At first glance it might seem that there is no specifically Catholic angle to the confused state of the modern conservative movement. I disagree. Leading conservative theorists in the “good old days” were often Catholics: William F. Buckley, L. Brent Bozell and Russell Kirk come to mind.
This was not surprising. Much of what conservatives were seeking to conserve was the heritage of the Christian West. Moreover, our adversaries in the Cold War were atheistic totalitarians who made no secret of their intention to eliminate the Church as a force in the modern world. If conservatism has lost its sense of direction, it is important for Catholics to recognize that reality. It means we can no longer assume “conservatives” to be on our side.
What do I mean by the “confused state” of conservatism? Well, who are the conservatives these days? The “paleo-cons” or the “neo-cons”? Pat Buchanan and Charley Reese, opponents of free trade in its current form, lax immigration policy and the war in Iraq? Or the editors of The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal, who take the other side on these issues? This modern divergence of views is markedly different from the old split between the so-called “traditionalist” and “libertarian” wings of conservatism. The traditionalists and the libertarians tended to vote the same way, even if for different reasons.
If there was one issue that defined the conservatism of old it was the question of “big government.” Conservatives opposed it. That was why they gravitated toward the Republican Party. The Republicans were the party of federalism and states’ rights, the opponents of judicial activism and defenders of individual rights and local legislatures. Liberal Democrats took the other side. They championed the central government and the federal courts as agents of “progressive” reform in areas such as racial equality, censorship, economic justice and abortion rights.
Yet look at where we are now. Which is the party of big government? Conservative Republicans beat the drums for the No Child Left Behind Act, arguably the biggest intrusion of the central government in local schools in our history, while liberal Democrats wring their hands over the costs of the program, the red tape and the arbitrary standards it imposes on local school systems. The same flip-flop has taken place on the question of same-sex marriage. Conservatives favor an amendment to the constitution that would override state prerogatives in this area, while liberals are up in arms over the federal usurpation of state authority to determine laws regulating marriage.
Likewise on the use of medical marijuana and Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Conservatives on the talk shows push for federal laws that would take precedence over local legislatures in these matters. I’d be willing to wager that many of the conservatives who deplore the judicial activism of Roe v. Wade would find a way to defend a Supreme Court, reshaped with Bush appointees, that found a constitutional right to life superseding the authority of state legislatures committed to keeping abortion legal. It was the conservatives on the Supreme Court who used their power to overturn the decision of the Florida courts that would have given the 2000 election to Al Gore.
The reaction of conservatives and liberals during the last days of Terri Schiavo’s life is another case in point. Liberal Democrats beat the drums in defense of the local Florida court’s decision to back her husband’s wish to remove her feeding tube. They agonized over the importance of family rights and states’ rights, in the face of what they termed an arrogant and imperious central government. Meanwhile, conservatives maneuvered to find some technicality that would permit the federal government to override the decisions of the local authorities, up to and including an armed raid by federal authorities to rescue Schiavo. They became the party of big government, the centralizers.
So, what’s going on? Why this willingness — on both sides — to abandon long-held principles on the Constitution and its definition of the proper role of the federal government in our lives? Is it hypocrisy? I would say, no. Not conscious hypocrisy, at any rate. I would argue that recent events are providing us with insight into what happens in democratic societies, where public policy is shaped by public opinion. We are discovering that all of us are concerned more with the what of public policy than with the how, even though we tend to claim otherwise. Getting our way is more important than ideological consistency. In other words, we stake out our ideological positions after we have determined the outcome we desire. Our arguments over process are a smokescreen.
For example, if you wanted Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube removed and are determined to protect same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, you are a states' righter nowadays, no matter what you once thought about, say, court-order busing for racial balance. It makes no difference if you have viewed the central government as a positive force for change for your entire adult life. And vice versa, for conservatives who have spent their lives arguing against the dangers of big brother in Washington. Those out of power tend to be states’ righters; those in power, centralizers. That is why conservative Republicans no longer react in a knee-jerk against federal power. They don’t mind the federal government nowadays because they control it. That is the origin of “big government conservatism.”
I had an experience in the classroom about 15 years ago that provided insight into why these flip-flops occur. It took place when I was teaching an Advanced Placement history course to high school seniors. My students that year were very bright, so I thought I would illustrate to them how political partisans have switched positions over the years on states’ rights and the power of the federal judiciary.
To make my case, I pointed out how the New England states favored the right to secession, and how the Southern states opposed it, when the issue was the trade embargo in the early 19th century. And then how both sides flipped in the years just before the Civil War. I also noted the way conservative Republicans championed the power of the Supreme Court when the Court was acting to thwart legislatures determined to regulate American businesses in the early 20th century, while at the same time liberal Democrats were deploring the arrogance of federal judges who dared to stand in the way of legislation designed to bring about social justice. And then how the sides changed during the brouhaha over the Warren Court.
I thought the lesson was going well, until I discovered that my students were puzzled over why I was spending so much time making this point. They didn’t get it. Of course, partisans would employ the legal and philosophical arguments that would help them to carry the day politically. My students didn’t have to be convinced of that. What else did I expect advocates for an important cause to do? Advance the principles that would help their adversaries gain the upper hand? Duh…
At first I was taken aback by my students’ lack of curiosity about these ideological inconsistencies. Then it struck me: they were bright, but they were 17 years old. They had not spent decades listening to political partisans assure us they are arguing for important principles of good government, not just their self-interests, when they enter the public square. My students took it for granted that the advocates for a cause would approach the Constitution like trial lawyers seeking to carry the day. We don’t want our lawyers to be consistent, if that means losing the case. We want them to find a way to use the law to win the case. You have heard the lawyer’s wisecrack: “If the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law. If that doesn’t work, call for a mistrial.” In other words, do whatever it takes to win the case for your client.
I submit that is also how the debate over public policy between conservatives and liberals takes place, all the protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. None of us is willing to lose the battle for a great cause rather than reverse ourselves on a position we once took on something like states' rights or judicial review. Things don’t work that way.
Are these flip-flops deplorable? Unprincipled? Cynical? Machiavellian? That is a topic for another day. For now, suffice it to say that it is good for us to understand that they are as American as cherry pie. Recognizing that fact that will help us make our way through the fog of political rhetoric that is whipped up by the advocates for the causes of the day. There is no reason for us to surrender our commitment to, say, ending abortion on demand and preventing same-sex marriage as soon as it is pointed out to us, by someone playing “gotcha” politics, that we once favored a view of the role of the central government different from the one we are arguing today to achieve our ends. You can bet your last dollar that the person making this point has done the same thing.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
