Conservatarianism and Classical Liberalism
An overview of my opinions on most every subject.
I sometimes wonder whether people really grasp how I view the whole of my political ideology. Why do I believe in what I believe? certainly my viewpoints are not narrowly defined by a political party; if all of your views line up perfectly with Republican of Democrat platforms then I wonder if you really have any opinions of your own. While I admire and understand the conservatism of today, a product of the conservative movements born from Bill Buckley and subsequently Ronald Reagan, I do not always agree with every portion of their ideology.
To best understand my viewpoints upon most subjects, I recommend reading the Conservatarian Manifesto, by Charles C. W. Cooke. It is the perfect explainer for the way in which I see politics. It is well written and gave a name to the opinions I had, which I felt were in unison and coherent together but not wholly attributable to the other factions of the right. Conservatarianism is a hybrid sort of blend between modern conservatism and libertarianism, pulling the good ideas and convictions from each ideology while simultaneously being closer in line with the U.S. Constitution than either of them. In short, conservatarians agree with conservatives on immigration, 2nd amendment, abortion, constitutional jurisprudence, and foreign policy, while taking a more libertarian view on gay marriage, drugs, and federalism. I’ll discuss the finer points on each of these later.
Arguing in favor of the American right in any form usually necessitates a defense of the Constitution. The questions regarding the document are valid and deserve answers; why should we listen and follow the 200+ year old piece of paper? How could the Founding Fathers govern us now when they could never have dreamt of nuclear weapons, drones, the internet or a million other things? It is important to note that the Founders were aware of the modern developments that would soon occur; they left the ability to amend the Constitution for this purpose, as well as for social and cultural change, like the civil right’s movement of the 1960’s and the women’s suffrage movement before it. The Founders were ultimately aware that they could not anticipate every occurrence and need of the future, yet they were prudent enough to make the Constitution difficult enough to amend so that the only way it could be done was through a majority of the nation agreeing upon it.
What the Founders did anticipate and understood firsthand was the fallibility of humanity. Those with power nearly always strive for more, and it is true even of our own government. American history is a story told alongside a slowly growing government, at first gaining slowly, leaping forward in the late 1930’s with FDR’s New Deal and culminating with our current state of the executive office, a concentration of powers that would horrify the Revolutionaries. It is from a fear of concentrated power and reverence for the Constitution that the political right derives its positions.
One of the most important points that is made by Cooke in the Conservatarian Manifesto is the difference between personal morality and morality of governance. It is a distinction most people have difficulty making. I’ll venture to say that majority of people see what they believe is the right thing to do and what the government should do as one and the same. This is faulty, and a more nuanced view of the reality of federal government would improve our national politics tremendously. Frankly, the government is terrible at doing most everything, and is extremely susceptible to corruption; thus, the actions you think the government should take do not need to line up perfectly with your personal stances on many issues. Government is often the least effective method for pursuing most ends. Most importantly, I can have an opinion on something and understand simultaneously that my opinion need not be imposed upon others. That is the ultimate purpose of federalism.
An example of when my personal positions do not influence what I think the government should do is with the issue of gay marriage. Understanding that my opinion of gay marriage is inherently religious, and that imposing my religious beliefs upon others is a violation of their rights, and that there is no real legitimate argument against gay marriage that is not religious, it is clear that I can’t support government bans on the practice. That does not mean that I endorse that behavior, nor does it mean that the government should compel individuals to participate in ceremonies or events that violate their religion or their conscience, such as in the recent multiple occurrences of Christian bakers or florists being sued or compelled to provide services for gay couples.
Many people would take issue with me disapproving of government bans on gay marriage while also being pro–life. It is true that many pro–life arguments are religious in nature, but they hardly have to be, and mine is not. In the Conservatarian Manifesto Charles C. W. Cooke argues a pro–life standpoint as an atheist. The blunt reality is that the unborn are demonstrably people, and any other opinions are empirically false, to the detriment of millions of children a year. It is not a religious notion.
Empirical evidence is the source of much of my opinions on many subjects, as it should be for anyone. I supported a more conservative view of drugs until it became clear that the War on Drugs was a failure. It is clear that the blitz on these crimes has not helped many addicts or deterred many dealers. Indeed, federal bans on drugs are not what the Founders would have envisioned as an issue Washington would be considering. Drugs are issues that the states should decide for themselves on.
Support for the Constitution does not mean that all of my stances are rooted in antiquity. A more recent development for conservative ideology that I support is for a robust foreign policy, one that mandates interference when American values are at stake and when it is morally apprehensible to not act in the face of tragedies or tyranny abroad. Libertarianism is still stuck in an isolationist style mindset on foreign affairs, which neglects the role America was forced to play in the aftermath of WWII. Foreign policy is difficult; not merely the right mindset assures success. The right mindset on foreign policy, in my view, led to the disaster that was the Vietnam War. Interventionism and America as the world police will not always be a winning strategy, and its certainly not the most popular, but it is one that the U.S. must take in order for the rest of the world to not be overcome by tyranny and primitive, inhumane regimes.
My opinion on governance, particularly federalism, allows me to be tolerant of other viewpoints. States in the ideal federal republic would have the ability to decide on their own many of their policy preferences without the influence of the federal government. You can be liberal in your liberal state, in my ideal America, as long as you do not attempt to impose your objectives upon me. Sadly, this is not a state of affairs that the American left has endorsed. Hopefully, with the election of Donald Trump, liberals will come to see the merits of federalism and limited government again.
