Alan Wolfe on American conservatives’ inability to govern

Last updated on: May 7, 2013 at 6:47 pm by Svend White

Alan Wolfe on American conservatives’ inability to govern 2013-05-07T18:47:43-05:00 Svend White

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Alan Wolfe argues here in the The Washington Monthly that conservatives have a dismal record in as political leaders.

What I found most interesting was his argument that, contrary to its constant invocation of the Founding Fathers, today’s American Conservative movement is out of sync with American history and political culture.

"Why Conservatives Can’t Govern" by Alan Wolfe

The United States, as the political scientist Louis Hartz argued in the 1950s, was born liberal. We fought for our independence against Great Britain and the conservatism that flourished there. In Europe, a conservative was someone who defended the traditions of the monarchy, justified the privileges of the nobility, and welcomed the intervention of a state-affiliated clergy in politics. But all those things would be tossed out by the revolutionaries who led the war for independence and then wrote the Constitution. We chose to have an elected president, not an anointed monarch. Our Constitution prohibited the granting of titles of nobility. We separated church and state.

Of course, we had more than our share of thinkers who distrusted national authority; conservative political philosophy may not come naturally to Americans, but a fear of centralized power and an unwillingness to pay heavy taxes does. Beneath the broad political liberalism embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was a frequently unexamined conservatism that questioned the very idea of the vibrant, expansive society that America promised to be.

Odd men out in America’s liberal political culture, America’s conservatives were never very unified. Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall wanted to see a strong national government created to improve America’s economic prospects, even if they retained an aristocratic sense that only social superiors should control that government. (John Adams outdid them on behalf of a strong executive; he thought our first president should be addressed as a monarch). But this kind of New England Federalism would go into abeyance once America’s democratizing forces were unleashed. Others insisted that this country should embody timeless Christian principles; they, however, soon ran up against the skepticism of the Founding Fathers and conceptions of religious liberty associated with dissenting Protestantism. With the decline of both, the only significant conservatism left would come from defenders of slavery such as John C. Calhoun. Once the advocate of a strong national government, Calhoun, putting the rights of slaveholders first, viewed this country as a compact among states, not as a unified society. His ideas would live on in the voices of those thinkers, primarily Southern, who objected to relying on national power to promote equal rights for all.

As this litany of lost causes suggests, our conservatives, while representing different regions and economic interests, were united by their irrelevance in the face of history. If the term reactionary is too pejorative, let’s call them reactive. In this entrepreneurial, mobile, innovative, and individualistic country, conservatism was constantly on the defensive, aiming to preserve things–deference, reverence, and diffidence, to name three–that most Americans were anxious to shed. Deprived of both a church and state to defend, American conservatives became advocates for privileges determined by birth, suffrage restricted to an elite, and rural virtues over urban realities.

And so conservatives faced a dilemma from the moment the first shots were heard around the world. They could be true to their ideals and stand on the sidelines of political power. Or they could adjust their principles in the interests of political realism and thus negate the essential conservative teaching that principles are meant to be timeless. All the conservatives that played any role in America’s history since the age of Jackson chose political relevance over ideological purity. The Whigs abandoned aristocracy to nominate a popular military leader in the 1840s, hoping thereby to out-democratize the Jacksonians. An emerging business elite defended the free market–an 18th-century liberal innovation detested by agrarian-oriented conservatives–to protect the very kind of privileges that Adam Smith hoped the free market would curtail. Isolationists abandoned the cosmopolitanism of Hamilton, perhaps America’s greatest conservative, for a populistic nativism suspicious of worldly grandeur. Clergy from evangelical churches played down such depressing doctrines as original sin and predestination in favor of the wonders of salvation for all. European conservatism had defended authority against liberty and social standing against equality. American conservatives used the language of liberty to justify inequality and promoted democracy to stand against change.

Read the whole thing.

American Politics

Previous Post

July 11, 2006

Continuity & Sci-Fi

Next Post

July 14, 2006 Unbridled savagery in Bombay

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category American Politics Animals in Islam Anti-Semitism Christian Jihadism Christianity Culture & the Arts Current Affairs Denmark Dogs in Islam Family life Film Gender Great MP3s Hate in America Imam W.D. Mohammed Interfaith Dialogue International Affairs Islam and the Left Islamic Thought Islamophobia Jihad Judaism Legos Link of the Day Marriage Misc Modernity/Post-Modernity Mormonism Multiculturalism Music Muslims in the Melting Pot Must-Listen Podcasts Non-Muslims and Islam Pakistan Pictures Pigs in Islam Polygamy Pork Progressive Muslims Race Relations Really Important Stuff Religion Required Reading Robert Spencer Scandinavia Science Science Fiction Sex in Islam So-called Globalization South Asia Star Trek Strange but True Studying Arabic Stupid Muslim Tricks Sufism/Tasawwuf Television The "Miami 7" hoopla The Corporate Media The Danish cartoons The GWOT The Jihad against Islam The Middle East Vikings! Wahhabism/Salafism Washington and the Middle East Web/Tech Women in Islam

Select a Month March 2014 February 2014 November 2013 September 2013 July 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 September 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! What is this valley also called?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The valley of Jehoshaphat The valley of Megiddo The valley of judgment The valley of Kidron