You are on page 1of 11

Why I Am an American Conservative

By Sally Morem

Ultimately all American forces, including money, converge in the passion


for freedom—and that is, above all things, what one loves about the U.S.
No country carries the belief in freedom farther, the belief that the
individual must be free to make of himself what he can, that citizens must
be free as far as humanly possible from government. There is about most
Americans an attitude toward authority which is immensely bracing and
which both dazzles and frightens people of other nations. Most Americans
show a self-confidence which to others often appears to be mere swagger,
but which is the characteristic of a country that never had either a formal
aristocracy or a peasantry.

---Henry Grunwald
From the Bicentennial Edition of Time Magazine

Freedom is our holy word

--From a Star Trek episode

As the results of the 2008 elections…

…demonstrate, it became clear to me that comparatively few Americans


know or understand the principles of freedom as formulated by the great
political thinkers of the past and present, such as Adam Smith, Edmund
Burke, James Madison, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek,
Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Isaiah Berlin, Hannah Arendt, William F.
Buckley, Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell,
and Rush Limbaugh. American conservatism has suffered a serious setback
this November, and so too has American freedom. I hope this introductory
essay on the nature of American conservative thought and beliefs will serve,
at least in some small way, to ease the way for a comeback. If we wish to
conserve our free society, we Americans must understand and embrace the
principles by which freedom operates.

Page 1
I am an American conservative.

And as such, I most especially love and admire the concepts worked out
elucidating the power of freedom and the danger of servitude in Hayek’s
writings, especially in his greatest works, The Road to Serfdom and The
Constitution of Liberty. His works on self-organizing systems in economic
and political systems are some of the most original, important, and thought-
provoking writings in the history of intellectual ideas. They upend our
natural human assumptions about the necessity of centralized design and
planning in order for large, complex systems to do what they need to do in
order to survive and flourish.

However, Hayek was and remained a European during his lifetime,


notwithstanding his ten years as a professor at the University of Chicago and
his natural sympathy for the freedoms offered by American civilization to its
citizens. His European roots led him to write an essay that has been widely
misunderstood among Americans: “Why I Am Not a Conservative.” With a
title like that, an American would be excused for concluding (without
reading the essay) that Hayek was an American liberal, someone who called
for more government control over private lives—in other words, a
Democrat. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hayek was using this
essay to state most emphatically that he was not a European conservative.
When asked to name his personal political views, he called himself an
unreconstructed Old Whig.

He did, however, admit to the possibility of confusion that his use of the
word conservative would create within the essay itself:

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly


widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the
French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in
European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism.
There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United
States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the
common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the
defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.
This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to
transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being

Page 2
alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character.
And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling
themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to
describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as
much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once,
however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to
consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The
reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is
the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the
predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the
pacemakers of socialism.

This story illustrates the need when dealing with political ideologies to learn
to make vital distinctions between superficially similar concepts, especially
concepts that use the same name. There is a vast difference between
European conservatism and American conservatism as Hayek admitted.

“Conservative” is a confusing word. It generally means when applied to the


political sphere, that the person so designated is a defender of the traditional
order, whatever that might be. For instance, a conservative in a caste-laden
society will defend the idea that people are naturally born to their castes and
will die in them…and state that that this is a good thing. A conservative in a
Communist society will urge the preservation of Communism and its spread
around the world. Likewise a conservative in a Fascist society will extol the
virtues of Fascism and its ability to make the trains run on time. A
conservative in Europe was generally considered to be one who defended the
prerogatives of the monarchy, nobility, and clergy against the claims of
commoners.

By contrast, American conservatives, as members and defenders of a


classical liberal order, wish to preserve that classical liberal order as
established by the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, including a strong sense of
individual worth and power, a large private sphere left free from coercive
governmental machinations, political democracy guiding the public sphere,
and robust and numerous private enterprises continually remaking the
economic sphere as they innovate, and all these good things flowing from
and protected by a written and lawfully ratified Constitution, which
mandates what the federal government must do, and more importantly, what
it must not do. As such, American conservatives are close ideological

Page 3
cousins of European liberals, who, being members of traditionally
aristocratic societies, wished to change those societies to more closely
resemble a classically liberal order.

Unfortunately, in the last three generations of American life, the meaning of


the once well-loved word, liberal, has devolved into a kind of soft socialism,
an all-embracing welfare and regulatory state that no Founding Father ever
had in mind for us. Thus, Americans no longer use the word liberal for
someone who would defend our economic and political freedoms, our
individualism, our wide and deep private spheres of life, reserving important
personal choices and responsibilities to all individuals in society, not just the
elites. Such a person is now known in America, ironically or not, as a
conservative.

