I’d prefer to say no, of course. I have identified myself as a conservative since the late 1960s, when I first came across National Review and Modern Age, and found in their pages an alternative to the new left Marxist view of the world I was being handed by my graduate school professors.
But, like it or not, it may be true.
Who is a conservative nowadays? Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran and Charley Reese seem to be at odds as often with the editorial positions of National Review and The Weekly Standard as with anyone on the left. William Rusher recently wrote a column explaining the state of modern conservatism. He broke down the modern right into the “paleoconservatives,” the “neoconservatives,” the “libertarians,” the “New Right,” the “Religious Right,” and the “national greatness conservatives.” As I read Rusher’s description of these factions, it was hard to find the common denominator.
Does it make any difference if the conservative movement were to go the way of the Whigs? Could it be that American conservatism has served its purpose and is no longer relevant? Maybe. Let’s admit it: There was always something strained about the alliance of the so-called “libertarians” (the opponents of big government) and “traditionalists” (the anti-Communists and defenders of traditional values) that comprised American conservatism. A paradox was embedded within it: Conservatives in the last half of the 20th century wanted the government to control everything, except American businesses.
This quip is not just a liberal wisecrack. There is an element of truth to it. Conservatives were not exactly opposed to “big government.” We wanted the central government powerful enough to stop abortion and pornography, to weed out Marxist professors, arrest drug dealers, stop illegal immigration, break up organized crime and defeat every Marxist state aligned with the old Soviet Union. Just about the only place we wanted it weak was in its dealings with the marketplace. We wanted no minimum wage laws, no rent control, free trade, minimal labor legislation. Why was that? Why did we trust the government to control porn merchants and drug dealers, but not corporations maneuvering to increase the bottom line? Did we believe that corporate executives were immune from original sin?
Granted, the liberals have been just as inconsistent. They trust the central government to regulate American business, but nothing else. They want federal bureaucrats to micromanage the economy; trust them to regulate wages, prices, hiring policies, safety and health standards. Yet they do not trust the feds with the power to regulate pornography, investigate subversives or stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders.
But we can let the liberals sort out their own house. Our interest just now is in conservatism, and with where Catholics find themselves as the American right becomes increasingly fragmented. When American conservatism led the defense of traditional values against the Marxists and militant secular humanists, there was a reason for Catholics to call themselves conservative. We have to ask ourselves if the label still fits. It may not.
Let’s look at some of the positions central to conservatism. Are conservatives opposed to the power of big government? The “national greatness” conservatives saw nothing wrong with an assertive and ambitious central government, once Republicans were in control of it. There are other inconsistencies. Are conservatives opposed to judicial activism? Really? Would Catholics who call themselves conservatives protest a Supreme Court decision that overturned state laws allowing legal abortion? Would they use the old conservative arguments in favor of states’ rights to defend Vermont’s law permitting civil unions for homosexual couples? Isn’t it more likely that conservative Catholics would favor an amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, regardless of what the voters in Vermont prefer?
Until now, conservatives have been proponents of an assertive application of American military force around the world. We took justifiable pride in America’s victory in the Cold War, a victory that would not have been achieved without the defense buildup of the Reagan years. But do we want to sing the same tune now that the American military’s role is “nation-building”? In the past few days, I have heard liberal talk show commentators Jonathan Alter, Mara Liasson and Morton Kondracke come out in favor of a larger U.S. military and increased defense spending in order for us to intervene in more spots in Africa. Conservative commentators Fred Barnes and William Kristol agreed.
This is a remarkable turn of events. These are modern conservatives and liberals agreeing that we should be “policeman of the world.” They call us the “world’s only superpower,” the “indispensable nation.” The easy victories over Iraq in both Gulf wars have given these pundits a confidence that the United States can reshape the world to suit its ideological vision. Is this “pro-military” stance a sign that the liberals have become more conservative; that they see the United States as a force for good in the world? Or is it the triumph of Wilsonian internationalism? Pat Buchanan and Charley Reese would say the latter. Are they the real conservatives? Or the editors of National Review and The Weekly Standard?
Conservatives are also questioning their old position on free trade and protectionism. Pat Buchanan’s writing has done much to stimulate this rethinking of the old consensus. But so has the school of hard knocks. They used to say a conservative was a liberal who has been mugged. It looks to me as if most of the protectionists I come across these days are former free-market advocates who are worried about their jobs being shipped to India. Computer programmers and financial analysts who used to chide textile workers for “pricing themselves out of the market” are now up in arms about Indian companies who can do the jobs of Wall Street and Silicon Valley yuppies for one-third the price. Who are the real conservatives? The free-market ideologues who would rather see America’s “non-competitive” workers lose their jobs than permit the federal government to regulate trade? Or those who think the national interest and America jobs are more important than an ideological commitment to laissez-faire economics? Not as easy a question to answer as it used to be.
Maybe conservatism isn’t dead, but it sure is harder to pin down. Which is probably a good thing for Catholics. Catholicism transcends political movements. Jesus saves, not conservatism or the Republican Party. We are better off looking at politicians and political theorists of all stripes with a jaundiced eye. Come to think of it, that used to be considered one of the core truths of the conservative movement.
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.)
