Conservatives have trouble explaining the existence of what they call "The State," meaning a centralized national government; this includes most vehemently what they call "The Welfare State;" and represents a fundamental bewilderment about why history doesn't occur the way they think it ought to.
While conservatives will say that individual liberty is the highest value, when push comes to shove the justification of the individual's existence is always to perpetuate the existence of The State.
We explore this in more detail below.
CONSERVATIVES’ CONFUSION ABOUT "THE STATE"
"...the State is our enemy...."
[Frank Chodorov]
"He who gave us our nature to be perfected...
willed therefor the State"[Edmund Burke]
The conservative formula of "limited government" includes the caveat that man’s sinful nature needs to be restrained by a coercive force, but conservatives have never been able to decide what poses the greatest danger: the sinful human nature inherent in each individual or the despotic potential of a powerful central government.
The Problem
The problem is that conservatism as a movement has bought into a libertarian narrative about liberty that is fallacious.
Conservative Confusion About Liberty
Libertarians set up an inescapable conflict between liberty and the State by postulating that: (1) society does not exist, (2) liberty has an objective existence in nature, and; (3) individuals have a natural right to liberty.
Therefore anything which interferes with an individual’s ability to do as he or she pleases is an interference with this natural right. It is logically inescapable, then, that the State becomes a bad guy.
The disagreement among conservatives is as follows: The State arises because of a need to repress or divert the sinful human nature of the individual. But the individual, in addition to being sinful, has an ability and a right to pursue his individual virtue, and individual liberty is a necessary prerequisite to the pursuit of individual virtue. The question is whether the State can repress the individual’s sinfulness without at the same time restricting the individual’s liberty.
Does Evil Occur Both In Individuals And In States?
Stanton Evans puts his finger on the crux of the problem of identifying government as the enemy of liberty.
"...if men are naturally good, whence comes the evil of government?...if men are fundamentally evil, how does government become a force of virtue?"
Conservatives are fond of citing Nazism and Communism as proof that a concentration of power in a central government quashes liberty. But it could just as easily have been the sinful human nature of Hitler and Stalin that led to the problems associated with Nazism and Communism.
The State As A Prerequisite For Liberty And The Free Market
Contrary to the libertarian view many conservatives believe that: 1) the enjoyment of liberty is contingent on the existence of order and stability, and 2) the State is necessary to create order and stability. Without a strong State they believe there would be anarchy.
"...a "free-market" economic system...is a public product, a creation of government...."free-speech"...is not free of a complicated institutional frame. Free speech, as much as a highway system, is something government must establish and maintain." [George Will, Buckley and Kesler, Page 233]
Order and stability follow from the State enforcing "The Rule of Law." "The Rule of Law" is usually the first thing cited in defining the "American Tradition."
These same conservatives believe that the State must not be so strong that it will interfere with the choices that sinful, but law abiding, citizens will make when they are free to choose.
This is the rationale behind the pliable concept of "limited government."
Confusion Over The Purpose Of The Established State
Conservatives cite a number of different theories about how and why States are established. They continue to disagree about the primary responsibility of the established State.
Walter Berns and Brent Bozell agree that the principal duty of government is the formation and promotion of character and virtue in its citizens.
Frank Meyer responds that the achievement of virtue is none of the State’s business. He would limit federal government to internal police powers and national defense.
George Will points out that the State is necessary to provide the framework for the pursuit of happiness in a complex society.
The Confusion Over "Natural Law" And ‘Natural Rights"
Libertarians and traditional conservatives agree that liberty has an objective existence, but there is confusion in the conservative movement about whether liberty is derived from natural law or natural rights.
Traditional conservatives believe in Natural Law, which is defined as an objective moral order of divine origin.
Libertarian conservatives believe in Natural Rights, which is defined as the rights that individuals have by reason of their existence in nature.
Russell Kirk, covering all the bases, sums up the conservative confusion.
"Objectively speaking, natural law, as a term of politics and jurisprudence, may be defined as a loosely knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority superior to the state. These rules variously (according to the several differing schools of natural-law and natural-rights speculation) are derived from divine commandment; from the nature of humankind; from abstract Reason; or from long experience of mankind in community."
