Are American Conservatives Liberal?by Eric Szuter
"Tradition!" cries the father of the young woman in "Fiddler on the Roof." This is a one-word explanation to his daughter - the reason why he cannot give his blessing to a marriage proposal she received from a non-Jewish young man. Tradition! And that's that! If we try to remain intellectually honest, we must admit that the universal aspect of the conservative position, regardless of the culture, is simply tradition. Conservatives have a yearning for the long-established values of the culture in which they live. For example, we have all heard or read of the "conservative hardliners" in Russia and China. These are people who yearn for the cultural values associated with totalitarian communism, a political system which, thankfully, is quickly receding into yesterday. American conservatives yearn for the past values of the founding fathers; they are constantly hearkening back to the "Declaration of Independence," "The Federalist Papers," The "Bill of Rights," and "The Constitution." The ideas expressed in these documents are treasures of the American culture. They were radical and revolutionary in the late eighteenth century, and to a large degree remain so to this very day. Nevertheless, I am simply pointing out that American conservatives, just as the conservatives of any other culture, are mainly traditionalists. They look upon past cultural values with a longing gaze and are generally reluctant to accept change. This points to the Achilles' heel of the American conservative movement. If we look back over history through a telescopic lens, we see that in the long run, as the intellectuals go, so goes a nation. Intellectuals are the ones who are concerned with successfully developing and promoting ideas; this should be obvious, since the currency in which they deal is ideas. If the American conservative movement is to triumph, it must do so with the wholehearted support of the intellectual community. And no intellectual worth his salt will be won over with an argument based simply on tradition. It is not enough for a true intellectual to be "for" the right thing; he must be for the right thing for the right reason. Granted that many, maybe most, traditions are valuable cultural underpinnings. For example, it was recently held in America as tradition that sex be reserved for marriage. Since "liberating" ourselves from this "outdated" way of thinking, America has suffered vast numbers of unwed mothers (most of whom are doomed to a life of poverty), a dramatic increase in the number of broken homes (most of the children of which are psychologically disadvantaged for life), and a near epidemic of sexual diseases. Indeed, we are finding out that the traditional and old-fashioned idea reserving sex for marriage is a pretty good idea after all. However, not all traditions are good ideas; for example, female circumcision as practiced in many parts of Africa is certainly an example of a horrid tradition. Centuries ago when it was first instituted, someone in an influential position must have thought female circumcision was a good idea and was able to persuade others to that way of thinking. Stubbornly, this practice persists to the present day; clearly, this tradition is a not a good one. When the answer is "Tradition!" as in "Fiddler on the Roof," there can be no convincing argument because there is no philosophical foundation- nothing solid on which to build it. An argument based on evidence and reason cannot be put forth, only one based on emotion. For rabble-rousing this may be a fine technique, but for the serious intellectual it is worthless. One must dig deeper: one must study the nature of man and the essence of the practice itself. Then by using rational thought processes coupled with the evidence, one must try to arrive at a conclusion regarding its "goodness" or "badness." Determining the "goodness" or "badness" of a human practice is a tricky business, a problem which philosophers have faced for ages. Nevertheless, when we approach a subject in this manner, we are discussing the issue on a philosophical level rather than an emotional or inertial one. A principled intellectual will not be interested in the argument and certainly not in the conclusion - not in the least - unless an issue is approached in this way. America is truly blessed to have had people such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and James Monroe as founding fathers. These were unusually high-quality courageous men with able minds. However, they were not infallible and they did not know everything. For example they knew nothing of Darwin's theory of evolution nor of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism nor of today's emerging sciences of complexity theory and human ethology. I love the founding fathers, but I love them because what of they created, not because of a tradition they started. Rush Limbaugh, although mainly an entertainer, has developed into quite a competent analyst and spokesman for the American conservative movement. But when I hear Mr. Limbaugh defend his positions, usually quite rational in themselves, by invoking the founding fathers, he is simply invoking tradition. Not good enough. This is the weakness that stymies the American conservatives. Their strength is their belief in the liberal principles of the founding fathers - mainly that the individual is superior to the state. In 1776 this concept was not only liberal in nature but radically liberal. Also, conservatives love Adam Smith's unbridled capitalism - another radically liberal concept of that day. These are worthy ideas, and always will be, because when analyzed in the clear light of reason they pass muster. They contribute much to the dignity of mankind as a whole and to the individual. They uplift us all spiritually because they recognize the dignity of the individual - and they work. In practice, the radically liberal system of the founding fathers produced the American society which has provided us with a quality of life undreamed of in the eighteenth century. In many ways the poor of America today live better than the kings of three hundred years ago. This is not the place to do so, but much can be argued in favor of individualism and against the coercive welfare-state (the application of socialism) without invoking the founding fathers and American tradition. Finally, remember that the positions of the founding fathers were liberal - radically liberal. Today's American conservatives long for the liberal attitudes of the early days of the Republic. It is a long and winding story how the liberal movement in America started with the ideal of liberty as promoted by Paine, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe and ended up where it is today. It is a story worth telling, worth listening to, and a story from which we can learn some important lessons. Nevertheless, I must address it at a later date. However, I leave you now with the interesting conclusion that today's American Conservatives are really liberal at the core. IT COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN AMERICA! And I mean ONLY IN AMERICA! Eric Szuter is the author of The Return of Common Sense. He is a mechanical engineer registered in the state of Louisiana and holds a BSE from Case Western Reserve University. He is currently working toward his doctorate in human ethology with a specialty in human volitional behavior. Mr. Szuter has been sidetracked from the engineering profession to further his studies in human ethology. He believes that by doing so it can be discovered how to make the world more hospitable to innovators, which would then make the world a better place for everyone else. Mr. Szuter resides in the New Orleans area.
Table of Contents | 1994 Issues | Subscribe Credit card Orders call: 800-321-9054 or fax: (619)676-0433 Truth Seeker is published by Truth Seeker Co., Inc. (ISSN 0041-3712) © 1996 |