persuasion, can look forward to seeing all human life in America come to reap the promise of the Declaration of Independence.
But what of gay marriage and drug legalization? Surely that has nothing to do with anything but personal freedom? Here there is some disagreement, primarily among religious conservatives and non-religious conservatives. I have heard it argued by good non-religious conservatives, that if we want to encourage the honouring of marriage that the more people who can enjoy it the better. Well, there is something to that argument. As a religious person who is conservative, I fee that it is probably going to be the eventual outcome because it is hard to oppose gay marriage on grounds outside of the religious sanction. There is of course the question of whether or not gay marriage makes marriage itself completely a meaningless category (again, National Review Online has some very interesting pieces on this topic), and since marriage is vital to the health of a society (particularly its positive effect on the outcome of children). A healthy society is something that both types of conservatives hold as vital. Likewise, there is some question of how, once the door is opened to gay marriage, how any relationship, polygamy, child-adult marriage, or… can be opposed. This will be an ongoing tension area for society and for the conservative movement.
Drug legalization is a favourite of libertarians (which I think it is fair to say belong, for the most part, under the conservative banner). As a Christian, I oppose drugs because it dehumanizes the individual. Many non-religious conservatives also hold this view. And of course there is the vast social cost (which is harder to measure than the dollars spent in the war on drugs). However, in a society which is in the midst of full-scale anti-smoking hysteria, I cannot see how legalizing drugs makes any intellectual sense (personal admission – I am a pipe smoker, so I may not be the best to speak on this).
Again, there can be commonality of conclusions regardless of whether or not conservatism is rooted in religion or not. The shared belief in the free-market is another shared value. While I oppose materialism (more below), I, like most religious persons (or for that matter, anyone who understands history), am an advocate of the free market economy. Of course non-religious conservatives (the old “economic conservative”) share this value probably more deeply than does a religious person (there is no 11th Commandment, Thou Shalt Keep Thy Markets Free).
I mentioned consumerism above, and I did so because I think it is does provide a possible break between religious conservatives and the non-religious. There is a growing sentiment among many conservative religious leaders and ordinary folk that the desire to buy more and more, while perhaps good for the economy, is bad for the human soul. Buying and having thing is not evil, but trying to form an identity of find meaning in buying “stuff” is, at least for the religious conservative. This was one of the points of Rod Dreher’s excellent book, Crunchy Cons (again, note of honesty, I am probably a Crunchy Con, so I may be damaged already in the view of many conservatives).
Now the idea of many religious conservatives is not to take the money out of circulation and bury in the backyard (alas, many religious people are deeply in debt, and need to stop spending just so they don’t lose it all to their creditors), but to use the money to bless others, not by mere “charity” but investing it in the larger world, in forming business in the developing world, tackling crippling problems like malaria, AIDS, and other diseases that affect so many in the world. This does not, repeat, NOT, mean that I or other religious conservatives who are against consumerism, mean that we are against the free market. Neither does it mean that the government or the Church, or any other institution should enforce this. People need to freely choose to change how they use their wealth, and this is done by moral persuasion (using our shared religious values). I would be surprised is this is not a major facet of evangelical Christianity (and I have heard similar rumblings in other streams of Christianity and Judaism) in the coming decades, but I doubt it will find many proponents in the non-religious conservative movement. Will this place the two camps at odds? I hope not, but…
I mentioned above the idea of Crunchy Cons. I hope that the movement remains conservative, because I don’t want to see this become “public policy.” For example, I do not shop at Wal-Mart and do not get my coffee from Starbucks. As much as possible I use locally owned stores (or second hand). Wal-Mart and Starbucks have been great wealth creators for their share holders, but the mercantilism has a long history of providing a path to the middle-class and prosperity for many individuals. The distribution of wealth among shareholders is far more diluted, and I worry from a social stability view if the consolidation of business into a few companies is good in the long-run for the economy (again, as a student of history, I don’t think conservatives can forget that the trusts of the late 19th and early 20th century were not particularly good for America). But I certainly do not want to see legislation against the Wal-Marts, Starbucks, and Microsofts of the world. I CHOOSE to not shop there, but others have every right to do differently. Do I share my view? Sure, but I will oppose with full force all attempts to destroy these companies (as long as they do not act in illegal manners to destroy competition, which they do not) or regulate how they do business. If Wal-Mart should fail I want it done the old-fashioned way, by good clean competition (I should note, while I hide behind noble reasons, I just feel claustrophobic at Wal-Mart and think Starbucks coffee tastes burnt, so it may just be my consumerism coming out).
Another potential area of breakdown between the religious and non-religious conservatives may well be Israel. Too many religious conservatives support Israel completely not for any well-founded reason but because of religious reasons. While that is all well and good, it cannot be the foundation for conservative foreign policy. Some religious conservatives (the Pat Robertson brigade) refuse to let Israel by its own political processes to “give away one inch of the promised land” and are pushing America to locate its embassy in Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv. Now, there are lots of sound conservative reasons to support Israel (not least of which she is a democracy and her enemies are ours by and large). Buy can conservatives really hope to form a governing movement if their foreign policy is “support God’s chosen people” in a nation where only 30% or so are motivated by religious values?
Likewise, when religious conservatives push for the teaching of creationism or ID in schools, what are non-religious conservatives to do? (Again, personal honesty, I am an evangelical, but am in the theistic evolution camp best described by Francis Collins great new book The Language of God). While evolution is not the view of most Americans according to polls, do we really hope to form a nationwide governing movement where people have to buy in to the teaching of a view they don’t necessarily agree with on the, for most people, trivial issue of evolution vs. creationism? Of course, the best answer from the conservative movement is school vouchers! Again, give people the power of choice! That is always the best answer, as long as people understand they must live with their choices (if your child cannot get into the University of Colorado because they were poorly educated in the school your chose, please don’t come back crying for government intervention).
In the end, I don’t believe conservatism has to be rooted in religion, but in those shared ideas that are made self-evident through both scripture and sound reason and history. Non-religious conservatives can point out the power of those shared values to their fellow non-believers and show them that conservatism is simply and historically the best position for forming a sound society. Likewise, religious conservatives can perhaps bridge the gap to religious communities among Americas two largest ethnic communities, African Americans and Latinos, who have not been served by liberalism and who are seeing the destruction of their communities and the closure of the best of America because liberal policies simply do not work and dehumanize.
What is great is that in conservatism we can have a meaningful and relatively unheated (okay, it was pretty heated at times in the Corner) debate on the different foundations of the movement. Meanwhile over at DailyKos the debate is whether or not the British are in the latest Rove-inspired pseudo-terrorist plot or if it was all Bush directed.
