Rational Conservatism
I’ve mentioned before that our nation is in trouble, what I haven’t written about is how much “Conservatism” is in trouble.
Most people, when they hear the word “Conservative” cringe and head for the ideological exit. I’ve read that we can’t be argued with, we don’t listen, we’re religious freaks, bigots, evangelists, morons, hicks, paranoids, and some other terms I can’t bring myself to write here. Many who claim to be “Conservative” are these things, but many of us are not. In order to make a distinction, I’d like to use the term “Rational Conservatism”
What is a rational conservative?
Rational conservatives believe in the constitution. We are not all strict constitutionalists, and we all agree that the founding documents were meant to evolve. We think that the founders had something going for them and we should honor the intent under which our country was created.
Rational conservatives are respectful critics. We cherish intellectual doubt, thoughtful skepticism, and, most importantly, we love to be proven wrong. We know people are not right all the time, so we believe in setting up systems where the nations health doesn’t require our leaders to be right all the time.
Rational conservatives believe that a person is smart, but people are stupid. Specifically, corporations, and governments cannot be entrusted to keep the nation healthy.
Rational conservatives like guns. Not because we’re paranoid, not because we’re crazy, and not because we like violence. We like the idea of empowering and trusting our fellow citizens. We like the idea of a government that’s afraid of it’s citizens. (Much more on this subject later)
Rational conservatives respect those with strong religious beliefs, but strongly reject the notion that government should enforce the tenants of any faith. However, we refuse to be distracted by meaningless arguments of “Under God” and prayer in schools. We save our rage for real issues like warentless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation techniques.
Rational conservatives have compassion. We believe that a society should be defined by how they treat their weakest members. But, we believe that Governments suck at compassion and that churches, community groups, NGO’s and non-profits are so much better at taking care of those who need it.
Are you a rational conservative? Do you think governments shouldn’t tell you what you can do with your body (Abortion)? Do you think governments shouldn’t be able to tell you what to teach your kids at school? Do you hate how much money we flush into the Pentagon? Do you want to cry when you see what happens on your pay stub every month?
You may be one of us. You may not have known it until now.
If you are, and you write online, email me (thelittlecog at gmail) so I can add your page to the list on the right. If you aren’t one of us, write comments explaining why not! Comment on how my articles are wrong, keep me on my toes….
Very well written, and well stated. You have made a great distinction between conservatism and what currently passes for conservatism.
I have long ago given up calling myself a conservative, once i saw what the “conservative” Republican party really stands for. Since when did the party that claims to be about freedom want to restrict personal freedoms?
The only real issue i have with this article that you wrote is how what you believe differs from Liberalism at all?
How do you distinguish this “rational conservatism” from just flat out being a liberal? yes, there are liberals who want to ban abortion, abolish guns, and all that stupid stuff, but the very essence of Liberalism, as i have known it, is “Government out of our personal Lives”. What you are describing sounds like liberalism on nearly every level.
Would make an interesting article, comparing liberalism to conservatism, then liberalism to rational conservatism.
Richard Holton said this on November 30, 2008 at 18:01
Very nice. I’m almost convinced. The only area that I reject outright is religion. I’m not against belief systems, just those that stifle intelligence to stay in control.
Zzyzx said this on November 30, 2008 at 19:29
Nice article. Regarding the graphic with three interlocking “Spur” gears… you realize that these gears cannot turn in this configuration, right? It is mechanically impossible. It looks cool, but seems to convey a subliminal “fail”.
Daniel Schumacher said this on November 30, 2008 at 20:27
Richard,
Regarding your comment, I think the difference here is that Liberalism seeks to have government out of private affairs such as abortion, sexual orientation, etc, but IN private affairs such as free enterprise and wealth distribution in pursuit of social justice. These are, I believe, tenets that are in contraversion to the “rational conservatism” that littlecog seems to be arguing for. Conservatives (of the rational variety) just want government OUT of things generally. There is a role for government, to be sure, but when in doubt, a Rational Conservative will typically side with less government over more government in almost every case.
Don’t know if that helps at all.
Ben Wheat said this on December 1, 2008 at 06:17
I usually consider myself a militant moderate (in the fact that I don’t like the wing-nuts), but I think by your definition, I’d be a rational conservative.
Well written piece!
LOUDelf said this on December 1, 2008 at 11:40
I find myself agreeing with many of your tenants, but not all. That is the point though, isn’t it? Our ideology is the same, but the various ways we deconstruct that ideology to form personal conclusions allows us to forge meaningful debate. We can discuss this debate in a thoughtful fashion because we know that, despite our differences, upholding the basic values of rational conservatism (if I am reading you right – the Constitution) will allow us to tackle this debate without distractions like frame-of-reference problems.
Personally, I feel local governments (states) through popular mandate should be allowed to vote abortion legal or illegal, depending on how the people wish to define life under the letter of the law, and that it is federal overreach for the supreme court to come down and ban it everywhere through the federal judiciary. You believe that it is the government overreaching in general to have any laws which impact abortion. Clearly we disagree on the end policy, but we are interpreting the correct ideology (limiting the role of government) in different fashions.
As evidenced by an excellent post and discussion you made a few weeks ago on this very topic, such differences don’t drives us to irrational banter, but foster healthy intellectual discussion. If only all political debate could be so civilized.
Tony Cannizzaro said this on December 2, 2008 at 04:55
Well said Tony.
As to local governmental control of abortion, I find your solution almost agreeable. However, I think, in many ways, local governance may be better at handling moral issues, they’re simply not good enough in my mind for an issue as complex as this.
Yea, we can disagree about this one on the merits, and we can do it without yelling, this is function and purpose of rational conservatism…and it’s how I think we’ll someday repair our republic.
LittleCog said this on December 2, 2008 at 13:45
[...] changes in format. This coincides with the return of Brick Hawke, who attempts to make his first semi-rational podcast since the GOP’s historic repudiation on Election Day 2008. But can Myron’s [...]
HD242 - Hawke and Myron "At The Movies" | The Hawke and Dove Political Punditry Podcast said this on December 11, 2008 at 10:39
[...] Rational Conservatism…a primer. [...]
Required Reading… « The Little Cog said this on January 26, 2009 at 09:22