Looking back

A couple of weeks ago I was going through the files in my home office, attempting to reorganize them and to weed out items no longer of interest to me. As I was doing this, I discovered a typed essay I wrote some 25 years ago, titled "A Brief Evaluation of American Conservatism." I can no longer say for certain the circumstances of my writing this, but I imagine it was written either when I was still in Toronto at the Institute for Christian Studies, or perhaps a little later when I had begun my PhD studies at Notre Dame. The outer limits would be from 1979 to 1981, so I am placing it in the middle: 1980, the year I moved from Toronto to South Bend. In any event, I was in my mid-20s. What struck me about this essay, reading it a generation later, is that I still agree with most of what I wrote then. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it anticipates much of the analysis in chapter 3 of my book, even if the latter is more nuanced and careful than the former.

To begin with, I noted that "there is no such thing as a single 'conservatism'; there are, in fact, many 'conservatisms.'" The American variety is an uneasy coalition between libertarian conservatism, or classical liberalism, and traditional or organic conservatism. The former is concerned with the size of government and the maintenance of free markets, while the latter is preoccupied with the erosion of the traditional values undergirding society and with such issues as abortion, "experimental social relationships and any change that would contribute to the breakdown of society." At the time I judged that in North America "the dominant form of conservatism is classical liberalism tempered by traditional conservatism. The former cannot strictly be called conservative at all, because genuine hierarchical or authoritarian traditions were largely left behind by those who settled this continent." This second sentence would seem to be evidence that I had already come into contact, via George Parkin Grant, with the Hartz-Horowitz thesis, the truth of which I am not altogether persuaded of now, even if I still find it intriguing.

Of course, the notion that North American conservatism consists of two or more quarrelsome factions is generally recognized today. In 1980 Robert Nisbet wrote a now classic essay in Modern Age titled "Conservatives and Libertarians: Uneasy Cousins." I do not know whether or not my own essay preceded Nisbet's. I am fairly certain I did not read the latter until a few years after its publication. In any event, the analysis of conservative factionalism has become something of a cottage industry since then. In fact, the new issue of First Things carries an article by Joseph Bottum on the subject, "The New Fusionism." And of course there is that article by Andrew Sullivan, on which I recently commented. I suppose what I was coming to see at the time is that liberalism and conservatism are not the polar opposites they are popularly thought to be and that it is possible to adhere to liberal contractarianism while respecting historical continuity and remaining sceptical of all but incremental change.

Here are a few paragraphs from my conclusion:

First of all, conservation does not necessarily exclude progression. We cannot ignore the movement of history when we analyze society and the political realm. Any conservatism which attempts to return to an earlier period of history is naive and irresponsible. Nor can one halt the flow of history at a certain moment of time. In other words, a Christian political option must be at once conservative and progressive.

Secondly, as Christians we urgently need to examine in a radical way the spiritual direction and foundation of our government and its activities. In other words, we need a new criterion by which to judge that which should be conserved and that to which we must progress. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of absolutizing conservation or progression. We must not put an idolatrous faith in conservatism or progressivism. Neither of these “-isms” is a complete world-view in itself. Both agree on the same liberal principles which have had almost universal acceptance throughout the history of the American republic. Conservatism and progressivism are merely two different emphases within the same ideology, which has its roots in the secular Enlightenment.

What sort of criterion is need for a radically Christian political option? It is, I would contend, nothing less than the biblical norm of “justice.” A true sense of justice will provide a norm for the two-fold task of conservation and progression within a radically Christian world-view. Certainly, “freedom” and “stability” are important concepts and should not be lost sight of. But they fall far short of providing a normative insight into the structure of the state. . . . Since the state is, by definition, a juridical institution (in distinction from other institutions with a differing structure), the norm for this institution must be some conception of justice.

While I would express all this somewhat differently a quarter of a century later, and while my understanding at the time lacked a certain philosophical sophistication, I am pleased to recognize that I still agree with the substance of what I wrote then. Of course, someone less charitable could argue that I haven't had a fresh insight in 25 years, at least not on this subject. Perhaps there is something to be said for such a charge. On the other hand, there is some comfort in knowing that I have been following the same direction for some time. I like to think that my trust in an utterly faithful God has had something to do with it.