Which Way Should Conservatism Go?

Ever since the Obergefell SCOTUS decision of 2015, American religiously conservative American Christians have been in retreat. Why? It is because that decision was the final nail on the coffin of realization. And that realization was that the Christian dominance over society and culture had ended.

Many of these religiously conservative Christians went into a state of shock. There were calls for riding out the loss by taking monastic or semi-monastic approaches. One such approach was called the Benedict Option which was defined by one of the writers of the National Conservative Statement of Principles, which we will be reviewing in this article. Christians, according to that option, should form their own insular communities designed to keep them from being corrupted by the new anti-Christian society while living minimally in that society. Other religiously and politically conservative Christians virtually vowed to continue to fight in what they called the culture wars. But time flies when one is having fun. And the time that flew has now created a call toimitate General Douglas MacArthur when returned to the Philippines after the Japanese captured it. This National Conservative Statement of Principles (click here for those statements) is the call to take back the society that was so "rudely" taken from those religiously conservative Christians.

These statements of principles are the impossible dream that religiously and politically conservative American Christians wish to install in the American way of life. To summarize the approach taken by the writers of these principles, they took the American conservative emphasis on the individual in one's relationship with the state and applied it to each nation's relationship with the world. And thus, one of the targets for this statement of principles was globalism.

Now we should note that the writers of these principles relied exclusively on a historic Anglo-American tradition. It's as if these writers were claiming to have a monopoly on political conservatism. And that offended European conservatives who cried foul because of the implied claim to have a monopoly on political conservatism. In addition, the European Conservatives don't always see eye to eye with the Anglo-American tradition. (click here for the European Conservative response). The response from European Conservatives also included insights as to how some of the principles included in the National Conservative Statement of Principles were contradictory when viewed together.

We should also look at the National Conservative Statement of Principles as they pertain the supposed democracy we claim to have as our system. That democracy carries with it an implied egalitarianism regarding one's standing in society as well as the corporate freedom that exists through elections and their resulting government.

The principles listed in the National Conservative Statement of Principles deal with the following:

• National Independence
• Rejection of Imperialism and Globalism
• National Government
• God and Public Religion
• The Rule of Law
• Free Enterprise
• Public Research 
• Family and Children
• Immigration
• Race

 National Independence

According to the National Conservative Statement of Principles, each nation should have a government that controls its own destiny according to its own history and traditions. In the spirit of the belief that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun," each nation should have an adequate military that is up to the task of defending against outsiders. However, room is made for nations to join their own alliances, or gangs of nations, in order to ensure that a nation can protect its people from larger nations.

What we have at this point is a collection of individua nations and gangs of nations that are to provide a necessary buffer against imperialism. The only restraint each nation or gang would have depends  on how one's military capabilities measure up against those from another nation or gang. 

Just for defensive purposes, a significant portion of each nation's economy then would have to be dedicated to the forever task of rearmament. This would greatly benefit the military industrial complexes that span the world, but as Martin Luther King Jr pronounced in his speech against the Vietnam War, that such a commitment to continual rearmament contributes to the continuation of racism, at least it does in America (click here for the source and look for what King said about a revolution of values). 

We should note one other thing regarding this National Conservative emphasis on national independence. Without a global or universal referee or standards, Nations, and the gangs they belong to rely on the rule of force to both infringe on others and defend themselves.

The Rejection of Imperialism and Globalism

The Globalism that the National Conservative Statement of Principles explicitly objects to the transfer of any nation's government to any nation or group of nations that would take authority away from any nation's government. These groups could include imperial powers such as Russia and China. But the end of the statement on this principle seems to reference what the US did in Iraq in the beginning of the 21st Century. For the last part of the statement on this principle says: 

'But we also oppose the liberal imperialism of the last generation, which sought to gain power, influence, and wealth by dominating other nations and trying to remake them in its own image.'

