The Liberty Project

Digg This! • Submit to Reddit • Stumble It!

I read a somewhat interesting article in the Atlantic today, which espouses John McCain as a “true conservative” and goes on to state that those who suggest he is no such thing are the ones that have lost their way in the conservative movement.

In supporting this claim, the author cites the philosophy and actions of Edmund Burke, who is considered by many to be an early father of modern conservatism. Burke was a member of the British parliament during the American Revolution, and is endeared to American conservatives as a staunch supporter of the colonist’s side of the revolution. He’s also remembered for his strong opposition of the French Revolution, which he denounced as brutal and unnecessary.

It’s this dichotomy that the author uses to equate the actions of John McCain to the stance of Edmund Burke; the balance of personal freedom with social order.

However, such a stance is both questionable and naïve. First and foremost, if there is to be criticism hurled at Mr. Burke, it’s precisely in his “balance of social order” view that it’s most deserved.

The author hails Burke’s opposition to the French Revolution as a means to show that nuance can lead to different views on similar issues – a la opposing the Bush tax cuts, then later supporting them. However, what he fails to mention is that Burke’s biggest fault, and his very rationale for opposing the French Revolution, is his deep rooted belief that people should be governed by an aristocracy – a class of people who have a social upbringing and an intellectual background that delivers, to them alone, the burden of governance. Burke himself, as you might suspect, came from a very wealthy family, attended the best schools, and believed that it was people like himself that were best qualified to govern the rest.

On the plus side, and where the roots to conservatism connect, Burke advocated that the role of government, in economic affairs, was to take a very hands-off, free-market, Adam Smith approach. This is why Burke supports the American Revolution, because the biggest factors leading to the American Revolution were economic in nature, stemming from economic meddling by Britain in what Burke suggests should have remained a free market system. Certainly, if conservatives believe in the non-economic-intervention position of Adam Smith, then aligning with the largely identical position of Burke makes sense.

However, it’s clear that Burke’s views on the French Revolution are embedded in his belief that the masses of people are not capable of governing themselves. Burke’s argument is that the French Revolution is not so much rooted in a desire to move to a free market economy, but that it was tied to the revolutionaries’ desire to overthrow the ruling aristocracy and surrounding traditions.

Burke is a free-market elitist. If he were alive today, I doubt he would argue with that classification.

And this is where the author’s views become suspect. If Ronald Reagan was a beacon to modern conservatism, then how do you rationalize that Reagan would be comfortable with the ideal of a ruling aristocracy? I have certainly read nothing of Ronald Reagan that would suggest his is the viewpoint he would espouse.

So perhaps the author is suggesting that the Reagan school of thought is not the conservative school of thought, and if that’s the case, then I am no conservative. However, I believe, simply, that the author is incorrect; it is Burke who is not a conservative.

Burke’s thinking helped lead the way for conservative thought, no doubt, as a free-markets economy is a cornerstone to the movement. However, the social side of the equation is one of individual independence, individual rights, and personal responsibility. The conservative movement is the combination of free-market capitalism on the economic side, with classical liberalism on the social side.

Perhaps elitists are hijacking the term “conservative” in the same way that socialists hijacked the term “liberal”. Liberal, in the traditional sense, and still today it much of Europe, means to follow the tenants of classical liberalism, which is the polar opposite of collectivism and socialism – yet these are the groups which, in modern America, brand themselves as “liberal.”

I’m uncertain as to the degree to which we can think of McCain as a proponent of free-markets. I will give him credit that he has not suggested taxing of crude oil or oil company profits as a way to lower prices in the way that Obama and Clinton have suggested. This, at least, gives him points for being more free-market than the Democrats who are still running for President.

Yet, I can’t help but worry about some of McCain’s other stances. His campaign finance “reform” limits how much money individuals can contribute (essentially a regulation on the free-market), while it allows the candidate to personally fund their campaign with as much of their own money as they care to contribute. This essentially gives an advantage to the super-wealthy when running for office, and certainly feels a bit elitist to me.

Likewise, advocating amnesty for illegal immigrants on the grounds that “there are jobs Americans just wont do” also smells elitist. I cannot say with certainty that McCain has ever used this phraseology as a justification for his amnesty plans, but we’ve all heard this argument made as general support for amnesty.