Since I believe strongly in American individualism, American democracy,


and American capitalism, it stands to reason that I would call myself an
American conservative.

What kind of American conservative are you?

To confuse things further, ideologically and sociologically, there are a


number of notable differences among American conservatives on what are
desirable and undesirable elements in American political life. The
subspecies of Americanus conservatus include:

Paleoconservatives—These are defenders of a traditional authoritarian


order. They are the closest thing in America to European conservatives. I
am not a paleoconservative.

Economic conservatives—These are followers of Milton Friedman, Ludwig


von Mises, and Hayek. Their stand on economic policy closely resembles
libertarian thought. I am most emphatically an economic conservative.

Religious conservatives—These are fundamentalists in their religious


beliefs and conservative on most social issues, including abortion, gay
rights, and life issues. As a philosophical agnostic, I am not a religious
conservative, though I sympathize with their stands on many issues.

Page 4
Technoconservatives—Again, ironically or not, these favor the
development of technological answers to problems, thus triggering
widespread societal change. The more advanced technology, the better.
Even though they are political conservatives in economic matters, they have
no interest in conserving the status quo ante in science, technology, and
economic development. Technoconservatives view the technological
revolution as an almost wholly positive process in human history. Newt
Gingrich is their most significant spokesman in the political world. I am a
whole-hearted technoconservative.

Libertarian conservatives—These hold many of the same views as


libertarians on economic, military, foreign relations, and social issues. (A
very small government and non-intervention anywhere in the world for any
reason.) Since I profoundly differ with libertarians on questions of
American internationalism and military power, I cannot call myself a
libertarian conservative, although I am very sympathetic to their stance on
economic issues.

Constitutional conservatives—These believe in a strict constructionist


reading of the Constitution and derive all the political stands they take on
such issues as gun control, the size of government, welfare politics, and
what government may or many not do for and to citizens from their close
reading of the text of the Constitution. I am wholeheartedly a constitutional
conservative.

What do American conservatives believe?

Setting such important differences aside, here are the core beliefs we
American conservatives agree on. These express our shared understanding
of how free societies work and can’t work:

We are opposed to the continued growth of Big Government. There are a


number of reasons for government to remain strictly and Constitutionally
limited, including the practical wisdom of spreading the heavy load of
decision-making out for a very large, very complex society as widely as
possible. Scientists believe what they call distributed intelligence in
intensely interactive networks must be widely dispersed within those
networks in order for them to function most efficiently. This insight
contradicts the widespread misperception that highly concentrated,

Page 5
hierarchical forms of decision-making are most efficient and effective. They
aren’t.

As the quotes at the top of this essay indicate, we Americans love freedom.
Individual freedom. Since human individuals are the only entities that we
know of who envision, plan, and deliberately act, it makes sense for them to
have the freedom to do what they believe needs to be done, within
reasonable safety limits. And since there is no test we can envision, except
possibly age, that will permit us to choose those who are naturally fitted to
rule and decide, and raise them above those who are not, we Americans
believe individual freedom is the inherent right of every human being.
Freedom to succeed, to fail, to try again. When government engulfs more
and more of society, individual freedom is rendered moot. Outrageous
amounts of taxation and regulation stop free citizens from freely making
their own plans and carrying them out. As individual freedom ebbs, so too
do the values of American civilization.

Government is inherently necessary, thanks to quirks in human nature,


including such temptations as taking what is not properly one’s own and
using physical force to get one’s way, but, that very same human nature also
makes government exceedingly dangerous. Every single government
official and bureaucrat is a human being, with the same temptations and bad
habits that all the rest of us are heir to. And so, with the enormous amount
of wealth and lethal force at government’s disposal, the temptation to misuse
them must be correspondingly greater for government officials. We are not
surprised at tales of Congressmen living large off of bribes and kickbacks,
nor are we surprised at news of huge numbers of lobbyists descending upon
Washington, D.C. They are working for corporations and other
organizations who are desperately trying to keep the political thrashings of
the behemoth from crushing them out of existence. Lobbying is a political
adaptation, a pure survival strategy in an increasingly government-ridden
civilization.

And as such, we conservatives wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that,


“Any government powerful enough to give you anything is powerful
enough to take everything you have.” And we shudder at how close we’ve
come to this.

