The Conservative Mind

As I examined what the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation profess on their websites, I learned that their first principles are almost always figures of speech rather than actions to be emulated.

Both the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation profess individual liberty; limited government; free and private enterprise; strong, vigilant, and effective national defense. And they both believe in traditional American values, political accountability, and open debate.

Conservatives used to profess small government, but since World War II, the federal government has increased in size, even under Republican administrations. So, their wish is for limited government, an abstraction that doesn’t tell us how we can limit government and still have strong, vigilant, national defense. As for individual liberty, national security, and political accountability. I will mention only in passing, Richard Nixon, who was never held accountable for the White House enemies list. Nor was he held accountable for his part in the Watergate break-in, which is a monument to failed conservative ideals of national security and individual liberty. Nixon was forced to resign, but he left office believing that whatever a President does is legal. He even kept his Presidential and Congressional pensions because his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.

Citizens suffer the consequences any time a Conservative brings up "traditional American values." That phrase is now as meaningless as "the American dream." I regret to report that, when put into action, Traditional American Values means keeping various ethnic groups separate and conforming to the code of "Do as I say, not as I do," and "Do whatever you want; just don’t talk about it."

The Traditional American college alumnus holds an MBA and values his university’s football stadium more highly than its chemistry laboratory. A Traditional American values Walt Disney more than Henry James, and theme parks more than art museums. A Traditional American seeks the dominance of Christian evangelism and a material comfort level equal to Nero’s palace. A Traditional American takes his rights for granted, but becomes agitated when his opponents demand theirs.

The American Dream means simply, "Get rich, and don’t worry how."

During my reading on the Heritage Foundation’s website, I came across the summa of conservatism. It is Heritage Lecture #81, "The Origins of the Modern American Conservative Movement" (2003), by Lee Edwards, PhD, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Dr. Edwards took as his text, The Conservative Mind (1953) by Russell Kirk, a book which Edwards credits as the origin of modern conservatism. Unfortunately, the most telling quality in Kirk’s ideas is his weakness for tropes instead of concrete deeds.

Edwards tells us, "The central idea of The Conservative Mind, upon which American conservatism is essentially based, is ordered liberty. It is a blending of the sometimes contending requirements of the community and the individual, of individual freedom and individual responsibility, of limited government and unlimited markets." More nouns but no active verbs, which shows that Conservatives are no longer vigorous activists; they are simply tiresome nags.

At the heart of conservative values are Russell Kirk’s six basic "canons" of conservatism. Unfortunately, the canons are all values, not actions. The Ten Commandments tell people specifically what they are NOT supposed to do, and the Constitution of the United States tells the governed and their governors what they may and may not do. Actions, not values.

I had expected to read something like the following: "Conservatives vote only for candidates who pledge to reduce the number of employees working for the federal government, and if they do not fulfill their pledge, conservatives complain to the officeholder in person. Or they send letters and e-mails, and phone his office until he complies or resigns." Instead, I found six limp creeds made up, as all creeds are, of abstractions and metaphors. They suggest, but do not illuminate. They are vague.

The following is the list of the six canons:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society.
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity.
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes.
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected.
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason.
6. Society must alter slowly.

These six canons would be frightening, if they could ever be put into practice. But they can’t, because they are all image and no substance. Kirk uses the terms "divine intent" and "personal conscience" as personifications of political agents. If divine intent and personal conscience ruled society instead of mankind, we would practice religious, ethnic, and racial prejudices and start religious wars. Some Americans try to put this canon into action by not only shunning Islamic people, but also torturing and killing them. Others find new nicknames for members of non-white, non-Christian races and creeds. The latest I heard from a woman who called them, "people of a different demographic."

No one has settled the question "What is ‘divine intent’?" No one can. It has been asked in a variety of ways, including George W. Bush’s query, "What would Jesus do?" To which there are a thousand answers. When one religious group believes their answer is better than another’s, society gets very ugly. Religious denominations become political action committees, and true believers of divine intent, in good conscience, bulldoze homes and houses of worship or fly airliners into skyscrapers.