The reference to liberal imperialism is in contrast to the autocratic governments such as those in Russia and China. If indeed, this particular principle was referring to the US invasion of Iraq, then we should note that the US ideology that drove the invasion of Iraq was called Neoconservatism.

What was explicitly not referred to by example are those trade agreements where any degree of sovereignty of a given nation would be lost in order to maintain the trade agreement. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) was such a trade agreement where the stipulations in the agreement took precedence over any laws that a participating nation's legislators passed. And any charge of violating the agreement would be settled outside of a given nations legal system. Objections to the TPP were made by those from all ideological stripes in the US. This statement might also call into question a nation's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

And yet, trade agreements are necessary since nations today have entered in a more interdependent economic relationship.

National Government

The concerns of this principle is that any nation's government is respected as the representatives of all the people in that nation. In addition, this principle also stipulates that the government of every nation should be a strong but limited state that strictly subjects itself to its own constitution. The principle recommends that the executive and judiciary branches have limited power. This is especially true with the judicial branch in order to keep it from blocking the laws passed by the legislature. Here, what conservatives call 'activist judges' are being targeted. 

But the problem with limiting the judiciary branch in a nation that limits its actions to what is stipulated in its own constitution is that it is the judiciary branch's job to compare what legislatures passed with a given nation's constitution to see if the laws passed are consistent with that nation's constitution. 

But there is another problem that has already been alluded to. How one nation might treat another nation is often not stipulated in that nation's constitution. For example, when the US invaded Iraq, some conservatives I talked to told me that the invasion was justified because it was in line with The Constitution. And though their claim was debatable, the problem it presents is that it made the US answerable only to its own people regarding the invasion of Iraq. That view precluded the US from being answerable to the world even though the US was invading another part of the world. Such a view negates the existence of international law and that then meant that the US was relying on the rule of force.

And though an earlier principle ruled out that particular invasion as what it somewhat mistakenly calls a 'liberal imperialism,' it does mean that none of our foreign interventions or wars can come under international scrutiny even though the US often justifies its interventions in other nations by claiming that those nations have violated international law. In essence, when the constitution of any nation becomes the sole supreme law of the land, then that nation will see itself as not being accountable to international law and the world regardless of how its actions affect the world. Here should note that this emphasis on a given nation's constitution is part of the anti-globalism of the National Conservative Statement of Principles.

God and Public Religion

The initial claim in this principle is that no nation can last without the right kind of acknowledgement of its dependence on God. Some European nations beg to differ. With indirect reference to the West including the US, this principle states that the Bible must be recognized as providing the foundation of the West and thus the Bible should be acknowledges and read before other sources in the schools and universities as an 'inheritance' for both believers and unbelievers. This principle also states that where the majority of the population is Christian, then public life must revolve around Christianity with its morals must be 'honored' by both public, involving the state, and private institutions. At the same time, religious diversity will be respected.

Besides the question of whether religious diversity can truly be respected with all institutions are required to put the Bible on such a high public pedestal, such a recognition requirement of Christianity and the Bible changes a nation from a democracy to a Christian Ethnocracy because one religion is privileged above all others. And thus, and I am speaking as a concerned religiously conservative Christian, people will see Christianity as an opponent of democracy and as wanting to control people before they will listen to our preaching of the Gospel.

Another problem is that Christianity in a given nation is seen as being monolithic. Included in American Christianity are mainline denominations, the Roman Church and its diversity, and the Protestant denominations. Another way of organizing how we see the Church in America is to apply a liberal-conservative model according to what a given church or denomination believes. If we include the above branches and denominations in determining if the majority of the citizens are Christian, Christians in America has diverse views regarding sensitive issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. So will religiously conservative Christians who include the liberal Mainline Protestant denominations to prove that the majority of the population in the US are Christian in order to base legislation on moral issues on conservative interpretations of the Scriptures?

In addition, how this principle that claims that the religious freedom of others will be fully respected when the Scriptures are acknowledged as the source for society and its freedoms, these same Scriptures denounce other faiths as idolatry? How will those who hold to other faiths not be put at risk for marginalization by the Scriptures? And what about the religious rights of atheists who hold to different moral standards than those whose faiths share some common moral standards?