We are opposed to raising tax rates. We support tax rate cuts. We are
convinced that government by necessity wastes a great deal of tax money

Page 6
and also spends money in areas it shouldn’t. Also, huge government
expenditures drain the investment pool, taking money away from private
investors who would do a better job making financial decisions than
government bureaucrats. The latest housing finance debacle (October 2008)
was a direct effect of Democrat Congressmen using their power over lenders
in an outrageous manner, ordering them to make loans to poor people who
couldn’t possibly pay them back…and knowing they couldn’t. The resulting
distortions ramified throughout financial systems, bringing the whole
structure close to crashing down on our heads.

We oppose almost all areas where government has taken over


responsibilities that naturally inhere in individuals and families. Our default
position is: When urged to make a stand and take government action to
alleviate any perceived distress amongst individuals and groups, we sit.

As such, we firmly oppose government micromanagement of our lives.


Telling us what kinds of bulbs to use in our light fixtures is an outrageously
flagrant example of the Nanny State in action.

We like to remind those who “loathe the rich” and want to tax them unto
death that almost all jobs are created by wealthy private individuals and
corporations who are willing to pay others to get needed work done. No
poor person has ever hired anyone. Government confiscates and
redistributes and ruins the dreams of would-be entrepreneurs, and in its bull-
in-the-china-shop manner, that’s all it is capable of doing. It doesn’t
participate in freely chosen forms of exchange and doesn’t create new
wealth because by its very nature as civilization’s coercive force, its
enforcer, it is wholly incompetent in the realms of free exchange.

We oppose corporate welfare and individual welfare programs alike. We


don’t believe in rewarding people for poorly made economic choices. Let
them suffer the consequences. These do-gooder programs create ill-
considered dependencies and distort the markets. Markets are massively
complex, sensitive communications networks letting millions of peoples
know the economic state of their fellows in that highly abstract language
known as money. The iron fist of government coercion can only smash and
shred what has taken generations of effort to grow and maintain.

Page 7
What stands on specific issues do American conservatives take
and why?

The above axiomatic beliefs lead to many noteworthy conservative stands on


specific political issues of the day, including:

• We support the work of our energy companies. We do not disdain


them as the liberals do. They do the necessary work the rest of us are
incapable of doing. We support drilling for oil in America, as well as
building more oil refineries and nuclear power plants. Let oil
companies do what they do best. Don’t force them to invest in wind
and solar power. Let other companies develop alternative energy
sources.

• We appreciate the life-saving work of our drug companies. They have


revolutionized health care procedures throughout the world. We do
not disdain them as liberals do. Quite the opposite. There is nothing
like the creativity of free American entrepreneurs, inventors,
engineers, and research doctors anywhere in the world. It has
reshaped human life on Earth for the better for generations.

• Here is a brief summary of the liberal attitude toward American free


enterprise: The producers are there; they are a given; they are of no
concern and are not to be taken seriously. Their need for profits is
proof of their unfitness for life in the Workers Paradise we dream of
creating. We strongly reject this lack of gratitude and this disdain for
American creativity and productiveness on the part of liberals. This
Take the Creation of Wealth for Granted and Let “Dear Leader”
Control It attitude has been tried and found horrifyingly wanting for
generations of oppression around the world. It was directly
responsible for the murder of tens of millions of human beings. We
conservatives will NOT permit it to happen here in America EVER.

• We unalterably oppose the federal government ordering about our


financial and investment companies as to who they should lend to.
They know their business far better than liberal Congressmen. The
latest stock market crash is directly attributable to direct government
interference in financial and lending markets by liberal Congressmen,
supposedly on the behalf of poor people (who were not helped at all,

Page 8
but were actually deeply hurt by being given loans they couldn’t
possibly repay). Here’s our simple suggestion to Democrats: Get Out
of Our Way. Stop scrambling our markets in the name of socialistic
shibboleths.

• We strongly support freedom of choice for parents for the education of


their children. Parents know their children’s strengths and weaknesses
and learning styles far better than any teacher or school administrator.
As such, parents are best placed to determine what kind of schooling
will best serve their children.

• We support freedom of choice for privately provided health plans and


strongly oppose socialized medicine under any and all euphemisms
(single payer, universal health care, national health care, etc.) The
“health care system” is not so much a system as it is a vast,
enormously complex process, based on generations of scientific
discoveries and technological advances in which patients interact with
doctors, nurses, health administrators, pharmacists, and insurance
companies. There is simply no way that a government-run health care
system can provide what private markets can provide as far as
individual-needs-based health care services go. And there is simply
no way socialized medicine can generate the future medical
innovations needed to improve the lives of millions, the kinds of
innovations only a free economy can produce.