We may be a society of people with consciences, but our varying attitudes, opinions, and beliefs make personal conscience an arbitrary, contradictory ruler. As a society, we may be aware of our consciences, but we must obey laws passed by a duly elected legislature and enforced by police who must obey the laws themselves.

In the second canon, "traditional life" and "variety and mystery" are oxymorons . People cling to traditions as a means of eliminating variety and mystery. Traditionalists prefer the known to the unknown. They seek that which is acceptable to their peers rather than what is satisfying to themselves alone. Traditionalists would rather have Hilary Rodham Clinton and Condaleeza Rice at home vacuuming their rugs or at church arranging flowers on the altar.. They would keep gays and lesbians from marrying, and they would have all public school children recite "The Lord’s Prayer" daily. Thus they ask "What would Jesus do?" instead of the more difficult question, "What should I do, and how can I do it?" Conservatives are Traditionalists, and theirs is the narrowing uniformity.

In the third canon about orders and classes, I guess Kirk means that the higher orders and upper classes, much in the manner of Plato’s guardians, control the lower orders and lower classes. In concrete terms for the 21st century, it means that Conservatives want to eliminate the minimum wage and labor unions. Conservatives believe that the guardians in the managerial class must keep workers on a tight leash, and the workers should accept their wages gratefully, regardless of the working conditions they labor in, regardless the size of their families, and regardless of their skills.

The upper class’s attitude toward the lower orders was shown when former first lady Barbara Bush visited a refugee center set up in Houston’s Astrodome after Hurricane Katrina. There she was, surrounded by people smelling terribly from the lack of showers and clean clothing, people weeping for lost homes and family members, people numbed by the inhumane treatment they had received from FEMA and their police department. Mrs. Bush surveyed her fellow citizens and said, "They never had it so good." Compassionate Conservatism, indeed. To Barbara Bush, these people were poor before the hurricane, and government aid was a step up for them.

Many Conservatives thought it was okay for the lower orders to huddle in an improvised shelter, but they were afraid that they would want to live in the Astrodome for the rest of their lives. That they would become dependent on using chemical toilets and community showers, not to mention standing for hours in line for food rations. That these people would love being separated from their families and their homes.

In the fifth canon, Kirk states that property and freedom are inseparable. In keeping with this canon, George W. Bush announced to his fellow citizens that America was an ownership society. Unfortunately, this is true, and those who own little, or who have recently lost much, are prisoners of the current economic downturn. Parents have lost their jobs and their homes through foreclosure, and they raise their children in cars, motel rooms or tent villages springing up in vacant lots. Similar camp sites along railroad tracks in the 1930s were called Hoovervilles. These new tent villages should be called Dubyavilles.

Conservatives have yet to admit their role in creating the current Depression. Instead they believe workers should have known that their factories would close with no notice, even though their employers did not. Conservatives also believe that these workers should have anticipated the fall in market values of their homes, even though bankers and real estate brokers did not.

The fifth canon, about controlling one’s appetites and will, is a cliché similar to "Enough is as good as a feast," "Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill," or "Where there’s a will, there’s a way." Hearing these old saws causes superficial men to nod seriously during business-club luncheons and forget all about them at dinner. Certainly self-control is the mark of a mature person, but in the past eight years Conservatives have shown much self indulgence and little if any self control. Imagine Roman Catholic priests controlling their will and appetite for children, Richard Cheney controlling his will and appetite for power, Rush Limbaugh controlling his will and appetite for illegal drugs.

I am glad to say the sixth canon about gradual social change was ignored by the Continental Congress of 1776. And by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi.

There is much lacking in these conservative canons. Nowhere did I find any mention of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, and sheltering the homeless. Nor anything about learning the law and obeying it. That’s why we won’t find in any Conservative’s canon, "Actions speak louder than words."