The Rule of Law

This principle emphasizes the rule of law through a nation's constitution. But, as noted before, national constitutions do not provide adequate guides for how a nation's foreign policies can be judged. And that, as stated before, can lead a nation to rely on the rule of force. 

But there is another point to be made here. Just as the previous principle relies on a presumption that Christianity in the US is  monolithic and thus its laws should only reflect the views of a certain group of Christians, so too how judges interpret a given nation's constitution can be diverse. Here in America, we have originalists and those who are said to believe that The Constitution is a living document. Who has the correct view of The Constitution? 

My guess is that those writing this statement of principles believe that only conservatives who lean toward an originalist  view of the our Constitution interpret it correctly. That is why a previous principle that said that  the power of the judicial branch should be limited. But such an approach to The Constitution causes the document to become to inflexible to introduce necessary changes in a timely fashion. Consider the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as an example.  Such an approach to The Constitution also puts us at risk for suffering under the tyranny of the past.

Finally, while we should, as this principle guides avoid resorting to riots and lawlessness must be quickly dealt with, we should also note what Martin Luther King Jr. said about those who participated in some of the violent riots over racism of his day. While condemning the riots, he also stated that a 'riot is the language of the unheard.' If that is even sometimes the case, then the quick law and order approach recommended by this principle is inadequate  by itself to address the social problems that contributed to the riots in the first place.

Free Enterprise

What we should note about Free Enterprise is that, in most cases, it exists to a certain degree. For the degree of free enterprise that exists in a given nation rests on a continuum. And thus, to say that one believes in Free Enterprise is being vague and ambiguous. 

That point is implied in how Free Enterprise is described by this principle. The moment that this principle on Free Enterprise states that our free market cannot be absolute, we note that restrictions must be placed on the free market that lessens the degree to which we have Free Enterprise. For totally Free Enterprise would have no restrictions at all.

In addition, noting how Free Enterprise needs restrictions can possibly contradict the reliance on limited government stated in a previous principle. For there is an inverse relationship between Free Enterprise and the size of the government that holds the market accountable.

Another problem with this principle is its stated purpose of the market compared to why people own businesses. For while the principle states that economic policies must serve the welfare of the nation, for many participants in the market, especially for publicly own businesses, the motivation for participating in the market is to maximize profits and the ROI for shareholders.  And often the means employed by businesses to maximize profits either ignores externals or hurts some of the business's stakeholders. Those most often hurt are the customers, workers, and the environment. And thus to control the maximizing profits at the expense of others, a adequately sized and strong enough government is needed.

And while this particular principle rightly blames multinational corporations for some of the harm they cause people of a nation through their products, again the motivation that fuels the performance of the market is the maximization of profits and the ROI for shareholders. Thus, the national economic policy called for by this principle causes a conflict between Free Enterprise and the belief in limited government. That is because if the government is to protect the people from the harm that multinational companies can cause, then government must be big enough to match the size and power of those businesses. And the approach that this principle takes to Free Enterprise and the conflict between the motivation for being in the market and its responsibilities to the people of the nation does not adequately recognize the driving motivation of many who participate in the market.

Public Research

This principle speaks to two problems that exist when it comes to research: the need to keep up with our biggest competitors especially when it comes to defense research and that some universities oppose nationalism and are resistant to contribute to contribute to the needs of the nation. But can conservatism with its focus on militarization for defense adequately identify who is contributing to the national interest? 

For example, what about the nation's need for medical research? For while this principle wants to prohibit tax dollars going to universities that oppose nationalism and thus do not contribute to advanced defense technologies, what about the contributions these universities make to medical research other other areas of research that serve the nation? 

In addition, past reluctance by universities to participate in defense research were acts of protest against immoral foreign and military policies pursued by the government. Should those instances of protest cause universities to forfeit tax funds?