• We believe in a strong national defense, and we strongly support our


brave men and women who serve in the American armed forces. As it
says in the Preamble of our Constitution, our federal government must
“provide for the common defense.” This is a mandated Constitutional
duty, as opposed to the freely chosen options of giving school children
free lunches or bailing out failing financial companies. As such, we
must oppose any and all political moves to neuter our military in the
questionable name of liberal pacifism. We believe in supporting our
military by giving it enough people, weaponry, ammunition, training
and support equipment and facilities, and funding to secure American
freedom and that of our allies around the world. We believe in
fighting terrorists wherever we find them. We believe America is the
only strong enough force for good in our anarchic geopolitical world,
and as such America must remain actively engaged in the world. We

Page 9
can never afford to indulge in flights of pacifistic fancy or “fortress
America” isolationism ever again.

• Closely tied to the above belief, we support and believe in


strengthening our American intelligence and counter-intelligence
services. We absolutely must find out who our enemies are and what
they’re up to in this age of terrorism. Timely, accurate information
may spell the difference between survival and disaster. We also know
that such work can’t be limited to overseas—our enemies are here
amongst us. And so, the walls between our foreign intelligence
services and our domestic services must be torn down. We must
permit our intelligence agents and analysts to “connect the dots.”
Remember September 11th. “Never Again” must be our watchword.

• We strongly support our nation’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These


are not ‘Bush’s wars.’ These are America’s wars, fought for our
survival as a nation. We must keep fighting terrorists wherever they
hide and do their dirty work. We can’t wait for them to come over
here. We will not permit liberals to turn America into a doormat for
Islamofascist terrorists, or any other kind of terrorists.

• Related to the above point, we believe that most American Muslims


are as horrified by terrorism in the name of their religion as the rest of
us Americans are. They may fear retaliation, so they need to see
strong American leadership directed against the terrorists and against
the politically correct leftist ideological movement in order to make it
easier for them to feel free to publicly oppose terrorism themselves.

• We refuse to accede to European demands that America kowtow to


them when we Americans make decisions in our nation’s geopolitical
interest. We also refuse to acknowledge the UN as anything remotely
resembling a sovereign power. It is merely an international debating
society wherein dictators and thugs are given a spotlight along with
democratically elected leaders. We firmly reject the sense that liberals
seem to have of the UN as a source of international morality.

• We also believe that the International Criminal Court is a floating


political time bomb, potentially a star chamber before which anyone
could be hauled by those who simply don’t like them or disagree with
them ideologically. The very idea that America would hand its

Page 10
soldiers over to their tender mercies of that court on trumped up
charges of “genocide” is laughable in a horrifyingly disgusting way.
There is no such thing as a world constitution or a world legislature
that has enacted world law, and so, there can be no such thing as a
genuine world court. We conservatives urge the federal government
to not cooperate with the ICC in any manner, shape or form. Until
such time (centuries from now, possibly?) there arises a genuine world
society operating under a constitutional government worthy of
American respect, America must retain its own sovereignty in order to
keep itself and the world safe from tyranny and plunder. We
Americans may, in the meantime, find it necessary to provide the
world as a whole with some forms of informal governance, but these
will be acts of both kindness and American self-interest, not acts
directed by some world sovereignty.

• America is not a welfare department for the world’s poor. It is a free


and independent nation, with all the powers and responsibilities that
those attributes imply. And as such, we American conservatives
demand strong border controls. America vests its full sovereignty in
its free people as expressed in the American Constitution. Part of that
sovereignty means secure borders. It does not include some silly
notion of “global citizenship,” in which Americans give up their
sovereignty to the United Nations or some sort of “world state” or
NGOs or “human rights” advocates. We the People refuse to permit
other people to simply come here whenever they feel like it. Those
who want to visit or move to America must follow legal procedures
and not be rewarded for sneaking in illegally.

As you can tell by this list of axiomatic beliefs and political stands,
American conservatism differs radically from American liberalism. Any
voter foolish enough to believe that politicians are ‘all alike’ has failed to
pay attention to a large amount of very pointed, even rancorous political
debate that has occurred over the last few years. I hope you’ve found my
essay useful in clarifying the ideological differences in American political
life as seen from the conservative point of view. And I hope American
conservatives of all stripes will join forces to convince millions of
Americans who votes otherwise this year to give serious consideration to
conservative values and beliefs.

Page 11

You might also like