Neo-conservative, or neo-con, has been thrown around the last 8 years to describe President Bush’s overall philosophy. While this is true to some extent, neo-con has turned into a dirty word used to describe all conservatives. I have breaking news for the Gustavus campus: conservative philosophy is a very large and diverse grouping of ideas. And so I find the need, after spending a summer arguing with conservatives on these very issues, to define a few key terms for the Gustavus public and explain some divisions within the conservative movement.
These divisions are, at best, brief outlines. Each of these philosophies could be a thesis topic.
Let’s start with the oft-talked about, but little understood, neo-conservative standpoint that Bush was accused of exemplifying. The neo-conservative philosophy started in the early 70’s, the term itself coined as a pejorative to describe liberals that did not accept the far reaching policies of the Great Society. Irving Kristol, a founding publisher of the quarterly magazine The Public Interest, is considered to be the “godfather” of neo-conservatism. Many of these individuals were Democrats that were disheartened by the spending of Lyndon Johnson and/or the social policies of the 1960’s and 1970’s. They are now best known for their interventionist foreign policy, exemplified by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Traditionally, a foreign policy of nation building, which is what each of those wars has become, is the province of liberal politicians.
This division in foreign policy brings me to the second brand of conservative philosophy, namely paleo-conservatism. Paleo-conservatism is basically an embrace of tradition. These individuals believe in an original interpretation of the Constitution, a very strict one at that, and believe that we should follow the traditions laid down by the Founding Fathers. The foundation of paleo-conservatism would be the English lawmaker and philosopher Edmund Burke. These individuals would be for change that takes place slowly and gradually over a period of time. A more recent example would be Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. The foreign policy advocated by paleo-conservatives is more isolationist.
They do not think we should get involved in other countries’ business unless they are a direct threat to the United States.
To make this little exercise even more fun, I lived with two individuals this summer, one a firm neo-con and one a firm paleo-con. These two individuals did not see eye to eye on many issues. Yet both of them were conservatives. The conservative movement is very interesting in that movement conservatives, basically active conservatives in politics, focus on what they disagree on and do not pay attention to what they agree on.
While I may upset a few people by referring to it here, libertarianism is a conservative philosophy. It is different from others in that it can be called socially liberal, depending on the instance. Essentially, libertarians believe that the law is just when it protects life, liberty, and property. When it extends beyond protection of these three inalienable rights, the law becomes an instrument of injustice. The founder of the libertarian philosophy is the classical liberal John Locke. For the less ambitious reader, I would recommend Fredriac Bastiat’s The Law. This recommendation is mostly because The Law is 76 pages and an extremely easy read. If you would like something a little more modern, William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the magazine National Review and prominent intellectual, would be a good start. If you want to go with a politician instead of an intellectual, think Barry Goldwater who lost to Lyndon Johnson in 1964, or Ron Paul. Each of them has written prominent books that can serve as a fairly good model of libertarian philosophy; one of Goldwater’s books is actually where the name of this column comes from.
Perhaps the best way to understand the libertarian philosophy is the question Goldwater asked before voting on every piece of legislation: namely, “will this bill expand freedom?”. If the answer was no, he would vote no, if it was yes, he would vote yes.
The religious right has become an extremely strong force in the country and their philosophy is somewhat different than these others. They view everything through the lens of religion, whether that is evangelical Christianity or a different faith. They tend to care most about social issues. Many people have come to regard this section of the conservative movement, most identifiable with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin, as the entire conservative movement.
I would consider myself to be either a paleo-conservative or a libertarian, probably a hybrid of the two. I have barely scratched the surface of each of these groups, but I hope that I have sparked some interest and at least informed the Gustavus community of the divisions within the conservative movement.