Kirk wanted to say that there is an objective moral law above the State but ended up confessing that every individual could have a unique understanding of moral law depending on his own method of apprehending the law.
SOME CONSERVATIVES QUESTION LIBERTY
While Ronald Reagan embraced the purported "fusion" between libertarianism and traditional conservatism, which proclaimed a right to liberty and labeled the State an enemy of liberty, many conservative thinkers have been skeptical about the very idea of liberty being a good thing.
Conservatives Dispute Natural Freedom
Edmund Burke points out that human babies are not free.
James Fitzjames Stephen observes that:
"The condition of human life is such that we must of necessity be restrained...by circumstances in nearly every action of our lives."
And Furthermore, What’s So Good About Liberty?
A number of conservatives question the value of a liberty that allows individuals to make bad choices. For them outcomes are more important than choice.
Burke:
"...what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils..."
Kirk:
"It is consummate folly to tolerate every variety of opinion, on every topic, out of devotion to an abstract "liberty."
Stephen argues that J.S. Mill’s view of liberty would make every moral code evil, including any judgments by God.
"...the fact is that morality is and must be a prohibitive system, one of the main objects of which is to impose upon every one a standard of conduct and sentiment to which few persons would conform if it were not for the constraint thus put upon them."
But Meyer counters, essentially raising the question of whose or which moral system we are talking about. He points out that if society is given a moral position superior to individuals society is justified in coercing its individuals to obey its morality.
(Notwithstanding that Meyer otherwise denies that society exists).
Liberty Outside Of And Before The Free Market
Conservatives have adopted the "free market," a late entrant on the world stage, as their champion of liberty.
"...the market economy...is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government." [Stanton Evans]
Conservatives believe that liberty and capitalism are inseparable. Economist Milton Friedman explains the logic of that connection.
"The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce....By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market....enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement." [Capitalism and Freedom]
But other conservatives see the power to coerce as existing in other social institutions as well as in the State.
Adam Smith saw coercion existing in the personal relationship social structure that was dominant before the rise of the modern State. Smith thinks that the introduction of the "cash nexus" freed individuals from their dependence on favors from people with higher social status and, thus, increased the liberty of the individual.
Willmoore Kendall is a dissenter concerning the relationship of liberty to the free market. According to Nash, Kendall felt that coercion could come just as easily from "the bureaucratization of business enterprise" and "the rise of the meritocracy."
This is a question of human nature. If individuals are fundamentally sinful how can we trust them with liberty? Stanton Evans’ question about human nature and government applies equally to the free market. How can a free market function for the good of all if sinful individuals are in competition with one another for power and material goods?
The self-interest of the sinful individual is as likely to be a source of coercion and a threat to liberty as is the State.
WHICH IS RIGHT, REVELATION OR SECULAR EXPERIENCE?
Conservatives have a conflict between their view of human nature as sinful, the power of centralized governmental power as malign, and the objective existence of liberty.
Our experience in life tells us that people can be good and that life can be good. This has nothing to do with the opinions of Rousseau. Our experience also tells us that people can be bad and life can be bad. We observe, as well, that different circumstances bring out different aspects of peoples’ personality and character. Time, place and circumstance influence but do not determine, however. We’ve all experienced people who have exhibited good character and goodness in the worst of circumstances.
Our experience, then, contradicts the stark view of sinful man found in Christian revelation and in the writings of pessimistic and disillusioned conservatives. Our experience reflects the more hopeful and optimistic view of libertarians over the pessimistic view of traditionalists.
It seems to us that we’re faced with a choice between limited government and limited men. Conservatives see the potential evils of sinful men in government but do not attribute the same potential evil to sinful men in positions of power in other institutions, such as church, family and business. The problems with the expression of human nature are seldom at the center of the prevailing orthodoxy, but rather at the margins, where individuals are pushing against the orthodox. To this truth, wise and good men (a favorite conservative phrase) need to be attentive.