Last night I had the privilege to discuss Sam Tanenhaus’s new book, The Death of Conservatism. The book rankles most conservatives, and who can blame them? The whole “is conservatism dead?” debate is reminiscent to conservatives of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” with the old man moaning “I’m not dead yet!” while being carried to the graveyard.
But no one can seriously contend that conservatism is in robust health, so Sam’s “end-of-life counseling” needs to be taken seriously even if it’s a painful exercise.
Sam’s argument is that conservatism suffers from, well, being too conservative. Or more precisely, from not being conservative enough. He resurrects an old debate among conservatives over the very meaning of the word “conservative.” Should conservatives focus on preserving the past in the face of social and technological change? Or does conservatism have principled content that requires it to overturn certain past events in order to set things right? Put another way, is conservatism about content or process?
Sam makes the argument of old English conservatism, the conservatism of Edmund Burke, the Earl of Beaconsfield (Benjamin Disraeli), and the Tory toffs, that it is the duty of conservatism to moderate and brake the changes of modernity. His is a content-free conservatism that focuses on the process of governing and places social stability ahead of liberty as a political goal.
Their rationale is that one cannot oppose the tenor of the times, and that the democratic tenor of the times tends toward ideological enthusiasm which, if unbraked, tends toward violent revolution and social upheaval. Their model is the French Revolution, launched in the name of liberty but resulting in despotism clothed in democracy. Anything is preferable to the French Revolution and similar upheavals.
The English Conservative thesis—call it “the Beaconsfield thesis,” as does 1950s-era American conservative Whittaker Chambers (himself the subject of Sam’s first, well-received biography)—has been politically successful in England. A similar approach—do not oppose the demands for more government power and social welfare; accommodate them and advance one’s own welfare proposals where possible—has also been the political approach of continental conservative parties coming from different philosophical traditions. French 20th-century conservatives use a Gaullist, “le etat c’est moi” justification for similar policies. Other countries adopt these policies under the cloak of Christian Democracy, primarily but not exclusively Catholic in origin. These parties have also been politically successful, leading many American conservatives over the past 60 years to argue that this approach would work in America, too, if only those meddling movement conservatives would get out of the way.
What’s wrong with this thesis? Well, that’s the subject of tomorrow’s post.