The foundations of modern conservatism have always been nebulous. It is less a defined set of principles than a reactionary disdain for change and bleary-eyed nostalgia for some imaginary pastoral paradise one might find in a Nicolas Poussin painting. Its spongy basis and hazy boundaries are conservatism’s strength. It lets conservatives co-opt and abandon almost any issue at will.
When Ronald Reagan was in office, he enjoyed the title of “The Great Communicator.” It was a title he earned, and conservatives embraced his oratorical skills as a valuable asset. By the time Bill Clinton brought his own superior communication skills to the office of the President, conservatives attacked him for being too “touchy-feely.” The good became the bad, with no reference to coherence.
If conservatism can be said to have guiding principles, Russell Kirk has probably constructed the most plausible list of them. I won’t rehash what he has already done, but I will draw your attention specifically to the fifth and six entries on his list. His fifth principle, which he dubs “the principle of variety,” holds that:
“For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality.”
Mind you, Kirk isn’t making a descriptive statement here about how things actually are, but rather making a prescriptive statement about how things should be. Even dressed up in its Sunday Best, what he advocates here is little more than a sanction for perpetuating poverty, discrimination and punishment for those who refuse to accept their socioeconomic class as destiny.
Lurking behind this already disturbing line of thinking is an even more disturbing line of thinking. This notion of classes, though its existence in the U.S. is inextricably tied up with free market capitalism, is really about superiority. It is a belief transplanted from monarchical Europe that some kinds of people – nobles and royalty – possess moral superiority, not through the demonstration of any particular skill or behavior, but simply by existing. For American conservatives, this means wealthy Christians. They will, however, accept mere affluence should no rich Christians present themselves.
His sixth principle, “the principle of imperfectability,” holds that:
“Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults . . . . All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk.”
The gross cynicism of that position is shocking in its unrepentant contempt of humanity and is galling in its iron-clad certainty about human nature. On this view, it is not just a fact that human beings suffer now, but it is our inescapable doom to continue living in a world where suffering should be expected.
I am no stranger to cynicism or a dim view of humanity. Yet, even my hubris could never countenance such a broad and impossible to verify position on human nature. That anyone could accept those as a central tenet of their political worldview chills me to the core.
While conservatism wobbles on its shaky foundation, liberalism is subject to a fairly stable set of principles. There is disagreement about how best to enact them, but certain things hold true. For one, liberals believe in the perfectibility of human beings. In essence, the liberal holds that humanity can, with time, with effort, with the appropriate will, overcome its flaws. Individual human beings are not doomed to a future where suffering is a status quo.
Is human perfectibility really so far-fetched? I don’t think it is. Scientists posit that we are the product of evolution. If adaptations that we didn’t control could allow single-celled organisms to become complex animals capable of launching human beings into space, it seems reasonable that a conscious decision to improve humanity’s lot ought to be feasible.
Liberals are not, contrary to conservative claims, socialists. They do not believe in a classless society. It would be irrational to see that as a goal in a society with an economic system that dictates economic divisions. Where liberals part way with the conservatives is in their belief that the economic position of a person does not dictate their moral worth. They reject the positions that poverty equals sin and that wealth confers moral authority.
Modern conservatism provides a home for those who prefer the status quo, not to mention the advantages it gives them, to the hard work of actual change. It embraces an archaic sense of moral value and petrified view of human potential. It prefers to condemn, criticize and attack anything that might threaten its moldering worldview. Consider the number of global warming deniers among the conservative ranks.
Liberalism, imperfect though it is, rejects these positions as viable ways to deal with fellow human beings. Moral worth does not correspond to the number of zeroes in your net worth. Change is not only possible, it often preferable to a status quo. Better to chase perfectibility and fail, than to blindly and blithely accept human suffering as inevitable.
The ongoing fight over healthcare is a prime example of the great divide between liberals and conservatives. The pursuit and passage of the Affordable Care Act aligns perfectly with the liberal belief that we can do and be better. It exemplifies their positions that poverty is not a sin and that class shouldn’t function as an excuse for human beings to go without adequate medical care. The House Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, in whole or in part, 54 times. That demonstrates their commitment to the status quo and the belief that poverty warrants death.