Finally, there are (at least) two viewpoints for supporting the war in Iraq, and it’s difficult to judge where McCain actually stands because it’s so easy to intertwine them. On one hand, there is the national defense arguement, surmised as “we fight them there so they won’t fight us here.” Some statics suggest that may be a false position, but it is, at minimum, an argument that can be debated. On the other hand, the suggestion that the United States has some kind of obligation to “promote democracy” around the world, with an intent that Iraq become a “beacon of democracy in the middle east” is very plainly elitist, and is an argument that would make Burke proud.

Burke, after all, was a product of the British Empire at it’s very peek, and he certainly held the belief that it was up to his aristocratic class to promote free markets and govern the world.

Does McCain fall into that category as well? I don’t know. I do know that McCain is the strongest advocate for the national defense argument of anyone still running for President. Where he stands on democracy building, I am not sure.

I might hypothesize that Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all supporter of this “democracy supporting elitism” in one way or another. With the Democratic establishment supporting democracy through military action in Kosovo and Somolia (not to mention suggestions that we invade Sudan or Burma for similar reasons), and the Republican establishment supporting the Bush position of spreading democracy in Iraq (and perhaps Iran) through military action, I can’t help but think that the mainstream of both parties hold this elitist viewpoint.

It’s a shame, really, to think that all the candidates believe in this misguided elitism in one way or another. If Burke is a free-market elitist, then it’s probably safe to say that McCain is the most “Burkian,” in that he’s the most free-market candidate, and the whole lot of them are elitists. Obama and Clinton don’t do as well on the free-market side, but they get plenty of Burkian points for believing The American Way should be spread by force around the world.

But that’s hardly to say McCain deserves a medal for being a Reagan conservative. While one could argue that there were elitist actions taken during the Reagan administration (as could be done for any administration), the concept of Reagan’s “shining city on the hill” is the very opposite of elitism: Be an example of free market capitalism, and a society of free individuals, and the world will beat a path to your door.

And so, to the author of this piece: If a “conservative” is from the mold of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, or from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, then count me among them. On the other hand, if a conservative is from the mold of old Ed Burke, then please give me, along with the aforementioned group, another banner to stand under.

Digg This! • Submit to Reddit • Stumble It!

This site began as a simple project in July of 2007 to distribute bumper stickers promoting Ron Paul for President.  My goal was to send out all 100 bumper stickers that I purchased for the project.  In the end, I sent over 6,000 bumper stickers to all 50 states as the "Ron Paul Revolution" went from nothing to national sensation.

As time wore on, funds available to run this project diminished, even while demand for the stickers remained high.  I sustained it while I could, but in the end this became a behemoth I could no longer attend to.  My sincere thanks to this of you that helped out, and to those of you that displayed your stickers proudly.

That said, the ongoing purpose of this site is now changing.  Back in 2007, I did not know who Ron Paul was.  I'd never heard of him, and to be honest, I thought he looked a little goofy on stage when I first saw him.  That view, however, was quickly changed, as I learned about his policies and views.  No, I did not agree with every aspect of his platform -- but what I found was that this was a politician that, at last, was finally promoting the viewpoints that I've had since I was a kid.  The concepts of limited government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom.  A distain for lumping people into groups for purposes of providing that group a benefit -- or punishing them with a hindrance -- as though the members of that group were not individual, free thinking people like me.  The concept that people should take care of themselves, prosper in freedom, and help their communities and their country voluntarily, as they see fit, because they know it is the right thing to do.  A belief that the role of government is defined by the Constitution, and is limited to ensuring that the rights of individuals is not infringed upon by other citizens, by foreign governments, or by our own government. 

In Ron Paul, I saw someone that embraced this message -- my message -- and that is why I engaged in supporting his campaign.

I do not know what the future of the Ron Paul campaign holds, but what I can tell you is that I will continue to spread the message of individual freedom, limited government, and liberty.  My hope is that, by spreading this message, we can return America to it's roots where the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness was up to the individual -- a blank slate where people could pursue their lives however they wanted, so long as they didn't interfere with the rights of other individuals. 

Here's to liberty.

Sincerely,

Jeff