Conservatism: a slightly saner form of liberalism?

Writing at The American Thinker, J.R. Dunn argues that conservatism has become dominant in America because, unlike the left, it is not ideological and is flexible (evolving, he says, from the Goldwater fiasco to the management of a global empire), but that, in conservatives’ denunciations of the Harriet Miers nomination, conservatism is now descending into ideology. Unfortunately, Dunn’s definition of conservatism is so minimalist—consisting of nothing more than the belief that men are lower than angels, and that we should be cautious about social innovation—that it adds up to saying that any firm allegiance or principled position is “ideological.” The article strikes me as the expression of a “conservatism” that is barely distinguishable from a moderate liberalism.

I asked Jim Kalb for his opinion of the piece, and he replies:

I guess the question is how you gauge “conservatism.” If it means a certain reserve with regard to the more rigorous demands of the Left then I agree it’s in the saddle, it’s gone from the Goldwater debacle to ownership of an empire, and it’s silly to complain that not every major move explicitly pushes it forward since the correlation of forces is so strongly in its favor.

There are people though who aren’t interested in “conservatism” in that sense, which after all is a purely relative conception that inevitably becomes dominant as liberalism becomes crazier and crazier. Some people think the basic point isn’t sticking it to the liberals, it’s a good society and way of life in continuity with the past. Since those are the things that continue to disappear those people aren’t going to look at US political history since 1964 as one long glorious string of victories.

Personally, I think Dunn’s out of his mind. If Joe Berserker goes on a killing spree, then at some point the initial thrill will wear off somewhat and the body count per hour will decline. One could describe that situation as the rise to influence in Joe’s actions of a moderate, compassionate and indeed perhaps Franciscan sensibility. In a comparative sense there’s something to that view, but get real.

It’s often been said at VFR that as liberalism becomes more and more leftist, conservatism keeps following it to the left. Mr. Kalb has added a new twist to that analysis: as liberalism becomes crazier and crazier, conservatism, in addition to moving to the left itself, becomes dominant, since anything even marginally less crazy than the crazy left is seen as the better alternative.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 11, 2005 12:00 PM | Send