Family and Children

This principle states that the traditional family of a mother, father, and children should receive some kind of policy support because of what this kind of family provides for society. Likewise, this principle states that the decline in the number of traditional families poses a threat to the nation's ability to the continuance of a given democratic nation. 

This principle states that threats to the traditional family includes the belief that children are burden as well as 'sexual license and experimentation' because they provide people with choices from choosing to have a traditional family and participate in churches. But right there, we see an initial cause for marginalization. For if we can label certain alternatives to the traditional family and participation in church as a threat, we have given reasons for people to react abusively to those who do not want a traditional family and/or be a church member in good standing. And that is further complicated by the government enacting policies that favor religiously conservative people over those who are more liberal in their beliefs or are atheists.

Immigration

This principle sees uncontrolled immigration as a threat to any nation, and one can easily understand that point. The question is, where is uncontrolled immigration taking place? The politically conservative answer is that it takes place in one's own nation when political conservatism is not in charge.

But there is something about immigration that this principle  does not address. That is the role that foreign policies play in increasing the number of those emigrating to a given nation. Tying foreign policies to a nation's approach to immigration is rarely if ever done. That is because the focus of many foreign policies that motivates people to emigrate revolve around the business side of national interests in or in a nation's strategic interests. And the conservative approach to immigration then is often the same kind of approach to crime. That is to put focus on enforcement while being too apathetic to do anything that addresses the causes of crime.

Race

While the principle here says all of the right things about race, what is not addressed in this principle is how race is often tied to economic class. That there is a significant correlation between the race of a person and their economic class. CRT proponents address this issue by taking an equality in outcomes approach so that the wealth disparity between the races in this nation begins to be addressed. But CRT proponents have not been the only ones who have sought an equality in outcomes approach to race. Martin Luther King Jr. also looked for an equality in outcomes so that the average income and wealth of blacks would approach and become equal to that of whites. This principle on race is silent on that topic.

The European Conservative analysis of the National Conservative Statement of Principles was mixed but tended to be more negative than positive. The European Conservative analysis concluded that the National Conservative State of Principles made too much of the nation-state. The overemphasis on the individual nation carried with it a denial on the promotion of 'universal ideals,' according to the European approach. In addition, the European Conservative response to the National Conservative Statement of Principles felt that the overemphasis on the nation could also cause national traditions and ideas to minimize and local traditions and cultures.

The European Conservative response also criticized the National Conservative Statement of Principles for not recognizing the variation of approaches taken in Europe. In short, it disagreed with any notion that the National Conservative Statement of Principles  had a monopoly on promoting conservatism.

Finally, while the National Conservative Statement of Principles focused on what is needed to produce and expand patriotism among the people of a given nation, personal traits like love, friendship, and compassion were missing in action.

For myself, the National Conservative Statement of Principles was written to help formulate a plan on how to bring the nation back to conservatism. These principles were written in ways that imply that only conservatism, as defined by these principles, was working for the promotion of the national interests. These Statements of Principles are looking to return the nation to a more conservative outlook without acknowledging conservatism's past failures and contributions to the past marginalization of various groups.

One other criticism must be leveled at the National Conservative Statement of Principles. That is its strict adherence to an Anglo-American traditions. Its strict adherence has racial overtones especially when the population of the nation is far more racially, religiously, and otherwise diverse than it was back when the nation began. It's not that we shouldn't keep some of those traditions, but as the nation continues to diversify and especially as the Protestant Christian part of the population becomes smaller, we need to incorporate more and more traditions from those citizens from other nations and cultures to be truly inclusive and to promote equality.

It's not that this National Conservative Statement of Principles has nothing to offer our nation. It is that so too do other perspectives and principles. And that is not acknowledged by this National Conservative Statement of Principles. In addition, this National Conservative Statement of Principles does not always recognize what poses a threat to the interests of any nation. For some of those threats are posed by some of the things valued by conservatives.